View Full Version : H.R. 3155 Racketeer Weapons and Violent Crime Control Act...
So if you ever wondered how exactly the 86 MG Ban aka FOPA 86 happened and why the NRA and a NRA Life Member President (Ronald Reagan) would sign such a thing, you might find this interesting reading.
This is from the Jan. 1986 issue of Soldier of Fortune and this is the legislation Peter Rodino (D-NJ) and William Hughes (D-NJ) were hoping to get passed.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d099:9:./temp/~bdaPBa::
http://imageshack.us/a/img690/8502/3f9k.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img42/6439/i86f.jpg
Under the intended law pre 86 machine guns would be "grandfathered" but non transferable. That means when the owners died, the estate would be required to sell the weapons to the Secretary of the Treasury.
That means damn few people would own ANY machine guns today and nobody would be able to buy one at all. And it contained only a few of the beneficial provisions of FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) 86 in order to make it attractive to some gun owners.
It permitted dealers to sell at gun shows and raised the price of FFL costs to $200 hoping to entice gun dealers to support it by giving them the opportunity to do gun shows and drive "kitchen table" FFLs out of the market. At the time I think a FFL was about $60 for three years.
It eliminated the record keeping requirement for ammo sales (unless it was for 1,000 rounds or more), with FOPA there was no requirement for any record keeping for ammo sales which had existed since 1968.
And this law would not only close the registration for machine guns, but suppressors as well. That means almost NOBODY here would own any kind of suppressor at all.
This is what the NRA and the President were up against with a Democrat majority Congress. This bill would have done little to eliminate abuses and excesses of the 1968 Gun Control Act and would have closed the books on machine guns and suppressors.
It would not contain provisions that protected people from traveling with firearms through states where they are illegal.
It would not contain provisions that protected non dealers who made favorable sales or trades of personal weapons.
It would not contain provisions that allowed the importation of surplus military rifles.
What we got instead was FOPA and Reagan did not have a line item veto. It could have been much worse.
Moose-Knuckle
09-19-13, 18:07
Thanks for the history lesson there Steyr. Now to see what comes of the Trust "loophole" (:rolleyes:) issue that Barry has raised.
Interesting article, thanks.
Bumped because a lot of people just don't know this stuff.
Bumped because a lot of people just don't know this stuff.
Many who were not around during this time will wail that RR and the NRA "sold us out". At the time, we gained far more than we lost...
Having become a firearm owner only in 2006, its interesting to see how the history of ownership has developed over the years.
Thanks for the article!
Very good information, but sad to see how much we have to celebrate having only one or two fingers chopped off instead of all five.
Bumped because even here many people still don't know.
Bumped again because people still don't know.
New link to the actual act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/3155
Introduced in House (08/01/1985)
Racketeer Weapons and Violent Crime Control Act of 1985 - Amends the Gun Control Act to define "handgun" as a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
Imposes a waiting period of up to 15 days for a record check before a handgun purchaser is able to obtain possession of a handgun. Requires the licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer to mail the appropriate form to the chief law enforcement officer of the place of residence of the purchaser notifying the chief of the proposed sale. Requires such chief to perform a record check. Directs the licensee to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow it to examine Federal criminal records. Establishes a procedure to notify authorities if a handgun has been purchased by someone subsequently found to be unqualified if the licensee receives this disqualifying information after the transfer has occurred.
Prohibits the transfer and possession of machine guns. Enables a person to dispose of an unwanted legally registered machine gun by selling it to the Secretary of the Treasury. Makes such prohibition inapplicable to certain lawfully registered machine guns.
Prohibits the transfer and possession of silencers. Authorized the Secretary to to buy any registered silencers.
Permits gun sales at certain gun shows.
Revises the criteria reviewed by the Secretary in approving applications for licenses. Grants the Secretary authority to suspend rather than to revoke a license.
Eliminates the record-keeping requirements for licensed collectors with respect to transfer of curios to other licensed collectors. Exempts from record-keeping requirements the sale of ammunition in quantities of less than 1,000 rounds.
Allows individuals who have violated the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act to apply for relief from the legal disabilities imposed by such statutes. Allows persons formerly found incompetent to lawfully receive and possess firearms when it is found that such possession would not pose a danger to the individual or the safety of the community.
Increases the annual license fee for licensed firearm dealers, pawnbrokers, importers, and manufacturers.
Establishes the Firearms Compliance Fund with the money received from the licensing fees. Allows the fund to be used for grants to States and local agencies to provide assistance in enforcing gun control or the firearm safety program.
Makes a technical correction with regard to the receipt of firearms by a drug addict.
Bumped because people continue to post nonsense and have no idea what they are talking about.
I can't and won't bash Reagan for doing what he did as it was for, and I hate this phrase, 'the greater good'.
I can and will however besmirch and show contempt for our government as a whole that willfully ignores "Shall not be infringed" out of a self serving fear of another 1776 or 1861.
Everytime I hear "common sense" gun legislation I can only reply common sense term limits and how an 18 year old kid can get kicked out of a plane to die on a rock that nobody but his platoon members will know about or remember but a bunch of charlatans and liars get to exempt themselves and vote for their own pay raises.
So Ronald Reagan (Peace Be Upon Him) did what he could but I hope thete is a hell and everyone who BSed their waybthrough with a voice vote rots in the deepest pits of darkest, coldest Godless Hell
I can't and won't bash Reagan for doing what he did as it was for, and I hate this phrase, 'the greater good'.
I can and will however besmirch and show contempt for our government as a whole that willfully ignores "Shall not be infringed" out of a self serving fear of another 1776 or 1861.
Everytime I hear "common sense" gun legislation I can only reply common sense term limits and how an 18 year old kid can get kicked out of a plane to die on a rock that nobody but his platoon members will know about or remember but a bunch of charlatans and liars get to exempt themselves and vote for their own pay raises.
So Ronald Reagan (Peace Be Upon Him) did what he could but I hope thete is a hell and everyone who BSed their waybthrough with a voice vote rots in the deepest pits of darkest, coldest Godless Hell
I don't think many will disagree with that assessment.
I'm just providing the whole picture that many of the "Reagan banned machine guns" crowd seem to be completely ignorant of. As is usually the situation with good people, he had to make a choice between two shitty options. If there was a better third option I'm sure he would have taken it.
The reality is we should have never gotten the 1968 gun control act in the first place. And that one contained the first machine gun ban, of course most people have no clue about that. The "sporter clause" within the 1968 GCA is what allowed for all of this nonsense, including the amendment to ban domestic machine guns.
I wish everyone who wrote "it's Reagan's fault" on the internet would invest that time and effort into removing the "sporter clause" from the 68 GCA. If we could unite and accomplish that single goal, the basis for every ban including the 1968 ban on imports, 1986 ban on domestic machine guns and the 1989 import ban would be removed and all of those restrictions would either be instantly nullified or vulnerable to legal challenge.
Sadly, despite the internet, too few gun owners understand this.
The sporter clause has to go, for good. It is bound to come back and do more harm to 2A; just look at the recent M855 ban attempt.
I don't think many will disagree with that assessment.
I'm just providing the whole picture that many of the "Reagan banned machine guns" crowd seem to be completely ignorant of. As is usually the situation with good people, he had to make a choice between two shitty options. If there was a better third option I'm sure he would have taken it.
The reality is we should have never gotten the 1968 gun control act in the first place. And that one contained the first machine gun ban, of course most people have no clue about that. The "sporter clause" within the 1968 GCA is what allowed for all of this nonsense, including the amendment to ban domestic machine guns.
I wish everyone who wrote "it's Reagan's fault" on the internet would invest that time and effort into removing the "sporter clause" from the 68 GCA. If we could unite and accomplish that single goal, the basis for every ban including the 1968 ban on imports, 1986 ban on domestic machine guns and the 1989 import ban would be removed and all of those restrictions would either be instantly nullified or vulnerable to legal challenge.
Sadly, despite the internet, too few gun owners understand this.
I'll go you one better Steyr, we never should have had NFA 34 foisted upon us. It was this law that started all the tax and registry nonsense in the first place.
I'll go you one better Steyr, we never should have had NFA 34 foisted upon us. It was this law that started all the tax and registry nonsense in the first place.
Of course.
He's just peeling back the onion, one layer at a time.
titsonritz
09-20-15, 11:17
The reality is we should have never gotten the 1968 gun control act in the first place. And that one contained the first machine gun ban, of course most people have no clue about that. The "sporter clause" within the 1968 GCA is what allowed for all of this nonsense, including the amendment to ban domestic machine guns.
I wish everyone who wrote "it's Reagan's fault" on the internet would invest that time and effort into removing the "sporter clause" from the 68 GCA. If we could unite and accomplish that single goal, the basis for every ban including the 1968 ban on imports, 1986 ban on domestic machine guns and the 1989 import ban would be removed and all of those restrictions would either be instantly nullified or vulnerable to legal challenge.
Sadly, despite the internet, too few gun owners understand this.
Oh yeah, the "sporter clause" is a huge deal. It has played a part in just about every anti-gun legislation since its inception from bans or attempted bans on semi-auto pistols & rifles, standard capacity mags, "Saturday Night Specials", bayonet lugs, 855 ammo, you name it. All hinging on how "sporting" is interpreted by the ATF. This is a bad, bad deal for the 2A and its supporters and must be eliminated.
In a nut shell:
"Our fundamental constitutional freedoms are not secure as long as federal law gives government bureaucrats unlimited power to apply the subjective term 'sporting purpose' to ban the products law-abiding Americans use to exercise their Second Amendment right"
---Chris W. Cox
Moose-Knuckle
09-21-15, 00:14
I'll go you one better Steyr, we never should have had NFA 34 foisted upon us. It was this law that started all the tax and registry nonsense in the first place.
Cause and effect . . . the National Firearms Act of 1934 was a direct result of the National Prohibition Act (aka the Volstead Act) of 1919.
I'll go you one better Steyr, we never should have had NFA 34 foisted upon us. It was this law that started all the tax and registry nonsense in the first place.
In a perfect world, it would all be gone and my grandfather would have bought his Thompson back in the 1930s when he had enough money to buy a car or the gun he wanted and decided to get the gun and keep driving the family delivery vehicle. This was right AFTER they passed the law, needless to say he never got his Thompson.
But of all the laws, I can live with the NFA the most. It's a tax, not a ban. Granted it functioned as an economic ban, but I could live with it, especially if we could remove the "sporter clause" and open up the NFA registry.
But if I had my magic wand, suppressors would be a "non regulated" accessory no different than a flash hider or muzzle brake. Short barreled rifles and shotguns would simply be a length option. And machine guns would be no different than any other Title I firearm except for the rate with which they consume ammo.
It's all just crap from the Bonnie and Clyde era and I'd like to point out those dipshits were zapped by guys with BARs. The North Hollywood bank robbery and shootings are a perfect example that criminals can't be regulated despite the fact that we passed laws in 1934, 1968 and 1986 with the legislative belief that they could prevent exactly that kind of "Dillinger" style hard taking of banks.
Cause and effect . . . the National Firearms Act of 1934 was a direct result of the National Prohibition Act (aka the Volstead Act) of 1919.
Actually it had more to do with Prohibition being repealed in December 5, 1933. Couldn't have all those unemployed Treasury agents during the depression. But never fear, FDR signed the NFA into law June 26, 1934 giving them something new to regulate.
At least handguns weren't successfully included in the NFA, because they were originally intended to be. Can you imagine this country with no 1911s, Colt revolvers or bring back Lugers through most of the 20th century?
Bumped again for all the youngsters
AnthonyCumia
02-11-16, 03:14
Actually it had more to do with Prohibition being repealed in December 5, 1933. Couldn't have all those unemployed Treasury agents during the depression. But never fear, FDR signed the NFA into law June 26, 1934 giving them something new to regulate.
At least handguns weren't successfully included in the NFA, because they were originally intended to be. Can you imagine this country with no 1911s, Colt revolvers or bring back Lugers through most of the 20th century?
I guess it would be cheaper to pay them to do nothing.
Unemployed Federal Agents wouldn't hurt my feelings much.
Some are groovy guys but most have a bit of a complex.
I got a funny story I can't really share but suffice it to say I had a dude tell me with a straight face "If these [cigs and beer and by extension guns] weren't taxed we wouldn't have a safe country. We're leveling the playing field"
Me, being the cheeky thing that I am, said "Who said we needed one?"
AnthonyCumia
02-11-16, 19:39
Unemployed Federal Agents wouldn't hurt my feelings much.
Some are groovy guys but most have a bit of a complex.
I got a funny story I can't really share but suffice it to say I had a dude tell me with a straight face "If these [cigs and beer and by extension guns] weren't taxed we wouldn't have a safe country. We're leveling the playing field"
Me, being the cheeky thing that I am, said "Who said we needed one?"
Hell pay them to not do anything and shut down the ATF.
Saves us money, lives and Liberty.
AnthonyCumia
02-11-16, 19:40
Unemployed Federal Agents wouldn't hurt my feelings much.
Some are groovy guys but most have a bit of a complex.
I got a funny story I can't really share but suffice it to say I had a dude tell me with a straight face "If these [cigs and beer and by extension guns] weren't taxed we wouldn't have a safe country. We're leveling the playing field"
Me, being the cheeky thing that I am, said "Who said we needed one?"
Hell pay them to not do anything and shut down the ATF.
Saves us money, lives and Liberty.
Bumped because I'm still explaining this to people.
I see history of the left playing agressive offense and taking ground and the right playing defense and losing ground, and it continues 32 years later.
Why are we justifying it by “this is what we were up against”?
Why are the leftists not facing elimination of the sporter clause?
Why are they not facing repeal of the hughes amendment?
Where is the opposing force to the 94 awb?
Where is the proposed bill for OTC DD and FA?
Is the NRA too weak or do they not want to push for freedom?
Diamondback
12-04-18, 22:07
I see history of the left playing agressive offense and taking ground and the right playing defense and losing ground, and it continues 32 years later.
Why are we justifying it by “this is what we were up against”?
Why are the leftists not facing elimination of the sporter clause?
Why are they not facing repeal of the hughes amendment?
Where is the opposing force to the 94 awb?
Where is the proposed bill for OTC DD and FA?
Is the NRA too weak or do they not want to push for freedom?
The Fudds can't wrap their minds around the idea that the best defense is a counter-offense so hard it puts your boot firmly on the aggressor's throat.
I see history of the left playing agressive offense and taking ground and the right playing defense and losing ground, and it continues 32 years later.
Why are we justifying it by “this is what we were up against”?
Why are the leftists not facing elimination of the sporter clause?
Why are they not facing repeal of the hughes amendment?
Where is the opposing force to the 94 awb?
Where is the proposed bill for OTC DD and FA?
Is the NRA too weak or do they not want to push for freedom?
I can answer some of that. In 1986 we did push back. The FOPA of 86 was the first time elements of the 1968 Gun Control Act were eliminated and it had been attempted pretty much every year since 1968. In 1986 we finally had a President who was willing to sign.
Amazingly, he was criticized for it. So who do we imagine would have signed an "improved FOPA"? Bush 41 who gave us the Import Ban of 89? Clinton who have us the domestic ban of 94? Bush 43 who added Chinese imports to the 89 Ban and stated he would sign a reauthoriztion of the Clinton Ban? Obama?
Fact of the matter is Reagan understood that this was coming no matter what. If he didn't pass FOPA with the Hughes Amendment, the Hughes Amendment in some form (probably worse) would have simply been added to the 89 Import Ban or the 94 Domestic Ban and that would be that EXCEPT we wouldn't have any of the protections of FOPA, just another ban.
They wanted to take it all, if Hughes got his way NOBODY today would own a machine gun or a suppressor and the registries for both would have been closed for decades now. This also means decades of new shooters having no experience with NFA weapons and thinking those are for "military only" which means most of you wouldn't have a Colt 6920 today assuming it would even be legal.
Sadly 1986 was also the LAST year we amended parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act. How many second amendment supporters even realize that was the FIRST machine gun ban, in 68 all foreign NFA items were made NON transferable. This is why NOBODY has a transferable factory MP5, they all began life as a semi auto HK 94 that was domestically converted and registered.
Also it seems the NRA isn't ready to take on the "sporter clause" and I don't think any other groups like GOA have the muscle to even dream about such a task. The last really significant win was Heller and that had nothing to do with the NRA except of course their original efforts to undermine it. But of course they mention all the time now like they did it instead of the Cato Institute.
So why is a virtually unknown libertarian advocacy group giving us our last significant win instead of the NRA? Probably for the same reason the NRA had Harry Reid as an NRA A Rated candidate for YEARS until it was time for him to change his tune and try and shove the Sandy Hook Ban second attempt through Congress when everyone thought it was over and done with.
Hell we couldn't even get the HPA through successfully and people dream of getting rid of the Hughes Amendment?
What it would take is for at least 50% if the NRA membership to actually understand these things and actually know about what happened, why and how. Unfortunately all anyone seems to remember about 1986 is the Reagan Machine Gun Ban.
And if you really want to see people look at you like a martian, mention that in 2004 a Republican majority Congress under a Republican president successfully passed the reauthorization of the Clinton Assault Weapon ban as an amendment to a industry protection bill put forth by Larry Craig and the only reason it didn't happen is because Craig then killed his own bill.
So for all of those who enjoyed the sunset and the buying spree that followed, you can thank ONE GUY and he's the same guy who trolled airport mens rooms for encounters. Because every other ****ing Republican supported the renewal of the ban in numbers large enough to pass it.
To go on the offensive we'd need to get rid of the Ryans, McConnells, Kasichs and the rest of the useless clowns in the GOP.
Diamondback
12-05-18, 00:09
To go on the offensive we'd need to get rid of the Ryans, McConnells, Kasichs and the rest of the useless clowns in the GOP.
I was just saying over on a consservative-activist Slack chat, DC and the GOP in particular need a purge that would make Stalin barf his borscht.
To go on the offensive we'd need to get rid of the Ryans, McConnells, Kasichs and the rest of the useless clowns in the GOP.********************************
We would have to get rid of about 2/3 of the Republican party,maybe more, the worthless whores.
The sporter clause has to go, for good. It is bound to come back and do more harm to 2A; just look at the recent M855 ban attempt.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-bill-regulate-armor-piercing-ammunition
I can answer some of that. In 1986 we did push back. The FOPA of 86 was the first time elements of the 1968 Gun Control Act were eliminated and it had been attempted pretty much every year since 1968. In 1986 we finally had a President who was willing to sign.
You left out some of the details that got us there.
1968 - GCA passed
1972 - ATF organized
1972+ - ATF engages in heavy handed tactics
1977 - Cincinnati revolt at NRA convention. Fudds tossed out of power and pro-RKBA installed.
1979 - Senate hearings on ATF abuse
1982 - first version of fopa introduced, went nowhere
1984 - RR passes Trade and Tariff Act, allowing allow licensed importers to import firearms listed by the Secretary as curios or relics, excluding handguns not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. The amendment had the effect of allowing the importation of surplus military curio or relic firearms that were previously prohibited from importation by 18 USC section 925 (d)(3).
1986 - FOPA signed
Good summary of gun law history here:
https://constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf
You left out some of the details that got us there.
1968 - GCA passed
1972 - ATF organized
1972+ - ATF engages in heavy handed tactics
1977 - Cincinnati revolt at NRA convention. Fudds tossed out of power and pro-RKBA installed.
1979 - Senate hearings on ATF abuse
1982 - first version of fopa introduced, went nowhere
1984 - RR passes Trade and Tariff Act, allowing allow licensed importers to import firearms listed by the Secretary as curios or relics, excluding handguns not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. The amendment had the effect of allowing the importation of surplus military curio or relic firearms that were previously prohibited from importation by 18 USC section 925 (d)(3).
1986 - FOPA signed
Good summary of gun law history here:
https://constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf
All true. We could probably go 10 pages on details, especially ATF abuses leading to FOPA.
There are still people who fear "going on the list" but have no idea what that actually means in relation to pre FOPA ownership of NFA weapons.
There are still people who have a negative connotation of "kitchen table FFL" and don't realize that pulling a FFL is what every serious gun collector did prior to FOPA so they wouldn't be charged with "dealing without a license" every time they made a profitable sale or trade because ATF used a very arbitrary criteria for what constitutes a "gun dealer."
I can still remember guys talking about how they were fine if they kept the machine guns in the basement but the bolts in the attic and if you ever got caught shooting them you were forced to "pay your tax" (like a speeding ticket) back in the 1950s. The idea that you could get your door kicked or killed for having undeclared "bring backs" was as completely alien to that generation as being ticketed for not having your seat belt on.
Ronnie sucked, I remember the pos as president well. I never give money to the NRA.
Ronnie sucked, I remember the pos as president well. I never give money to the NRA.
So you'd have preferred the Hughes / Rodino bill? Did you even read the OP?
Diamondback
05-10-19, 23:09
So you'd have preferred the Hughes / Rodino bill? Did you even read the OP?
I get the impression he woulda preferred four more years of Mr. Peanut malaise, complete with high energy prices and gas rationing. :P
I get the impression he woulda preferred four more years of Mr. Peanut malaise, complete with high energy prices and gas rationing. :P
I get the impression he has long since tired of the evil of 2 lessers instead of finding no fault in 1 of the 2 as is the norm.
I never give money to the NRA.
You sir, are part of the reason why "they" have been so successful at incrementally eroding our rights over the years.
Our enemies love it that you don't like the NRA or contribute to fighting their anti-gun BS. Way to go man!
You sir, are part of the reason why "they" have been so successful at incrementally eroding our rights over the years.
Our enemies love it that you don't like the NRA or contribute to fighting their anti-gun BS. Way to go man!
Perhaps he is lobbying openly anti gun groups and occasionally giving them money so they know that he is displeased with their operations.
Probably frequently eats at the nastiest restaurants he can find and gives a larger tip as the service decreases in quality. At some point they will undoubtedly change so that the food/service meets their advertised claims.
Diamondback
05-11-19, 19:39
I get the impression he has long since tired of the evil of 2 lessers instead of finding no fault in 1 of the 2 as is the norm.
The problem is, if you will only accept an ideologically and morally perfect candidate, you'll never find ANYBODY.
The problem is, if you will only accept an ideologically and morally perfect candidate, you'll never find ANYBODY.
I don't know of anyone that expects a person to be perfect. I do think someone opposed to carrying firearm and supporting bans on firearms and ammunition over several decades of their life while either being armed themself or having tax payer funded security is an anti 2nd Amendment tyrant even with a little (R) after their name and was just as flawed as any (D) that exhibited the same traits.
Diamondback
05-11-19, 20:18
Hell, part of me STILL thinks Trump is running a Long Con... the worm won't turn until November of next year at soonest, though. Once the election's over, if he's Lame Duck he has no constraints, but if he wins and if the GOP holds Senate plus retakes House he has to hold at least somewhat close to the line until after the Midterms for the sake of "his legacy."
You sir, are part of the reason why "they" have been so successful at incrementally eroding our rights over the years.
Our enemies love it that you don't like the NRA or contribute to fighting their anti-gun BS. Way to go man!
Actually if you want your money to be effective, the contributions need to go to the NRA-ILA because pretty much every dime you give to the NRA is spent on operational costs and membership drives, advertising. Granted a large membership creates a "voting block" that politicians have to respect on some level but a basic membership doesn't really send any money to actually fight the fight.
Also I don't think any gun owner is obligated to like the NRA, let alone support the NRA anymore than they are obligated to vote Republican if they don't feel represented by the GOP. And we will always trail behind because most gun owners are "individualists" who don't feel they owe anything to anyone because they are also inherently opposed to ideas of socialism / communism.
This is also why so many of them prefer to join "no compromise" organizations that most politicians have never even heard of and of vote or at least support third parties groups when it comes to politics. Unlike many on the left who genuinely believe Democrats are the party of "freedom" when tend to be a little more thought out and researched so we are less than satisfied when the Republicans fail to represent us and take it very personally when a second amendment advocacy group falls short.
But that's the nature of things and freedom means "free to decide" even if we don't agree with the decision.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.