Seriously, we need more of this! Lots more of this! A US Senate candidate from Missouri has ruffled a lot of feather in both political parties, but for good reason and good cause after he called for “going on the offensive” and legalizing machine guns and repealing the National Firearms Act.
American producer, writer, political activist, and commentator Austin Petersen is fed up with hearing the whining from the little Communists and the big ones in our country as they attack our God-given rights and our Constitution.
He has watched as they have advanced their agenda in DC and in the states and wants to stop playing defense with those who attack the Second Amendment and start playing offense.
On Wednesday evening, Petersen sent tweeted something that I have longed to hear on the Second Amendment from a person seeking to represent the people.
“Time to stop playing defense on the 2ndAmendment and start going on the offense. It’s time we start talking about legalizing machine guns and repealing the National Firearms Act entirely,” Petersen tweeted.
Time to stop playing defense on the #2ndAmendment and start going on the offense. It's time we start talking about legalizing machine guns and repealing the National Firearms Act entirely.
— Austin Petersen (@AP4Liberty) March 29, 2018
While that is a good call, machine guns are legal, provided you pay the tax on them, but that’s what he was getting at, removing the taxation restriction on them.
However, he wasn’t done. On Thursday, he followed that tweet up, “Repealing the National Firearms Act is a good first step, but also we should repeal the Hughes Amendment, so citizens can purchase more modern machine guns manufactured after 1986.”
Repealing the National Firearms Act is a good first step, but also we should repeal the Hughes Amendment, so citizens can purchase more modern machine guns manufactured after 1986.
— Austin Petersen (@AP4Liberty) March 29, 2018
Now, I can just hear many of those who are on my side crying about this like they did about the unconstitutional bump stock ban put forward by the Executive Branch under President Donald Trump. They will say, “Well that’s a dangerous gun” or “Those just waste ammunition.”
So? So, what? That’s not the point of the Second Amendment. The point of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the God-given, unalienable rights of the people are not infringed and that included the right to own a rifle that is fully automatic or has a bump stock on it.
Furthermore, Petersen points out that by repealing the National Firearms Act and the Hughes Amendment, American can purchase more modern machine guns that were manufactured after 1986.
So, what is the National Firearms Act, you ask?
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives:
The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.
While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.
As structured in 1934, the NFA imposed a duty on persons transferring NFA firearms, as well as mere possessors of unregistered firearms, to register them with the Secretary of the Treasury. If the possessor of an unregistered firearm applied to register the firearm as required by the NFA, the Treasury Department could supply information to State authorities about the registrant’s possession of the firearm. State authorities could then use the information to prosecute the person whose possession violated State laws. For these reasons, the Supreme Court in 1968 held in the Haynes case that a person prosecuted for possessing an unregistered NFA firearm had a valid defense to the prosecution — the registration requirement imposed on the possessor of an unregistered firearm violated the possessor’s privilege from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Haynes decision made the 1934 Act virtually unenforceable.
So, Congress did it to not only make money off of it through taxation, which is something they can do under the Constitution but, as you can see, there was a constitutional problem that had to be remedied.
However, the greater question is what brought about this legislation?
Well, in America, from 1920 to 1933, just a year prior to the legislation, we endured Prohibition, ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. Yep, that worked about as well as gun bans and the war on drugs.
However, it was more than just alcohol prohibition that resulted in this, but it did play a big role when the crimes of well-known criminals such as John Dillinger, Al Capone, Baby Face Nelson, and Bonnie and Clyde were constantly presented to the public.
While there was not a ban, this was the first step, and remember, it was only a tax at that time and there was no “Second Amendment lobby.” However, as a result, the National Rifle Association was born.
The NFA did not inspire as much controversy in 1934 as gun-control acts do today, in part because of the general public perception that crime was out of control and in part because anti-gun-control groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) did not have nearly the strength or Lobbying power they would later have. In fact, the NRA formed its legislative affairs division, a precursor to its powerful lobbying arm, in 1934 in belated response to the NFA. Nevertheless, the NFA did result in several lawsuits claiming the law was unconstitutional, one of which reached the Supreme Court.
Yet, they used the crimes of those who engaged in unlawful activities to write more unconstitutional “laws” against law-abiding citizens, sort of like is being promoted today. When someone goes into a school and murders teens, politicians and useful idiots call for more unconstitutional “laws” to infringe on law-abiding citizens’ rights.
What’s most telling is that Congress sought to tax these weapons. Now, stop and think about it a moment. How does taxing these weapons stop them from being used in crimes? It doesn’t.
The ATF website points out:
Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968
Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes. First, the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register was removed. Indeed, under the amended law, there is no mechanism for a possessor to register an unregistered NFA firearm already possessed by the person. Second, a provision was added to the law prohibiting the use of any information from an NFA application or registration as evidence against the person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration. In 1971, the Supreme Court reexamined the NFA in the Freed case and found that the 1968 amendments cured the constitutional defect in the original NFA.
Title II also amended the NFA definitions of “firearm” by adding “destructive devices” and expanding the definition of “machinegun.”
Firearm Owners’ Protection Act
In 1986, this Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.
Evidence suggests that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.
In a piece put forward by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, they write on the expansion of the GCA from the National Firearms Act.
JPFO knows who implanted into American law cancerous ideas from the Nazi Weapons Law.
The likely culprit is a former senator, now deceased. We have documentary proof — see below — that he had the original text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession 4 months before the bill that became GCA ’68 was signed into law.
This former senator was a senior member of the U.S. team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945-46. That is probably where he found out about the Nazi Weapons Law. He may have gotten a copy of it then, or at a later date. We cannot imagine why any U.S. lawmaker would own original texts of Nazi laws. To find out his name, read on.
With this hard evidence in your hands and in your head, you can destroy cancerous “gun control”. You can challenge anyone who backs “gun control”. You can show them the Nazi ideas, line by line.
The parallels between the Nazi law and GCA ’68 will leap at you from the page. For example, law abiding firearm owners in Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey must carry identification cards based on formats from the Nazi Weapons Law. Nazi based laws have no place in America. Thousands of Americans died or were wounded in the war to wipe out the Nazis. They did not suffer or die so that Hitler’s ideas could live on in America and kill more Americans. Remember Killeen, Texas! The 23 who died in Luby’s Cafeteria there died because they obeyed Nazi inspired “gun control” laws. The law forced them, unarmed, to face an armed madman.
To destroy “gun control” before more law abiding Americans are murdered by criminals or madmen helped by “gun control”, you need to get hold of the evidence as presented in “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny. You can then challenge the media, the most aggressive backers of “gun control”. Ask media personalities in your city or town why they back Nazi based laws. You can help to erase “gun control”, Hitler’s last legacy.
GCA ’68 puts your life at risk right now. You have a constitutional civil right to be armed in order to protect yourself, because under U.S law the police have no duty to protect the average person:
“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order” (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 ).
The Supreme Court last dealt with this issue in 1856; the 1982 decision states the position in modern language. The laws of virtually every state parallel federal law (see JPFO Special Report Dial 911 and Die! covered in Guns & Ammo, July 1992). This has been so ever since the Constitution was adopted in 1791. As a result, the framers of the Second Amendment deliberately created (guaranteed) an individual civil right to be armed. It is your only reliable defense against criminals. GCA ’68 ties your hands and keeps you from carrying out your legal duty to ensure your own self defense. GCA ’68 thus undermines a pillar of U.S. law and helps criminals to kill law abiding Americans. Hitler would be pleased.
Thus, GCA ’68 marked a new approach to “gun control”. It replaced the Federal Firearms Act (June 30, 1938), which was based on the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. The 1938 law required firearms dealers to get a federal license (which then cost $1). Only dealers could ship firearms across state lines. Ordinary people could receive shipments from dealers.
In GCA ’68 the government required that in almost all cases only dealers could send and receive firearms across state lines. This ended “mail order” sales of firearms by law abiding persons who are not licensed dealers. GCA ’68 hits you even harder. Congress gave federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C., the power to decide what kinds of firearms you can own. The framers of GCA ’68 borrowed an idea — that certain firearms are “hunting weapons” — from the Nazi Weapons Law (Section 21 and Section 32 of the Regulations, page 61 and page 73, respectively, of “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny). The equivalent U.S. term, “sporting purpose,” was used to classify firearms. But it was not defined anywhere in GCA ’68. Thus, bureaucrats were empowered to ban whole classes of firearms. They have, in fact, done so.
We wanted to know the source of these new ideas. On reading “Dial 911 and Die!” a JPFO member told us he had seen an article — by Alan Stang in ‘Review of the News,’ October 4, 1967 (pages 15-20) — the author of which felt that the Nazi Weapons Law was the model for GCA ’68. We found the article. But Stang did not reproduce the Nazi law, so we could not check his conclusions.
We started to hunt for the text of the Nazi Weapons Law. We eventually found it, in the law library of an Ivy League university.
Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt,’ roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler’s Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent “gun control” in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.
The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb “gang activity,” violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? “Gun control” did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.
The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not “reliable.” Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.
In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people.
The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 — one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany — new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.
Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA ’68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA ’68 — lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans — drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.
Times may have changed, but the playbook has not.
We have witnessed absolutely stupid, unconstitutional gun bans put in place that did nothing to stop crime, and we have heard anti-American representatives utter such words as the ones below.
Still, the American people overwhelmingly do not support “assault weapons bans nor more infringements on their rights.
In fact, after the miserable failure of the first “assault weapons ban” that Feinstein put forward, she sought to pass another “assault weapons ban,” which included regular semi-automatic handguns and other items after Sandy Hook, but it went down in flames.
We saw the federal government engage unconstitutionally in education and tie money to schools if they only would become gun free zones, making them a soft target for more than 90 percent of mass shootings in the US.
However, understand that it was not always like this. In fact, for decades there were no laws written to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. More to the point, Thomas Jefferson, in his dealing with the Barbary Pirate jihadis had Congress provide letters of marque and reprisal to employ the use of private warships, as they were also protected under the Constitution. Did you hear that? Warships were owned by private individuals! Imagine if our founders were around today. They would be horrified to discover that there were restrictions and regulations on arms or any kind in America, including tanks, warships, handguns, rifles, ammunition, jet fighters and much more. They understood that liberty was a good thing and that an armed society spends more time stopping crime than contemplating it.
As for Petersen, I wholeheartedly support the foundation of what he is advancing. Let’s go ahead and add to that The GCA of 1968 and any and all other laws that seek to restrict and regulate arms in America and truly uphold the Second Amendment! The weapons the military and our government holds, the people they serve should also be respected enough to keep and bear since those weapons would be tantamount to the weaponry of the militia spoken of in the first part of the Second Amendment. That would be the way our founders saw things.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.