PDA

View Full Version : Where did the hunting interpretation come from?


Moonshine
01-02-2013, 9:10 PM
I keep hearing all these liberal statements about how hunting firearms must be protected and hunting is this sacred tradition. I don't know of any hunter that also doesn't have a semi-auto handgun to protect his family or any hunter who doesn't consider his gun a tool for more than hunting. Who are these mythic "legitimate sportsmen and hunters"?

Green Ice Dragon
01-02-2013, 9:15 PM
Never put much thought into it. I always figured it was because gun rights folks were trying to avoid labeling guns as "deadly weapons" so tried to give a euphemism and say "it's for sports and hunting!"

tetris
01-02-2013, 9:16 PM
The "hunting interpretation" of the 2nd amendment is a relatively recent invention by the left to deflect criticism for assault weapons bans.

If you believe that the 2A protects the right to own firearms for self-defense, than you have to believe that owning effective firepower for killing people is a right. However, the left wants to deny you the right to defend yourself, and so they gloss over that little detail by only referring to "hunting", and pretending self-defense does not exist.

To your typical liberal and even many moderates, the argument works very well. "Yeah, why does anybody need an evil black rifle to kill a deer, let's ban 'em!". 50% of the population either is not aware of their right to self-defense, or does not think into these statements deeply enough to find the obvious logical flaw.

The reality is that the right to hunt was never in question, or even given much serious thought until only very recently in this country. After all, in the 18th and 19th century, eliminating your right to hunt or fish would be tantamount to eliminating supermarkets or banning home kitchens. Thus, to think that the founders had hunting in mind is preposterous. Besides, this interpretation makes even less sense given the "Well regulated militia" preamble the liberals are quick to point out.

Unfortunately, they have found (with a fair degree of success) that acting pro-hunting is a cheap and easy way to:
1. Sound patriotic, blue collar and pro-american
2. Get on the good side of most gun owners (believe it or not, must gun owners are not Calguns fanatics)
3. Provide a specious argument to make people think that owning effective firearms (e.g., guns that can efficiently kill others to protect you) is not a right, since you have no right to self-defense.

LoneYote
01-02-2013, 9:25 PM
The "hunting interpretation" of the 2nd amendment is a relatively recent invention by the left to deflect criticism for assault weapons bans.

Actually, last i checked it was part of the debate in the creation of the Bill of Rights. At the time the king supposedly often used restriction of firearms for hunting against political enemies. Since hunting was such a valuable survival skill and the firearm was the leading tool it seems plausible to me.

If you pour over early iterations and submissions for the amendment suggestions you should be able to find examples of this.

It also seems to me I remember hearing(correct me if I am wrong) that it was used as a reason to resist past gun laws.

taperxz
01-02-2013, 9:25 PM
I think you are all wrong.

The reason why they use the hunting thing is because in the past, hunters never believed or cared what type of Military style weapons were banned as long as you didn't mess with the old bolt action deer gun.

This notion made it so the antis could split gun owners for their own agenda and get certain laws passed. This actually worked in the past. Hunters sold out thinking "who needs an AR"?

Things are different now. Many hunters use semi auto rifles including different AR platforms and duck hunters for the most part have gone exclusively to modern semi auto shot guns. Not to mention the idea that the same gun grabbers will soon limit our ability to hunt if allowed to.

LoneYote
01-02-2013, 9:41 PM
I think you are all wrong.

Can't we all be RIGHT???

:grouphug:<Group Hug> :grouphug:

aileron
01-02-2013, 9:51 PM
Designed to fracture the group so they can be divided and then conquered. Very old technique.

Actually, last i checked it was part of the debate in the creation of the Bill of Rights. At the time the king supposedly often used restriction of firearms for hunting against political enemies.

Hunting/Poaching laws were one of the main forms of gun control in Europe to disarm the Yeomanry, dissidents, and non gentlemen. Extremely well known by the founders.

Excellent book on this history is: To Keep and Bear Arms by Joyce Lee Malcolm. (http://www.amazon.com/To-Keep-Bear-Arms-Anglo-American/dp/0674893077/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357192751&sr=8-1&keywords=joyce+lee+malcolm+to+keep+and+bear+arms)

taperxz
01-02-2013, 9:54 PM
Can't we all be RIGHT???

:grouphug:<Group Hug> :grouphug:


Depends if we want to win or surrender.


Designed to fracture the group so they can be divided and then conquered. Very old technique.

This ^^, but this no more.

phrogg111
01-02-2013, 10:18 PM
HUNTING IS A LOOPHOLE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

Just a friendly reminder. :D

Bullet buttons? Those are legal under a provision in the law. Hunting? Definitely a loophole.

"The right of the people, to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed" - ARMS are for KILLING PEOPLE. all other uses are secondary, illegitimate, and only protected because the right shall not be infringed.

taperxz
01-02-2013, 10:26 PM
Part of that is because the urban gun culture of coastal California did not grow organically out of a long tradition of hunting and outdoorsmen, but has much more recent (post WW2) roots in military and civil disobedience culture.

Please leave your ridiculous uneducated biased feelings out of Coastal CA and its hunting traditions. You have no idea what you are saying.

In fact many laws to protect game came out of the excessive hunting that originated here. Please do a little history lesson for yourself.

Bruce
01-02-2013, 10:35 PM
:oji: In part it goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Back in the '60's revamping old military bolt actions, Mausers, Springfields, Enfields,and Arisakas into hunting rifles was a cheap way to replace that old .30-30. Remington, Winchester and the rest of the commercial arms makers were losing money to the "sporterizing" craze. So when the 68GCA was created, the term "sporting purposes" was created by the representaives of the big arms companies to stop the influx of "military" arms. This has been carried forward by the antis. Hunting is a "sporting purpose" so hunting is an acceptable activity; at least for now.

taperxz
01-02-2013, 10:43 PM
Please explain to me how excessive hunting originated in LA and in the bay area.

Your first paragraph is not even worth responding to.

I can only speak of the Bay Area or from Santa Barbara up. It would be a long story but to make it short. Russian immigrants were huge hunters. Los Banos and all through the bay and delta was one of the top market duck hunting spots in all of America. We destroyed the Roosevelt Elk population that roamed all over the peninsula along with the entire bear population.

Northern Central to the North Coast was a mecca for wildlife hunting and still is even though it is now largely private land.

Like i said in my first paragraph....

Sabot
01-02-2013, 10:51 PM
They like to turn it into a hunting issue because hunting is not a constitutional right.

Sabot
01-02-2013, 10:51 PM
They like to turn it into a hunting issue because hunting is not a constitutional right.

wjc
01-02-2013, 10:52 PM
I think you are all wrong.

The reason why they use the hunting thing is because in the past, hunters never believed or cared what type of Military style weapons were banned as long as you didn't mess with the old bolt action deer gun.

This notion made it so the antis could split gun owners for their own agenda and get certain laws passed. This actually worked in the past. Hunters sold out thinking "who needs an AR"?

Things are different now. Many hunters use semi auto rifles including different AR platforms and duck hunters for the most part have gone exclusively to modern semi auto shot guns. Not to mention the idea that the same gun grabbers will soon limit our ability to hunt if allowed to.

+1

In the past, hunters didn't care about restrictions on semi-auto's because it didn't directly affect them (bolt action..pretty closed minded).

The game has changed. I hope a lot of the former realize that it's now an all out gun grab and those reasons no longer exist.

SwissFluCase
01-02-2013, 11:01 PM
Hunting rifle = sniper rifle.

Skeet gun = street sweeper.

Most people get this correlation now.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

saki302
01-02-2013, 11:07 PM
The whole hunting thing came from some leftist's rectum.

I see "the right to keep and bear ARMS"- I don't see "HUNTING ARMS" anywhere.

-Dave

Tarn_Helm
01-02-2013, 11:17 PM
I keep hearing all these liberal statements about how hunting firearms must be protected and hunting is this sacred tradition. I don't know of any hunter that also doesn't have a semi-auto handgun to protect his family or any hunter who doesn't consider his gun a tool for more than hunting. Who are these mythic "legitimate sportsmen and hunters"?

Reading these will clear up many mysteries:

This will probably give you the most detail about rights involving hunting and firearms: To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (http://www.amazon.com/Keep-Bear-Arms-Origins-Anglo-American/dp/0674893077/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357197144&sr=1-1&keywords=To+Keep+and+Bear+Arms%3A+The+Origins+of+a n+Anglo-American+Right).
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/ToKeepandBearArmsMalcolmJoyceLee.jpg

These are essential primary level reading for understanding your right to bear arms in the context of the U.S. Constitution:

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/THATEVERYMANBEARMED.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/InSearchof2ndAm.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/TheSecondAmendmentPrimerSPINEANDCOV.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/ORIGINSANDDEVELOPMENTOF2NDAMENDMENT.jpg

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/TOSHAKETHEIRGUNSINTHETYRANTSFACE.jpg

wjc
01-02-2013, 11:18 PM
Tarn, you make good points.

Allow me to simplify from what I was taught....

"Every American is a rifleman".

wilit
01-02-2013, 11:19 PM
:oji: In part it goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Back in the '60's revamping old military bolt actions, Mausers, Springfields, Enfields,and Arisakas into hunting rifles was a cheap way to replace that old .30-30. Remington, Winchester and the rest of the commercial arms makers were losing money to the "sporterizing" craze. So when the 68GCA was created, the term "sporting purposes" was created by the representaives of the big arms companies to stop the influx of "military" arms. This has been carried forward by the antis. Hunting is a "sporting purpose" so hunting is an acceptable activity; at least for now.

This was my understanding of where the "hunting" thing came from.

wjc
01-02-2013, 11:43 PM
Interesting. I knew about the elk being wiped out; the grizzlies are obvious. I didn't know that the ducks had the same fate.

But my point remains. If you go to Northern Wisconsin, a large fraction of the population there hunts, and many people have a hunting rifle and shotgun at home. Shooters there come out of that tradition. In contrast, of the gun owners and gun activists in California, only a small fraction live in rural areas where hunting is still common, and very few come out the tradition of hunters (such as the russian immigrants you refer to). Here in California, most people live in the two large metropolitan areas, and those for the most part do not come from a hunting tradition.

Now, if you happen to live in a rural area in California, your local experience might be quite different, and more in life of the rest of the US.

QFT

I frequently go to the Central Valley and their attitudes are quite different from the Bay Area.

taperxz
01-02-2013, 11:54 PM
Interesting. I knew about the elk being wiped out; the grizzlies are obvious. I didn't know that the ducks had the same fate.

But my point remains. If you go to Northern Wisconsin, a large fraction of the population there hunts, and many people have a hunting rifle and shotgun at home. Shooters there come out of that tradition. In contrast, of the gun owners and gun activists in California, only a small fraction live in rural areas where hunting is still common, and very few come out the tradition of hunters (such as the russian immigrants you refer to). Here in California, most people live in the two large metropolitan areas, and those for the most part do not come from a hunting tradition.

Now, if you happen to live in a rural area in California, your local experience might be quite different, and more in life of the rest of the US.

For starters about the ducks, Many in our town hunted the bay just minutes from San Francisco as late as the 70's and even today we can still hunt the bay. You see, prior to the Vietnam War, San Francisco was a large working town full of just hard working people that hunted. People used to go down to the Redwood City area to hunt along with the Santa Cruz hills. Many went up north just outside of Marin. After Vietnam was when things went downhill and all the rejects from all over the country took over San Francisco.

Growing up just minutes from the city, it seemed like everyone i knew hunted.

taperxz
01-02-2013, 11:57 PM
Interesting. I knew about the elk being wiped out; the grizzlies are obvious. I didn't know that the ducks had the same fate.



We actually wiped out the black bears here also. We had salmon in the local streams and the bay, like i said if you do a little research, the bay area was a wildlife mecca. We just killed everything.

wjc
01-03-2013, 12:15 AM
We actually wiped out the black bears here also. We had salmon in the local streams and the bay, like i said if you do a little research, the bay area was a wildlife mecca. We just killed everything.

Well, not "we".

I seem to remember something about a massive deer slaughter in the 60's or previous that really impacted the population.

I think "we" are a little more responsible. No offense meant.

johnyreb
01-03-2013, 12:32 AM
It's ment to divide us, just like in 94 and in 99. It's ment to get the hunters to look the other way. The left left will spare the hunters shotguns and bolt guns for now to gain thier support.

It worked well here in 99. I knew quite a few card carrying NRA types that were only concerned with their hunting guns and were quite vocal about it in duck clubs and hanging around the bait shops.

Comments like " why do you need those?"

Or " those guns will get all guns banned here in CA"

One of those guys is a good friend and he and I have butted heads over that issue for years. He became an avid bear hunter in the last 6 years and got in to hound hunting in a real big way. He screamed bloody murder on the hound ban last year....

kimber_ss
01-03-2013, 1:25 AM
Hmmm...

http://afeatheradrift.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/elmerfudd1.jpg

kblack583
01-03-2013, 5:58 AM
It's nothing more than a divide and conquer strategy. When you here about Steinberg commenting on the need to protect hunting type firearms, you know something is fishy.

victor1echo
01-03-2013, 6:40 AM
It is a red herring as most have pointed out--the 2nd amendment has nothing to do hunting and everything to do with tyranny. Divide and conquer is right. My dad, a combat veteran from Viet Nam, was mocking--as in repeating what he hears on FOX news-- why does anyone need a 20 round mag? IF your hunting---:facepalm:

It is an argument against semiautomatic firearm ownership.

ClarenceBoddicker
01-03-2013, 7:12 AM
The NRA has it's hands very dirty on this very important topic. They actively promoted the totally bogus "sporting" clause or interpretation of the 2A back at least as far as 1934 when the NFA was being debated. Here is a view (not my words) of the NRA's mindset back then:

[Congressional hearings over the National Firearms Act of 1934 (H.R.9066) took place April 16 & 18 and May 14, 15, & 16 of 1934. Then-NRA President Karl T. Frederick testified on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA). His testimony is below and includes the text in full plus scanned images of each page.

Before you read the full transcript, your attention is drawn to a few of excerpts that might interest you as a friend of the original meaning, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. Some NRA supporters are fond of saying that the NRA was not involved in gun-related legislative activities that far back. Somehow, they believe that repeating that myth often enough will make it true.

NRA President Frederick's testimony began by explaining that he had "been giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a period of 15 years" and that "the suggestions resulting from that study of mine...have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions suggested by us." He later described his active role in helping pass D.C.'s then-recent, ultra-stringent gun controls. Having helped enact gun control legislation was a matter of pride for NRA's president -- as you shall see below. The D.C. gun controls of which he candidly boasted included the following provisions, among others:

prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a license -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers
justification for getting licensed to carry a firearm if "applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property" -- and the license application process included a mugshot, treating lawful gun owners like common criminals
a two-day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers -- even though violent stalkers don't tend to wait to attack
required thorough record-keeping by gun dealers, of all transactions and every buyer
required that the seller deliver all of a buyer's personal information to the police within hours of the transaction, including the make, model and serial number of the firearm
mandated that gun dealers be licensed at the discretion of the police
banned altering firearms' serial numbers or other identifying marks

The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on page 45 below. Frederick described the law as "the uniform firearms act which we [the NRA] sponsored" -- and submitted the full copy to the congressmen debating the enactment of NFA'34. The Washington D.C. gun controls mentioned in brief above were approved on July 8, 1932 -- nearly two years before the NRA's President gave the following testimony.

Mr. Frederick's testimony before Congress included a variety of questions from the elected officials present that day. The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:

"Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?"

Notice that Rep. Dickinson used the phrase "right of a person," as opposed to "right of a State." In 1934, it was commonly understood that the Second Amendment's right of the people meant just that: people. Person is the singular of people. The congressman's question was a natural one to ask.

Here is how the NRA's president responded:

"Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought." [emphasis added]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a virtual ban on machineguns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and sound suppressors -- a ban for commoners, that is. It ultimately placed a $200 transfer tax on these products (with the usual exception for law enforcement officers, of course). Only the well-to-do could afford that kind of money -- especially for shotguns that were going for five or ten dollars and sound suppressors that were even cheaper. At that time, you could get a brand new, high quality machinegun for around a hundred bucks and a worn one for cheaper. Tripling the price overnight put these already-expensive weapons out of reach for the average Depression Era gun owner.

A decade and a half devoted to the study of (and methodical, proud implementation of) gun control regulation, yet the NRA President had not given any serious thought to how the Second Amendment rights of NRA members and gun owners at large might be affected by a machinegun and short-barreled shotgun ban -- even though he knew he'd be testifying before Congress on the proposed legislation. Furthermore, as his testimony shows, he also believed that the States could ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.

Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's President made that day:

MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" [emphasis added]

You'll find that section of his testimony on page 59, below.

But before you read on, take a moment and replace the words "weapons" and "guns" with "Bible" and "religious materials" in the above quote and see how it sounds. To save you the time in transposing the words yourself, here is the same quote with the words replaced as suggested:

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying Bibles. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of religious materials. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"

Religious texts are covered by the First Amendment. Firearms are covered by the Second Amendment. The analogy seems quite fair.]

Page 45 link: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.htm#p45

fonso
01-03-2013, 10:42 AM
The whole hunting thing came from some leftist's rectum.

I see "the right to keep and bear ARMS"- I don't see "HUNTING ARMS" anywhere.
-Dave

Exactly. The way I see it, there is NO 2nd Amendment restriction against ANY type/form of ARMS--until and unless said arms are used for nefarious purposes, after which said "nefarious user" may be dealt with under existing law (e.g., robbery, murder, etc.).

taperxz
01-03-2013, 11:28 AM
It is a red herring as most have pointed out--the 2nd amendment has nothing to do hunting and everything to do with tyranny. Divide and conquer is right. My dad, a combat veteran from Viet Nam, was mocking--as in repeating what he hears on FOX news-- why does anyone need a 20 round mag? IF your hunting---:facepalm:

It is an argument against semiautomatic firearm ownership.

Ironically, CA has no restrictions on hunting with ANY capacity mag for rim fire or center fire rifles.

tonelar
01-03-2013, 11:43 AM
It's a remnant from the pre-Heller era. When the 2A was supposedly there to protect the states' right. Post Heller it's a useless talking point.

Creeping Incrementalism
01-03-2013, 12:16 PM
The NRA has it's hands very dirty on this very important topic. They actively promoted the totally bogus "sporting" clause or interpretation of the 2A back at least as far as 1934 when the NFA was being debated. Here is a view (not my words) of the NRA's mindset back then.

This isn't news for many of us, and if you are going to mention this then you should also mention the Cincinnati revolt when NRA members rejected this type of thinking. Chris Cox even once referred to the current NRA in one of his columns as the "modern NRA".

the urban gun culture of coastal California did not grow organically out of a long tradition of hunting and outdoorsmen, but has much more recent (post WW2) roots in military and civil disobedience culture.


California received an enormous increase in population during WWII to supply labor for the defense industries. This influx is what lead California to become the most populous state in the U.S. by the 60s. This population primarily came out of the rural Midwest, based on a demographic study I saw.

Regarding the brown bear on our state flag--California had a population of those that rivaled, in terms of numbers and individual size, those of Alaska. Except for the bears in the higher Sierra, they didn't even hibernate in the winter there was so much food.

CEDaytonaRydr
01-03-2013, 12:26 PM
Where did the hunting interpretation come from?

Ignorant people with no knowledge of American history, national herritage, or the Constitution. :rolleyes:

dunndeal
01-03-2013, 12:27 PM
For starters about the ducks, Many in our town hunted the bay just minutes from San Francisco as late as the 70's and even today we can still hunt the bay. You see, prior to the Vietnam War, San Francisco was a large working town full of just hard working people that hunted. People used to go down to the Redwood City area to hunt along with the Santa Cruz hills. Many went up north just outside of Marin. After Vietnam was when things went downhill and all the rejects from all over the country took over San Francisco.

Growing up just minutes from the city, it seemed like everyone i knew hunted.

In the 50's and 60's there used to be numerous duck blinds in the SF Bay mudflats slightly north of the Oakland side of the Bay Bridge. All gone now.

Kukuforguns
01-03-2013, 12:45 PM
As Clarence Boddicker above states, the preeminent gun rights organization (the NRA) actively promoted the idea that gun rights protected hunting rights for decades. Winkler's "Gun Fight" has a pretty good history of how that developed and how it changed to the modern NRA.

However, the real reason the media brings up the hunting issue is because it's an issue that permits gun control. It is true, you do not need a 30 round magazine to hunt. Nor do you need a concealable pistol. Heck, all you really need to hunt almost anything in North America is one good shotgun. thus, if you can portray the 2d Amendment as a right to hunt, you've gone a fair ways to legitimizing a great deal of gun control.

I've had good success talking with gun-control supporters when I discuss with them the reason police carry semi-automatic pistols with standard capacity magazines -- to defend themselves. Then I ask them why the police should have a greater right to defend themselves than other people. It frequently makes them think. They may not all change their minds, but it does make them think. Well, except the ones that refuse to listen. With them, I talk about their children.

stix213
01-03-2013, 12:47 PM
I always thought it was a strategy by the anti's to fool the Elmer Fudd's into complacency, so as to divide and conquer the pro-gun movement.

1859sharps
01-03-2013, 1:13 PM
hunting and fishing rights and the access to the tools to conduct those activities IS closely tied to the natural right to arms. and play a part in the argument of having a right to arms.

HOWEVER, the 2nd is NOT about hunting. It's a means to protect our right to have arms so we can stand up to a tyrannical government or protect our self in absence of government.

the anti's tied to claim the 2nd was so that the government could have a militia (aka national guard) . That got shot down with Heller and McDonald. They have been using the "but we won't take away your hunting guns" for years now as a divide and conquer. Now that they can't claim the 2nd isn't a individual right, they are trying to re interpret the 2nd as protecting hunting. It is pretty much their only remaining argument/tactic. The irony is, at the beginning of the 20th century, bolt action rifles were cutting edge military arms.

kind of shoots a giant hole in their argument that no one needs "military style" rifles for hunting. any hunter not using a lever action rifle is using something that has serious military roots. Single shot, bolt action, semi auto all have military roots and that is what millions and millions of hunters use each and every year. lever action never really got much use in the military here in the US. there were small uses, but no where near the wide spread use of single shot rifles, bolt action, semi auto or full auto did.

might be worth calling them on this "goof" in logic. of course since there is a lot of "goof" in their logic it is often hard to decide which point to have fun with.

winnre
01-03-2013, 2:01 PM
According to liberals there is no need for guns because there is even no need to hunt:


http://distilleryimage1.s3.amazonaws.com/c2f0e284b63211e1aebc1231381b647a_7.jpg

Tarn_Helm
01-03-2013, 5:24 PM
The NRA has it's hands very dirty on this very important topic. They actively promoted the totally bogus "sporting" clause or interpretation of the 2A back at least as far as 1934 when the NFA was being debated. Here is a view (not my words) of the NRA's mindset back then:

[Congressional hearings over the National Firearms Act of 1934 (H.R.9066) took place April 16 & 18 and May 14, 15, & 16 of 1934. Then-NRA President Karl T. Frederick testified on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA). His testimony is below and includes the text in full plus scanned images of each page.

Before you read the full transcript, your attention is drawn to a few of excerpts that might interest you as a friend of the original meaning, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. Some NRA supporters are fond of saying that the NRA was not involved in gun-related legislative activities that far back. Somehow, they believe that repeating that myth often enough will make it true.

NRA President Frederick's testimony began by explaining that he had "been giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a period of 15 years" and that "the suggestions resulting from that study of mine...have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions suggested by us." He later described his active role in helping pass D.C.'s then-recent, ultra-stringent gun controls. Having helped enact gun control legislation was a matter of pride for NRA's president -- as you shall see below. The D.C. gun controls of which he candidly boasted included the following provisions, among others:

• prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a license -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers
• justification for getting licensed to carry a firearm if "applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property" -- and the license application process included a mugshot, treating lawful gun owners like common criminals
• a two-day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers -- even though violent stalkers don't tend to wait to attack
• required thorough record-keeping by gun dealers, of all transactions and every buyer
• required that the seller deliver all of a buyer's personal information to the police within hours of the transaction, including the make, model and serial number of the firearm
• mandated that gun dealers be licensed at the discretion of the police
• banned altering firearms' serial numbers or other identifying marks

The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on page 45 below. Frederick described the law as "the uniform firearms act which we [the NRA] sponsored" -- and submitted the full copy to the congressmen debating the enactment of NFA'34. The Washington D.C. gun controls mentioned in brief above were approved on July 8, 1932 -- nearly two years before the NRA's President gave the following testimony.

Mr. Frederick's testimony before Congress included a variety of questions from the elected officials present that day. The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:

"Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?"

Notice that Rep. Dickinson used the phrase "right of a person," as opposed to "right of a State." In 1934, it was commonly understood that the Second Amendment's right of the people meant just that: people. Person is the singular of people. The congressman's question was a natural one to ask.

Here is how the NRA's president responded:

"Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought." [emphasis added]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a virtual ban on machineguns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and sound suppressors -- a ban for commoners, that is. It ultimately placed a $200 transfer tax on these products (with the usual exception for law enforcement officers, of course). Only the well-to-do could afford that kind of money -- especially for shotguns that were going for five or ten dollars and sound suppressors that were even cheaper. At that time, you could get a brand new, high quality machinegun for around a hundred bucks and a worn one for cheaper. Tripling the price overnight put these already-expensive weapons out of reach for the average Depression Era gun owner.

A decade and a half devoted to the study of (and methodical, proud implementation of) gun control regulation, yet the NRA President had not given any serious thought to how the Second Amendment rights of NRA members and gun owners at large might be affected by a machinegun and short-barreled shotgun ban -- even though he knew he'd be testifying before Congress on the proposed legislation. Furthermore, as his testimony shows, he also believed that the States could ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.

Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's President made that day:

MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" [emphasis added]

You'll find that section of his testimony on page 59, below.

But before you read on, take a moment and replace the words "weapons" and "guns" with "Bible" and "religious materials" in the above quote and see how it sounds. To save you the time in transposing the words yourself, here is the same quote with the words replaced as suggested:

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying Bibles. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of religious materials. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"

Religious texts are covered by the First Amendment. Firearms are covered by the Second Amendment. The analogy seems quite fair.]

Page 45 link: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.htm#p45

Everyone here will grant that the NRA is not now, nor has it ever been, perfect.

Has it actually been part of the problem at times? (More so in the past?)

Sure.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and that is easy to see.

We Americans are learning from the mistakes of the past in regard to the necessity of 1) maintaining our armed citizen militia and 2) remaining engaged in a constant battle to retain rights constantly being eroded by ever-present anti-RKBA government ministers.

HOWEVER, the NRA is right now the best, the biggest, and the strongest protection we all have, despite its seemingly "hands-off" approach to certain states (e.g., CA, et al.).

But ask yourself this contrafactual hypothetical to determine where you should stand for strategic purposes today: Would Cal-Gunners here today have backed the Axis powers during WWII just because they found FDR and his rotten administration reprehensible?

No.

Just as the U.S.A. was the best thing going back in the days of the struggle we faced during WWII, so also is the NRA the best thing going nowadays in the struggle we currently face against the "Gun Ban Crowd," whether the latter promote all-out bans, confiscation, registration, restriction of certain types and other cancerous forms of incrementalism.

Stand united with the NRA.

Don't like the NRA?

Join and foment change from within for the types of policies you do like.

Whenever you hear folks badmouth today's NRA, remember to remind them that it is always easier to curse the darkness than to take the trouble to light a candle.
:cool: