Sebastian – Page 131 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Time: “Gun Control Stricter in 1920s and 1930s”

Anti-gunners are busy spreading this story around, about how the gun laws of the 1920s and 1930s were more strict than they are now. I’ll call that bluff. If they really believe that, then let’s introduce a bill in Congress that takes us back to the gun laws of the 1920s and 1930s then? Repeal the Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments in its entirety? Where do I sign up? Hey, let’s pick a year in the 1930s. How about 1932? That would get rid of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and the National Firearms Act of 1934. Basically, in 1932, there were no federal gun laws, except that you couldn’t ship a pistol by US mail without a license. Or maybe the 20’s instead, say 1922? In 1922 there were no federal gun control laws whatsoever. Let’s just list some of the things we could do.

Up until 1968, you could mail order a rifle. Up until 1927, you could mail order a pistol too. After that 1927, you needed a license to mail order a pistol though the US mail, but you could still do it via other carriers without a license, and doing so was common.
Sears was a big seller of firearms via the mail order.
Firearms could be purchased cash on the barrel. No background check, no forms. Up until as late as 1938, dealers didn’t even have to record sales.
Machine guns could be mail ordered until 1934. After that, they still could be as long as you paid the transfer tax and the gun was registered.
Soldiers could bring back rifles, pistols and even machine guns as late as 1968, as long as they registered them and paid the tax.
After 1938 and before 1968, a Federal Firearms License cost $1. The only requirement was that you keep an acquisition and disposition record. No form 4473. Prior to that anyone could get into the gun business, no questions asked.
Until 1938, it was legal to sell a firearm to anyone. Classes of prohibited people didn’t exist until the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
In the 1920s, only a handful of states had any gun control laws, and those that did weren’t much more numerous than the states that have even worse gun control today (and they were in many cases the same states)
There were no federal laws restricting firearms to young people until 1968.
Firearms were not required to have serial numbers until 1938.
Until 1934, there were no restrictions on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, or short-barreled shotguns.
As late as when Antonin Scalia was a teenager in the 1940s and 1950s, you could openly carry a rifle on the New York Subway without anyone batting an eye. How’d the antis like to go back to that culture?

Of course, most states by then had restricted concealed carry, but you could still carry openly in most states without a license. In the 20s and 30s, what prohibitions on carry that existed were not uniformly enforced in many states. Either way, those are state issues. It’s absolutely ridiculous to argue that the 1920s and 1930s guns were more regulated than today. The market was a relative free-for-all compared to the restrictions we have today. Hell, I’ll even offer to go back to the federal gun laws of 1965! How about that deal?

These people really can’t be taken seriously most days of the week. The notion they are floating here is absolute pablum, and that’ll be evidenced by the fact that no one on the other side, in their right mind, would take me up on this offer. The majority of federal gun controls we have in this country came with the Gun Control Act of 1968 and subsequent amendments. Then, as now, most states are permissive except a small number of states where gun control is popular. The only thing they’d really undo is the gains we’ve made in reversing concealed carry limitations, and I doubt any of them would make that trade.

A Long Overdue Bill for Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives are debating allowing the use of semi-automatic rifles for hunting. We are the only state left in the United States that does not allow hunting with semi-automatics. If I were to take up hunting, I’d have to resort to an old military bolt action with open sights. I don’t actually own a scoped bolt gun, muzzleloader, or shotgun capable of firing slugs. Now I’m assuming this bill will only legalize semi-autos where it’s legal to hunt with rifles (around here in the Southeast, it’s mostly limited to shotguns (which ironically can be semi-auto), muzzleloaders, and bows).

It looks like there’s two competing bills. It would seem one bill would Â allow the use of .223 for hunting coyotes, with six rounds allowed in the magazine while hunting, while the competing bill would allow five rounds, but doesn’t mention species or caliber. Given the increasing problems with coyotes, either bill strikes me as a welcome thing for people living in the more rural parts of the Commonwealth.

I don’t think the Senate should be as much trouble as it has been with our bills last session. Where we had trouble previously is with Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Greenleaf, a C- rated Republican from Montgomery County, bottling up our bills. Since this is a hunting bill, itÂ would go through the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee, which is Â Chaired by Senator Scavello, who has an A rating and was endorsed by NRA in his last election. Even the minority chair on that committee, Senator Brewster, is A rated and was endorsed in his last election. If we can get this bill to the floor in the Senate, we’ll pass it. The elephant in the room with moving this bill forward is whether we can score a signature from Governor Wolf. Wolf might not want to upset hunters, but so far I he has not impressed me with his political acumen. It’s a good bill to send him, since it’ll make him put his cards on the table.

Maine is on a Roll

Maine passes a supressor hunting bill. Maine would be the 36th state to allow the use of suppressors while hunting. Many of these just never prohibited it. These bills are an important part of building a constituency for getting suppressors moved from Title II (NFA) to Title I (GCA), or just getting them delisted entirely (after all, it’s a hunk of metal. I suppose you could throw it at somebody).

As I’ve said before, hunting is a particularly good context to make the case for suppressors, since it’s one shooting sport where hearing protection can be a real burden, and even most anti-gun folks approve of owning guns for hunting, or at least feel the need to pay lip service to it.

More Anti-Gun Bills Introduced by Dems

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)Â is introducing a bill that would ban the carrying of firearms in the unsecured part of airports unless they are “unloaded and contained in clearly marked, locked cases.” This is, of course, a reaction to the doofuses openly carrying rifles intoÂ Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. While I don’t think this bill is going anywhere, it’s always refreshing to have to go on the defensive to fight for what’s already legal and no one was worried about until somebody gave them a reason. But I’m sure some “awareness was raised,” and travelers “educated.”

What’s with the clearly marked cases though? You know that just says “steal me” right? Â Theft from airports is already a big problem without having clear external indications as to what’s in the bag. Either way, this is solving a non-problem. What’s interesting is that his bill is being backed by the usual suspects, but not Everytown.

Department of State Comments on ITAR Rule Changes

The proposed ITAR rule changes impacting free speechÂ aren’t quite getting the media coverage we need to get the word out to our people, and this has me concerned.Â This article that appears in Defense Trade Law seems to agree with our interpretation that the proposed rule change is very broad. I’ve seen a few different opinions on this topic in the comment section over at The Firearm Blog’s post on the topicÂ (in addition to a few trolls). The State Department had a press conference last week where the topic of their proposed ITAR regulations came up.

QUESTION: Did you get an answer the question I asked yesterday about these ITAR â€“ revisions to the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations?

MR RATHKE: I did. Iâ€™m happy to go through that, if that would be helpful. You asked yesterday, Matt, about a June 3rd publication in the Federal Register by the State Department of proposed changes for public comment to several regulatory definitions under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. These proposed changes in definition are part of our broader effort to streamline and modernize a Cold War-era regulatory system to better safeguard against illicit attempts to procure sensitive U.S. defense technologies.

These proposed definition changes â€“ which, as I pointed out, are out for public comment â€“ they seek to account for technologies that were not envisioned when the regulations were initially developed. Otherwise these definitions are intended to be a clarification of existing law and regulations, technical data, and detailed schematics that are required for the manufacture or production of defense articles already require U.S. Government authorization before they can be disseminated by U.S. manufacturers.

Now in contrast, general descriptions, public discussions, and imagery of defense articles, including firearms, have never been the subject of â€“ to these regulations and they would remain unaffected under these proposed revisions. As I said at the start, they were published in the Federal Register for public comment. Thatâ€™s a period that runs through August 3rd of this year. So Iâ€™d refer people to the text of the Federal Register notice for details about providing —

QUESTION: Okay. So these rules would not apply to private citizens, only to manufacturers â€“ and only to highly sensitive technical details? Is that —

MR RATHKE: They apply to the technical data and detailed schematics for the production of defense articles.

QUESTION: So they donâ€™t apply to private citizens.

MR RATHKE: Well, they apply to anything that relates to those areas of subject matter, whether discussed by —

QUESTION: Okay. Well, the concern that had been raised by the Second Amendment groups is somehow this is going to restrict or stop or ban discussions about gun â€“ about firearms —

MR RATHKE: Well, I go back to the â€“ also the point that general descriptions â€“ that is general, not technical and detailed ones â€“ general descriptions or public discussions and imagery of defense articles would â€“ have never been subject to these regulations and wouldnâ€™t —

QUESTION: So the concern that has been expressed is misplaced, yes?

MR RATHKE: Yes, that would be our view.

Okay, anything further? Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

None of us ever thought just a picture of a gun or “general descriptions or public discussions and imagery of defense articles”Â was going to get us in hot water. The issue is a lot more complicated than that. It’s become pretty apparent to me on reading and re-reading this proposed rule change, and the existing ITAR rules, that this is targeted squarely at 3D printing, CNC milling, and Cody Wilson more specifically.

Notice when asked whether it would apply to the public at large, he basically concedes the issue. The big problem is that previously, we were all protected by the public domain exception to the rule. I’d encourage everyone to follow that link, and note subsection (b) which is reserved. This public domain exception is obviously dated in the Internet age, but it’s pretty apparent if one publishes the information through “unlimited distribution” that material is the public domain. Now, for the reserved subsection (b) The new proposal spells out what is to be done with it:

(b) Technical data or software, whether or not developed with government funding, is not in the public domain if it has been made available to the public without authorization from:

(1) The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls;

(2) The Department of Defenseâ€™s Office of Security Review;

(3) The relevant U.S. government contracting entity with authority to allow the technical data or software to be made available to the public; or

(4) Another U.S. government official with authority to allow the technical data or software to be made available to the public.

By my reading, if you shared a straight-up CAD drawing of an AR-15 or 1911, you’d be fine because those designs are already in the public domain. However, if you developed your own wildcat load for a cartridge, or you came up with a novel design for a rifle, pistol, shotgun, scope or accessory, or you created a modification to an existing design, you’d have to seek clearance from the State Department prior to publishing it. It’s going to be exceedingly difficult for people who aren’t lawyers to understand the difference. My opinion is that this rule is meant to stifle people’s ability to discuss gun making with 3D printers or CNC milling machine’s online, due to the legal complexities and risks involved in doing so. Despite the fact that we shared no CAD drawing or plans in our experimentation with this technology on this blog, I still do not know whether my posts on the subject would fall under ITAR pre-clearance or not, and I’m a good bit more legal savvy than most hobbyists.

Connecticut Senators Push Federal Gun Licensing in Senate

Isn’t it widely accepted that Al Gore’s position on licensing gun owners was a big reason we ended up with President George W. Bush rather than President Al Gore? Now Bloomberg and Obama have sold the Democratic Party that gun control is a winning issue again! That must be why Connecticut’s Senators have floated a bill requiring licenses to purchase handguns nationwide.

This probably won’t gore their ox, since I doubt there’s too much risk for either of them to lose their seats over the gun issue in Connecticut. This will only get worse as the hard core owners flee the Nutmeg State for freer pastures. But it certainly isn’t going to help the Democratic Party brand itself to successfully compete in places where gun rights are an issue.

Democratic Operatives Call for IRS to Investigate NRA

Yahoo News is following up on their hit piece against NRA, reporting onÂ Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) calling on the IRS to open an investigation into the NRA. This is a hit piece, because nowhere in the article does Yahoo News mention that CREW was started by political hack David Brock, who’s exploits include illegally carrying a firearm around Washington D.C.Â Nowhere does the article mention that CREW is funded by noted non-partisan outfits such as SEIU and completely politically neutral billionaire George Soros’ Democracy Alliance. George Soros, who has of course never donated a dime or ounce of his attention to the international gun control movement.

So a bunch of left-wing operatives call on the Obama Administration to turn its scandal ridden and politically weaponized IRS on the National Rifle Association, like we haven’t seen enough of that already. I’m guessing Yahoo, which has been slowly circling the bowl for a while now, thinks it can get more eyeballs by being the Weekly World News for leftist hacks. We’ll see how well that works out for them.

Language of “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act”

Here’s the text of the bill. You need to have the Gun Control Act portion of the United States Code in front of you to understand what it does. It also makes some changes to the NFA‘s definition of Destructive Devices to offer more protection for shotguns. A lot of striking and replacing sections of code. It would seem that everything is as advertised from what I presented yesterday, but I thought I’d go into a bit more detail as to what the bill does.

Section 1 lays out the title of the act, the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act.”

Section 2 clarifies the language of the armor piercing ammunition law to make it clear that it only applies to rounds designed to be used in a handgun, rather than “may be used in a handgun.” This should stop ATF’s practice of reclassifying rifle ammo as “armor piercing” just because someone makes a handgun for it.

Section 3 deals with importation. It pretty much does what the section heading says, and allows any non-NFA firearm or non-armor piercing handgun ammunition to be imported without regard for whether it’s suitable for sporting purposes. Except there’s a part that deals with an obscure section of the Gun Control Act that allows FFLs to ship firearms (except undetectable firearms) to troops overseas or their affiliated clubs. Currently this is subject to a “sporting purposes” restriction, and this section eliminates that.

Section 4 relates to the National Firearms Act. Shotguns, having a bore diameter greater than 0.5 inch, and many big game rifles chambered in greater than 0.5 caliber, avoid being classified as destructive devices solely through classification by the Attorney General that they are “recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes”. It changes the language from â€˜â€˜recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposesâ€™â€™ toÂ â€˜â€˜recognized as suitable for lawful purposes.â€™â€™ Personally, I would have rather solved this by raising the 0.5″ limit to 1.0″ and be done with it, but there’s no arguing that the proposed language is much improved.

Section 5 does pretty much what the section heading says. You have a bunch of language in 18 USC Section 922 that allow for temporary interstate transfers for “lawful sporting purposes.” This goes through and eliminates “sporting” and just makes it “lawful purposes.”

Other than the NFA language still leaving a bit of wiggle room for future Attorneys General to abuse, I’m pretty happy with this bill and think it should be supported. Expect the other side to raise the long dead specter of the infamous “street sweeper” which the gun control movement fear mongered over in the 1990s. This cuminated in Lloyd Bentsen reclassifying the Striker as a destructive device in 1994. This bill would arguably provide grounds for challenging that classification.

Biggest Pro-Gun Reform of GCA ’68 since FOPA ’86 Introduced

The bill just introduced in the House is H.R. 2710, which would gut the sporting purposes language, introduced by Republican Congressman Rob Bishop from Utah. The bill would, according to NRA:

eliminate ATF’s authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition;
provide for the lawful importation of any non-National Firearms Act firearm or ammunition that may otherwise be lawfully possessed and sold within the United States;
protect shotguns, shotgun shells, and larger caliber rifles from arbitrary classification as “destructive devices” which under federal law subjects them to onerous registration and taxation provisions and creates a ban on possession of the firearm in some states;
broaden the temporary interstate transfer provision to allow temporary transfers for all lawful purposes rather than just for “sporting purposes.”

As our Vice President would say, this is a big ‘effin deal! This would be the most substantial reform of the Gun Control Act since FOPA in 1986. Get calling and ask your Congressman to co-sponsor this bill.

UPDATE: Here’s the text of the bill. You need to have the Gun Control Act portion of the United States Code in front of you to understand what it does. It also makes some changes to the NFA‘s definition of Destructive Devices to offer more protection for shotguns. A lot of striking and replacing sections of code.

Weekly Gun News – Edition 4

I wanted to get this out yesterday, but time did not permit. Sorry for the dead air. It was more busy rather than lack of things to talk about. Let me gather up all the news:

Wisconsin is about to be rid of its waiting period to buy a handgun, among other improvements.

Eugene Volokh: “If you openly carry a gun, donâ€™t do it while loudly singing Hakuna Matata.” Probably good advice. As open carry becomes more ordinary, expect people who do it for the wrong reasons to get more and more outrageous in search of attention.

Major management shakeup at Remington.

Ed Peruta is a colorful character, to put it mildly. Mother Jones somehow manages to do a fair article on the man.

Professor Glenn Reynolds notes “The TSA can’t spot ordinary guns. So what’s the response?” Ban the plastic ones, of course (even though undetectable plastic guns are already banned).

The Daily Beast questions the effectiveness of Wear Orange Day.

Newsweek thinks campus carry passing in Texas is a victory for gun control, since we didn’t get everything we wanted. Don’t you worry, Newsweek. We’ll be back for the rest later.

Charles C.W. Cooke writes about the proposed ITAR regulations.

Wired: “I made an untraceable AR-15 ‘Ghost Gun’ in My Office — And It Was Easy.” I hope he used a bullet button, otherwise that AR-15 is illegal in California.

Bloomberg View: “When Tech Kills Gun Control.”

Michael Pfleger: NRA “will pay pay for the murder of our children.” I thought for a minute he was saying NRA was doing a whole murder for hire thing in Chicago. Pfleger is a world class nut job. I could believe anything from him.

You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. If Ted Cruz had gone on a shoot with a prohibited person, the media would have torn him apart and his campaign would be over. Instead, they criticize the campaign for running background checks on prospective shooters.

You know the whole “mass shootings on the rise” meme started by an FBI report?Â Yeah, the characterization of the report was bullshit. The FBI researchers admit it. This was all ginned up by the Administration to support its gun control agenda.

Hey, I just want to be able to carry if I choose without having to carry a rule list of where I can and can’t go around with me. These are the people who are truly obsessed.

Oregon may be getting some reciprocity, since apparently a lot of Dems are worried about their votes on banning private firearms transfers.

Musical targets! I guess you’d need three or more shooters to do chords.

Colonial Williamsburg to open public musket range.

Off Topic:

Only sort of off topic, since I allow comments too: Reason gets hit with a federal subpoena to uncloak nasty commenters. Popehat takes the feds to task over itÂ in a way that only Popehat can. Apparently this is legal, but it’s clearly abuse, and meant to intimidate.

The Fallen of World War II. I saw this floating around on social media on the D-Day anniversary. Really well done.

Note to Chris Christie: Debate is a healthy thing. I’ve had about enough of people shutting down debate.