NFA 1934: A Massive Infringement Of Our Rights

William Sullivan explains How The Federal Government Nullified The Second Amendment To 'Ban' Automatic Firearms. Remember that the Second Amendment says that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What the Federal Government did was to use a subterfuge, a ruse that they were only taxing automatic weapons, not really banning them. In 1934, to attempt an outright ban might have roused the natives with pitch forks tar and feathers. Now, why the supreme court didn't squawk can perhaps be chalked up to the same type of events that seems to have upheld Obamacare.

Both Daniel Webster, and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall said that "The power to tax is the power to destroy."  Most of the legislators who passed the law, the President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the Justices of the Supreme Court would have been very aware of the truth of the quote.

This is the progressives’ magic trick, and some Americans fall for it due to a simple deficiency in human nature. For example, Chris Cuomo of CNN recently tweeted that “[t]here was no individual right” in the Second Amendment even “contemplated” until Antonin Scalia inferred the “individual right” in the Heller v. District of Columbia decision.

...snip...

This was a roundabout infringement upon Second Amendment rights that is somehow still championed by conservatives looking to score sensibility points with the left, and aligning with Cuomo’s position.

“Machine guns were outlawed because there was no need that justified the risk. Was that wrong, too?” Cuomo asks.

The short answer is, yes, that was wrong, too -- if the Second Amendment is the measure. And to be clear, the Second Amendment is the only sentence in the Constitution where an individual right to firearms is addressed.

I have made the point before that any time the government does not trust us, we should not trust the government. It means the government is doing something that will, as cited above, cause the natives to break out the pitchforks, tar and feathers.  I can not see how any intelligent person could not see through that ruse, and I suspect that the NRA at the time could see it too.  But the NRA actually thought that machine guns were too much for the average gun owner too.  The NRA had come a long way from its founding by Northern Civil War officers concerned about the lack of marksmanship by Americans.  But that is the state of the NRA:  they often compromise our rights because they lack the guts to stand up for them.

I believe the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a massive infringement of our right to bear arms, and should have been challenged at the time.  One of the things that make it difficult to challenge today is the fact that it has been on the books so long.  This will end up affecting the thinking of the Supremes.  And then there is the John Roberts factor to consider.  Roberts has become the new "swing" voter on the court, rendering Trump's picks for the court somewhat moot.

Now, I don't "need" a Thompson submachine gun, nor do I "need" a fully automatic M16.  Both would be relatively expensive weapons for which I would have little use.  But I should be able to legally purchase either if I wanted to.  Remember, it is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.  Anyone who starts of with "Nobody needs a ______ (you name whatever weapon of part) ,,, is setting you up for a utilitarian argument.  Don't go there.  Stick to discussion of your rights.