Talk:National Firearms Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Factual Errors

Under "Categories of Weapons Regulated" the article states "A person cannot own machine gun trigger components unless he owns a registered machine gun. ".

This is completely incorrect. It is perfectly legal to own machinegun components as long as the collected parts cannot be assembled to allow the firearm to fire fully-automatic. This has been clarified by ATF on more than one occasion.

examples:

Possession of an AK-47 trigger/hammer/disconnect -legal as it does not allow the gun to fire fully automatic

Possession of AK-47 autosear - legal as long as the sear hole on the AK receiver is not drilled.

Possession of M16 Drop-in Autosear or lightling-link - illegal unless registered before 5/86. Due to the fact it, alone, can convert an AR-15 into a machinegun under the 'collection of parts' rule.


This also calls into question the 'silencer baffle' statement as well. It sounds hokey and I can't find any evidence to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.125.147 (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Contradictions

An anonymous editor added a statement that a court decision was incorrect. Is it reasonable for Wikipedia to maintain such contradictions in such an absolute form?

So long as the reasoning behind the "contradiction" is factual then the "contradiction" itself is also a statement of fact and should not be a problem.

[edit] Unbiased Statements

Near the end of the article, the statement "This decision is incorrect because..." does not conform to Wikipedia's standard of unbiased statements, in my opinion. I'm not sure if I'm right on this, but I think someone with more knowledge should evaluate this.

Põtåtõ §ålåÐ 13:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

US v Miller is a case which is not generally considered 'valid' or 'fair' because Millers attorneys never showed to argue his case, the US attorneys kept pushing the appeals in order to set a bad precedent without opposing counsel present to point out errors in the prosecutions arguments before the court. History clearly shows that sawed off shotguns were used as military weapons during WWI, despite government claims to the contrary. Thus this case is generally considered 'bad law' despite the fact that it does in fact recognise an individual right to keep and bear arms, just as if a non-lawyer defendant argued their own case (with a fool for a client) before the court, lost, and set a bad precedent on any other issue due to their own incompetence. US v Miller is, in this sense, 'bad law' just as 'Dred Scott' is historically considered 'bad law'.Mlorrey 20:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Various minor edits

Dear readers: I made some minor syntax and spelling corrections to this article. "Laws" generally do not have "jurisdiction." The courts that interpret the laws have "jurisdiction." Laws have "application." The National Firearms Act "applies" to such and such a manufacture of such and such a firearm, etc. Yours, Famspear 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was no evidence presented in the Miller case?

I am not a firearms expert, and I have no particularized interest in the Second Amendment. I'm a tax lawyer, and I ran across this article because the National Firearms Act is found in the Internal Revenue Code.

I have a question about the following verbiage:

Since the defense was not present, the court ruled that there was no evidence presented to them that such a firearm was indeed "ordinary military equipment."

A non-lawyer reading this passage might get the impression that the defendants Miller and Layton lost the case at the Supreme Court level in part because they presented no "evidence" to the Supreme Court that the firearm in question was "ordinary military equipment" -- because they and their lawyers didn't show up.

However, this matter came to the Supreme Court after a timely posed demurrer by one or both defendants at trial. Therefore, a more likely explanation might be that no evidence to the aforementioned effect had even been presented at the trial -- the defendants' demurrer may have been sustained by the trial court before anybody could get around to presenting evidence. (For you non-lawyers, what this basically means in simplified form is that if the trial court threw out the case before the defendants had a chance to present "evidence" there obviously would have been no such "evidence" in the record on appeal for the Supreme Court to even talk about.)

The Supreme Court hears and decides questions of law but does not normally decide questions of fact (i.e., does not normally hear "evidence"). Appeals courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court do look at "evidence" in certain technical ways, but not in all the same ways that a trial court looks at evidence. Generally, the Supreme Court and other appeals courts look only at evidence presented at the trial court proceeding.

If the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the firearm in the case was "ordinary military equipment" for purposes of the statute to be a question of fact, then the Court could easily have taken the lack of "facts" in the trial court's record as a lack of "evidence." By contast, if an appeals court such as the Supreme Court considers a particular question decided by a trial court to be a question of law, the court will have no problem re-examining that question.

The Court also noted that it could take no judicial notice that the weapon was part of ordinary military equipment. This seems to support the argument that the Court did indeed treat the question as a question of fact -- one requiring "evidence" to be presented at the trial court -- and apparently none was presented, because the defendants were successful in having the case thrown out first.

However, I am no expert on the Second Amendment or the history of this case, so I'm not sure whether my musings are on point or not. I'm not going to edit the passage myself. Any other lawyers out there who want to help us out? Yours, Famspear 05:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: What I want to emphasize, for the sake of the non-lawyer Wikipedians, which of course is most Wikipedians for heaven's sake, is that if you don't present "evidence" at trial, you are basically out of luck. Under our legal system, the Supreme Court and other appeals courts generally do not consider or look at "evidence" unless that evidence was at least presented at the trial court level. So, even if the defendants or their lawyers HAD shown up at the Supreme Court, any "evidence" they didn't try to put into the trial court record would generally not be regarded by the Supreme Court anyway. Yours, Famspear 05:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has provided any further input on this, and over four months have passed, I have changed the article accordingly. Yours, Famspear 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of NFA Act.

The term "Automatic Weapon" can be confusing to those unknowledgeable in firearms (as in .45 caliber Colt Automatic Pistol, or or Remington model 1100 automatic shotgun). The statute itself uses and defines the term "machine gun".


As far as "Origins of the Law" section, a highly biased and unsupported statement. U.S. Miller has never been succesfully challenged. The Courts have said that Congress clearly has the power to levy tax on goods, to include provisions under the National Firearms Act. U.S. vs. Dalton if I'm not mistaken.

At the very least the entire section needs to be redrafted in a neutral point of view.

Martee99 08/24/2006

In my opinion, the whole "Origins" section needs a heavy re-write; It's very POV as is evidenced by myriad "citation needed" tags. --JD79 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

A lot of this article has unreferenced statements which read a lot like people complaining about this act; it needs to be fixed. The entire first section reads like a series of conspiracy theories. Titanium Dragon 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring particularly to the origins section. Titanium Dragon 01:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In reference to NPOV Issues

It reads like a series of conspiracy theories because it actually is a series of conspiracy theories. The federal government 'conspired' to make it financially impossible for the vast majority of US citizens to afford the devices listed on and regulated by the National Firearms Act. The term "conspiracy theory" shouldn't be used as a blunt instrument to disparage someone else's writing.

If someone would be so kind as to post the following as a reference for the information presented in the Origin section I would greatly appreciate it.

National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington, DC, Government Printing Office: 1934), 21-22.

You can read more on it at:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html#T5

Stranger456 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with making those kinds of arguments is that they are subjective statements. For example, there's no evidence that says the BATF had all those agents with nothing to do, so they decided to "go after" firearms owners. Or that Congress "needed an excuse" to stop mobs from rioting. If there was some kind of government document that showed this to be true, it would be a different story. However, none is provided. The link above is the equivalent of saying, "Look -- John Kerry is a creep -- here's proof" and then providing a link to someone's site who doesn't like John Kerry.
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a forum for people to sound off on their opinions -- it's supposed to be neutral and fact-based. There are PLENTY of legitimate, well-documented and sourced criticisms of the NFA, and Federal anti-gun laws in general. But conjecture about WHY things happened belongs in its own article, such as, Gun politics in the US, not in the main article about the act itself.
Basically, the entire "Origins" section is POV, so I'm removing it. I tried to parse it down, and it's just not possible. I'm also cleaning up the style inconsistencies.
If you folks would like to have a debate about guns or gun law, this ain't the place. Robko626 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Robko626: Good job. Yours, Famspear 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate transfers

No mention of corporate transfers of NFA weapons was made in the transfer section. I felt it was important to note the existence of corporate transfers and added an explanation. Ownership of NFA weapons can be confusing, but the reader should be made aware that there is an option if the CLEO won't sign a Form 4. Exdmd 01:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change

Maybe the title should be changed to "National Firearms Act (USA)" or simalar to show that it is the americian artical when searching and when glancing at the artical.59.100.226.52 09:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it seems like a good idea. I think I've heard other countries use the same term for their legislation, so maybe a disambig page would be in order. Arthurrh 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Item #9 (under "Notes") makes no sense to me: ^ 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942). Just where is this supposed to take me?