Talk:National Firearms Act/Archive 1

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? Bobblewik 06:23, 14 August 2004 (UTC)

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. 24.46.226.238 22:25, 22 November 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question
What does the act say in regards to if one has the weapon stolen from him? Does the individual have to pay a tax or some fine or something because of that? butch3r 00:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lost or stolen NFA items must be reported immediately to ATF. No tax or fine is incurred.  ATF will flag the item as stolen in case it appears on the market in the future. ConquerorPBN (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Suppressor section ... ?
There is a piece of information that states "....and also more recently has been relaxed on litigation for .22 rifle rounds because of their lack of destructive power." AFAIK, .22-bore suppressors are just as regulated and taxed as the have always been. If there is recent case law, it would be a valuable cite, otherwise it is misinformation. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 17:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an update. I did some digging, but could find nothing that suggests the sentence was accurate.  It has been removed. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NFA firearm, not weapon
ATF is consistent in referring to "NFA firearm" or "firearm" in the context of the NFA, the only exception I found was "weapon" used in "Any Other Weapon". Discussion of the NFA should use the legal word "firearm" and not the generic lay term "weapon" even though the NFA was popularly called the Gangster Weapon Act.Naaman Brown (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC) sig added

ATF.GOV is consistent in refering to Title I as GCA (1968 Gun Control Act) and Title II as NFA (1934 National Firearms Act). ATF text discusses NFA firearms; a very few heads include NFA weapon but the text they link to are headed and discuss NFA firearms. The term Title II weapon is not used by ATF at the ATF website http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#o9 Naaman Brown (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

revisit changes

The current (www.atf.gov accessed 25 Sep 2010) ATF Frequently Asked Questions on National Firearms Act (FAQ NFA) do not include basic definitions of NFA categories, previous included in ATF FAQ and currently found in detail in ATF National Firearms Act Handbook (PDF 10.1 MB download).

Practically all previously valid links to ATF.gov FAQ are now broken. The Bardwell document "nfa_faq.txt" formerly at cs edu is an archive of FAQ largely from ATF and does include basic definitions of NFA firearms.

The current ATF FAQ categories are more about regulations of the category of firearm than about basic definition of the category iteself:
 * ATF FAQ NFA Firearms
 * ATF FAQ NFA SBR SBS
 * ATF FAQ NFA Machine Gun
 * ATF FAQ NFA Silencers

NOTE: Currently ATF consistently uses the term "National Firearms Act Firearms" not NFA weapons nor Title II weapons. In the ATF NFA Handbook there is no instance of "Title II Weapon" or "Title II Firearm" case-insensitive, but multiple, consistent use of "NFA Firearm". Naaman Brown (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The ATF refer to these as weapons. It is listed repeatedly in the PDF manual that you cite.


 * Example: "2.1.2 Weapon made from a shotgun. A weapon made from a shotgun is a shotgun type weapon that has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length. The overall length of a firearm is the distance between the muzzle of the barrel and the rearmost portion of the weapon measured on a line parallel to the axis of the bore." page 5


 * Definition: "The NFA defines the specific types of firearms subject to the provisions of the Act. These definitions describe the function, design, configuration and/or dimensions that weapons must have to be NFA firearms. In addition to describing the weapon, some definitions (machinegun, rifle, shotgun, any other weapon) state that the firearm described also includes a weapon that can be readily restored to fire." page 6.


 * "Of all the different firearms defined as NFA weapons, machineguns are the only type where the receiver of the weapon by itself is an NFA firearm." -page 10


 * Use of the word weapon here is fine and it appears on the Form 4, Block 15- Transferee's Certification. ..."and my possession of the device or weapon would be consistent with public safety...". ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

NRA involvement in the passage of this bill
No information about Karl T. Frederick testifying extensively in support of the bill? And even supplying the as-adopted definition of what constituted a 'machine gun'? Then-President of the NRA, he helped craft numerous state firearms regulations, as well as for the District of Columbia. He also helped craft, and supported to passage, the 1934 NFA. http://hnn.us/articles/what-nra-didnt-always-oppose-gun-control

Thought this could be put out for discussion, see if anyone thinks it worthy of inclusion in the article. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Havoc Gunstar

US vs Fix
I've seen this case cited numerous times on handgun forums as having to do with AOW and pistols however there is no text in the ruling itself to back up it's usage in this article, including the link provided to the official court ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.13.75 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Article text on the "US v. Fix'' case:


 * In another federal case, US v. Fix (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Christopher FIX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-10789. August 29, 2001), the 5th Circuit Federal Appeals Court countered BATFE. Originally, in the trial case, Fix was convicted under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) of possession of an unregistered NFA firearm found during a search of his home and business as a weapon that required NFA registration. In US v. Fix, he appealed and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the trial case.  The 5th Circuit noted that Fix was a defendant who was found to be in possession of a handgun/pistol that had a second pistol/foregrip attached.  On appeal, Fix argued that the Government/BATFE did not prove the handgun/pistol with a second pistol grip added was an unregistered NFA firearm. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals presided and found in a related provision that a GCA "firearm" is defined by a list of eight weapons and a catchall provision of "any other weapon." See 26 U.S.C. §5845(a). "Any other weapon" includes "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive," but not "a pistol . . . having a rifled bore . . ." See 26 U.S.C. § 845(e). Weapons not included in the definition of firearm in § 5845 need not be registered under § 5861(d). Fix argues that his firearm was a pistol, not an NFA AOW that met the exception in §5845(e), and, therefore, did not need to be registered under §5861.   The 5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Government/BATFE failed to prove a violation of §5861(d) for two reasons. First, the weapon did not fit the definition required by the statute in the NFA. The provision defining "pistol" for the purposes of the statute is 27 C.F.R. §179.11, which defines a pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..." The government argues that because the handgun/pistol was modified to be fired with two hands, it "falls out" of the definition of pistol and falls back into the definition of "any other weapon" in § 5845. The 5th Circuit found BATFE's argument ignores the definition's requirement that the weapon be capable of being held with one hand at the time it was originally designed and made. As written, the GCA or NFA definition does not consider modifications of the weapon by the owner. The 5th Circuit court further found that the handgun/pistol in this case was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip. Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in §5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore which this handgun/pistol had. The 5th Circuit held that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons. A sawed-off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun. The 5th Circuit court also noted that the Government/BATFE's own witness stated that the involved handgun/pistol had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered an "any other weapon."

---removed from the article. See discussion to follow. Famspear (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, this article has some problems. Let's start with the Fix case. The long paragraph on this case has been removed from the article and inserted above. The actual text of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit -- the August 29, 2001 decision that is cited as the basis for the verbiage in this paragraph -- can be found here:. The case is United States v. Fix, 264 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2001). The actual opinion of the Court has little if anything to do with the verbiage in the long paragraph above, which purports to be a summary of the Court's opinion. The long paragraph appears to be a discussion of other technical issues. There might be other court opinions in the Fix case, but the verbiage in this long paragraph does not appear to be supported by the cited source, which is the actual August 29, 2001 decision.

Further, the article as a whole appears to be rambling, disjointed, and disorganized. This is going to take some work and time. Famspear (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Article seems to be drifting off topic
OK, I've made a start at trying to move this article toward some better organization. Much of the material is unsourced, so I have added citation tags. The portions of this article with the unsourced detail about firearms really need some attention from editors who are knowledgeable about firearms (and I am not).

However, at the same time the text of the article may be drifting a bit too far into the subject of firearms rather than the subject of the National Firearms Act. Of course, it's impossible to discuss the law itself without at least getting into some information about firearms. There needs to be some balance.

If a given text doesn't closely relate to the National Firearms Act itself, it probably needs to be removed or moved to some article on firearms that might be more directly on point. Famspear (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

ATF NFA Handbook, ATF E-Publication 5320.8, Revised: April 2009
 * "Also included within the silencer definition is any part intended only for use in the assembly or fabrication of a firearm silencer."

Shows a photo of a silencer baffle as an example on p.16 This rule has actually prevented registered silencer owners from possessing replacement or repair parts for a legally registered silencer unless they were also a licensed silencer manfuacturer. Hokey? Yeah, but it's the law. All ATF NFA rules are subject to change, and if you are lucky you will follow the Federal Register or industry notices and comply with the changes before you are caught in violation.--Naaman Brown (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Toward a History of the NFA
Official History of NFA

ATF NFA Handbook, ATF E-Publication 5320.8, Revised: April 2009

History of the National Firearms Act (NFA)

1.1.1 The NFA of 1934.

The NFA was originally enacted in 1934.[1] 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.[2] The Haynes decision made the 1934 Act virtually unenforceable.

1.1.2 Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Title II amended the NFA to cure the constitutional flaw pointed out in Haynes.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5]

Title II also amended the NFA definitions of “firearm” by adding “destructive devices” and expanding the definition of “machinegun.”

1.1.3 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.[6] The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns.[7] 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.

1. National Firearms Act, Public Law 474, approved June 26, 1934.

2. Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85 (1968).

3. Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618, approved October 22, 1968.

4. 26 U.S.C. 5848

5. U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).

6. Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, Public Law 99-308, approved May 19, 1986.

7. 18 U.S.C. 922(o)

Some Unofficial Footnotes

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111266/franklin-roosevelt-the-father-gun-control# Adam Winkler, "Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control", The New Republic, 19 Dec 2012.

"Gun control is one of the great pieces of unfinished business for the Democratic Party. ... Like health care, social security, and so many other issues central to the Democratic agenda, the party's support for gun control stems from Franklin D. Roosevelt. ... Roosevelt's original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns."

In 1934, the NRA was credited/blamed with getting ordinary rifles, shotguns and handguns removed from the 1934 NFA. Completion of the 1934 NFA registry would have been the 1968 National Firearms Registration and Licensing Bill (which NRA was credited/blamed with successfully blocking). An unidentifier member of Congress (I believe it was the sponsor Sen Joseph Tydings) asked the FBI to investigate the NRA (then working as an educational organisation) as an unregistered lobby. So the NRA decided to not fight but to register as a lobby and form what became known as NRA-ILA Institute for Legislative Action. (FBI file on the NRA http://vault.fbi.gov/National%20Rifle%20Association%20%28NRA%29 ) In 1970, the NRA openly lobbied against Sen. Tyding's re-election campaign. (Richard Cohen, "Tydings Is Target of U.S. Gun Lobby", The Washington Post, 21 Jun 1970.)

--Naaman Brown (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone who knows what they're doing check the archive bot up top?
I was going to start a discussion, then got sidetracked thinking there was no talk-page archive. Long story short, I added an archive bot up top, but not sure I did it right. Can someone else please check it? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

National Firearms Act... of 1968?
The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph in this article's Background section says, "This revision is known as the National Act of 1968 to differentiate it from the NFA of 1934, which is a different (and now void) law." Then, the first sentence of the next section - Categories of firearms regulated - says, "The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms."

These are factually inaccurate, right? I don't know the legal lingedy, but it was the Gun Control Act of 1968 that redefined the National Firearms Act of 1934, right? And it's just generally called "the National Firearms Act."

Since this is not meant to be a textbook or law book, I'm not sure how much detail we need to get into, but what's there now is incorrect... or correct me if I'm wrong. Lightbreather (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. This article is a mess with lot's of repetition and redundancies.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There must be a simple way to explain it. I agree that the article is a mess. Lightbreather (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the cite given (which is more about ATF and explosives as opposed to the Haynes decision. No mention of National Act of 68 either and you're right GCA 68 fixed part of the unconstitutionality of NFA. I'll find a source for the rest, but it jives with what's on the ATF site: ''"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.
 * 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.”''--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please defend recent addition
Please defend keeping the recent addition to this article by - who has been editing 5 DAYS - and sourced to secureguntrust.com - a COMMERCIAL site selling gun trusts?

I don'y give a fig how well you think it's written - defend the sources: editor and website. Lightbreather (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that Wikipedia should be well written and well sourced. I also believe that we should not discriminate against new editors, especially those that write well.  Who better than a gun trust to provide correct information?  They know more about the topic than someone who knows nothing about this highly legalistic and technical topic.  Legal nuances matter greatly in this area. Correctness matters, but must be sourced with V and RS sources, of course.  Meanwhile, if better sources are needed, OK, then we should tag any sources that may need improvement.  But, lets not insert poorly written text that agrees with a preconceived agenda, and remove correct text.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone oughta go around and revert all that editor's "contributions" - they're all spam. Felsic (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope we all believe WP should be well written and well sourced, but no matter how well you think something is written, if it's WP:SPAM or written by someone with a WP:COI, it needs better source. This new user's first edit was to start Draft:Gun Trust, sourced almost entirely to... you guessed it, secureguntrust.com, which has a silhouette of a babe holding a rifle against an American flag/U.S. background, and advertises "PURCHASE NOW FOR $75". Your defense of this, from a stewardship POV, is indefensible. Lightbreather (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

While I'm usually in favor of making an article as informatively detailed as possible, a very quick review of some of this material also looks like it encroaches on WP:NOTHOWTO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on National Firearms Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090923190657/http://www.bobernet.com:80/blog/2007/07/shoe_string_no_longer_a_machin.html to http://www.bobernet.com/blog/2007/07/shoe_string_no_longer_a_machin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120411073620/http://www.atf.gov:80/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html to http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Updated Info on Montana Firearms Freedom Act
Someone with more time and a stronger background in American law should probably update the section on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act to include the final outcome of the 2013 legal challenge:


 * "Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and the court's own precedent in United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally. A majority of the panel, over the dissent of Judge Bea, went further to hold that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was preempted by the federal licensing law. Two petitions for a writ of certiorari sought to bring the matter before the United States Supreme Court, but the writ was denied in both instances."

The above text can be found by clicking on the link to the law's article. I'm not an expert in American law, but I think that means that the Montana law has been effectively struck down? If so, we should either put some statement to that effect in this section, the section entirely since it's no longer relevant. Then again, there were apparently similar laws passed in other states--if any of those cases are still pending, maybe we should keep it until they're all resolved?24.50.237.211 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge from NFA trust
WP:PRODed NFA trust with edit comment covered elsewhere and justification ''Mostly an advertisement and coatrack for ad links. Subject is already covered at National_Firearms_Act. COI issues being discussed at WP:COIN.'' endorsed the PROD. I interpret this as a merge, not delete suggestion as I assume the outcome desired is to convert NFA trust into a redirect to National_Firearms_Act after merging anything of value into this article. A merge like this can be done WP:BOLDly. There is no need to invoke WP:PROD or any other special workflow. ~Kvng (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposed deletion asks "does anybody object?". If nobody does, we're done. It's a simple and mostly automated process.  Being "bold" can bother some people, so I seldom do that. John Nagle (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD should only be used if you have no expectation of objection. There are not enough editors reviewing PRODs to use it as a call for objections. The difference between WP:PROD and WP:BOLD is that BOLD redirects can be undone by anyone. Articles deleted through PROD can only be recovered by an administrator. ~Kvng (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I can see a merge. I just revised National_Firearms_Act to use better sources (New York Times and The Guardian instead of sites selling trust documents) and updated it now that the regulations have been issued. John Nagle (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Does the above conversation and resultant merge proposal pertain to Gun trust as well? - Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd suggest merging both of them to National Firearms Act John Nagle (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been a few weeks. Any objections to the merge? John Nagle (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Go forth and mergify. Brianhe (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. John Nagle (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

FFL?
The acronym FFL appears several times, but is never explained. --Badger151 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Firearms Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728164426/http://www.atf.gov/about/history/atf-from-1789-1998.html to http://www.atf.gov/about/history/atf-from-1789-1998.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010051247/http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-5300-11.html to http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-5300-11.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514225245/http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm to http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Class 3
The term "class 3" appears in the article, but there is no explanation of what the term "class 3" means.

Is "class 3" a type of license? Is it a type of weapon? A type of seller? A type of manufacturer? A type of importer? A type of buyer? I would argue that if a term is important enough to be used in the article, a clear, properly sourced definition should be provided.

By the way, is there a "class 1" and a "class 2"? Famspear (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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)


 * Among lawyers and judges, the term "bad law" is often used in a more narrow sense -- to mean "not the law" or "no longer the law." For example, the Dred Scott decision was once the law of the United States but is no longer the law -- and is "bad law" in that sense, not merely in the broader sense that someone considers the Dred Scott case to be "unfair." United States v. Miller might be considered "bad law" (in the more general sense described by editor Mlorrey above) by people interested in the case law on guns, etc. Famspear (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Silencer/suppressor
Which is correct? "Silencer" or "suppressor"?

Answer: Both terms are correct.

The term silencer is simply the legal term -- the term actually found in the U.S. Federal statutes, including and the National Firearms Act, in subsection (a) of. Famspear (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)