"Fortunately, Sebastian at Snowflakes In Hell has done an excellent job of examining some of the myths around the passage including those that the NRA and major gun manufacturers were complicit in its passage. He also looks at some of the other myths regarding the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934."So I hit the embedded link to read what was posted and read this:
Were NRA & Manufacturers Complicit in the Gun Control Act of 1968?I read the post, hit the links and then went to comments where I found out that you cannot put in hyperlinks as it will be seen as SPAM. OK, his site, his rules, his way of preventing outside sources and controlling the debate. Fine by me, as I will copy and past and link and then I will bring back posts I made in regards to this "debate" and point you to the embedded links in each one of my posts, and say READ THEM ALL!
A post by Lyle over at View from North Central Idaho got me thinking about a topic I started researching:
"The patent on the M1 carbine was owned by Western Cartridge Co. and David "Carbine" Williams, and still in effect when Penney and Arnold wanted to begin manufacturing M1 carbines in 1958. Penney and Arnold contacted Winchester-Western and offered them a percentage per carbine manufactured, in return for permission to manufacture the M1 carbine. John Olin, owner of Winchester-Western, refused. Olin, Winchester-Western, and more than a few other American manufacturers were opposed to all of the surplus weapons being returned to the United States, where they were being sold at prices the manufacturers couldn’t compete with. This opposition eventually led the manufacturers and the National Rifle Association to support the Gun Control Act of 1968, which, amongst many other things, prohibited the importation of U.S. military surplus."I’ve tried, at various times, to do some research on the historical arguments surrounding the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, but there’s difficulty without spending some very serious time or buying articles. Dave Hardy is also probably more of an expert on this than I am, given he’s done quite a bit of this kind of research. Generally speaking, I’d want to rely on period accounts rather than modern accounts. Examination of the Congressional Record would also be important. My concern is that there’s a lot of bullshit in this issue, and plenty of people willing to twist the truth to help fit their preferred narrative.
I checked each link, fixed where needed, switched to the Web Archive versions and added a comment since Haloscan/JSKit/Echo no longer allows me to edit them.
If Snowflakes in Hell is providing new insight regarding the NRA actions, non-actions or complicity in writing the major and not so major Gun Control Laws of the 20th Century that is great! However excluding current NRA activities such as spending 22+ hours on this blog on November 13th, 2006 because of the following VERBATIM post I made on November 10th, 2006 then, I still will be hard pressed to believe let alone think that the NRA is NOT happy to see more gun control laws that SUPPRESS the RIGHTS of the Republic or that the did not gladly assist in writing the 1934NFA, 1968CGA or the utter disdain for over-turning the HUGHES AMENDMENT to the 1986FOPA.
In my recent post, Stalwarts versus NRA, there were several comments made and one in particular by Hammer (see here).Heck, I did not even mention the funny money stuff or their ridding the BoD of all but WINNING TEAM type Yes-Folk, but that is another point that most either gloss over, forget, do not know about or intentionally ignore.
However, to make things easier to follow, here is what Hammer said:
I was reading the December 1945 issue of American Rifleman today.And I told him:
There was letter expressing concern about some of the M1 carbines having 17.75 inch barrels and therefore being under the NFA 34
The NRA responded with:
What does it matter? The Carbine has no sporting purpose anyway..
This has been one of the main problems with the NRA leadership in my opinion. Giving ground throughout the years because the laws didn't affect affect hunters or target shooters
Hammer | Homepage | 11.10.06 - 7:24 am | #
You scan it and tell me where to download it (or E-mail it to me), and I will give it a permanent spot on the blog and site.So, first thing this morning, Hammer sent them to me. Now, his scanner is down so he took photos of them (1, 2, 3) and the original images will not fit so I sharpened them and resized them and here, in order below, are the new images and the full size ones can be viewed by clicking on the title beneath the images below.
American Rifleman December 1945
American Rifleman December 1945 Page 32
American Rifleman December 1945 Page 32 Inset
I want to thank Hammer for sending them to me and I want the rest of you to understand that, yes, I am slamming the NRA, but strictly for the attitude I mentioned in the post referenced above as I do stand by my statement and opinion that NRA does deserve to be honored for many things- I just prefer to understand that the NRA is happy with helping to foist un-Constitutional laws downs it 3+ million members throats and has since the beginning...
I strongly suggest that if a contemporary view from the years of 1934, 1968 and 1986+ of these laws and the NRA's position and views are desired, find the old issues of American Rifleman as the printed word says a lot- almost as much as the NRA's actions in regards to these laws and should also provide leads regarding manufacturers attitudes, desires and wishes (it is not like the Republic does not have a boat load of laws to prevent competition at the behest of manufacturers).
Also, one better look REAL hard at who lead the NRA/ILA to the success of the 1986FOPA- then look at what the NRA did to him.
Oh, and just so everyone knows, in regards to FULL DISCLOSURE, I am a paid in full NRA LIFE MEMBER and have been for years.