Gun Control Acts (& Ensuing Reviews & Comments)

[ImminentDanger]

(Caution: Many of these references are Copyrighted Material)
(Warning: Articles Linked may raise your blood pressure!)

A very interesting read here:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Warner1.html

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)
29 (1938): 529.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.

THE UNIFORM PISTOL ACT*

SAM B. WARNER

Restrictions on the use of pistols are nothing new. The first state to pass a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed pistols, was Kentucky in 1813.[1] Though Indiana followed in 1820[2] and Arkansas and Georgia in 1837[3] such statutes did not become common[4] until after the passage of the New York Sullivan Law in 1911.[5] [Page 530]

The various state pistol statutes have usually been held constitutional in spite of the second amendment to the Constitution of, he United States which guarantees the right to bear arms, and somewhat similar provisions in the constitutions of most states.[11] The acts most universally upheld are those prohibiting or regulating the carrying of concealed pistols. Of more doubtful constitutionality are prohibitions on carrying pistols openly, especially those of the type used by the United States army.

Clearly a man should be allowed to apply only in the city or county where he resides or is [Page 542] employed. If he has not been there long enough for the chief of police to have confidence that he is a suitable person to be licensed, he should not be able to secure a license. If one licensing official or board turns him down, there should be no other co-equal authority to which he can apply.

If we agree that only one person or board should have the authority to grant a license, the next question is whether that authority should be lodged in the judge, the chief of police or sheriff, or some other person or board. The lack, in pistol licensing acts, of a definite description of the persons to be licensed adds to the importance of the licensing power. From this it does not fol. low that the best plan is to confide the licensing authority to the appropriate judge, though this is often done and usually with success.[32] Judges have the necessary temperament, but not the requisite interest or means of knowledge. If an applicant appeared before a judge with two witnesses who swore to his good character and the chief of police or the prosecutor said merely that he did not know the applicant or his witnesses, a judge would be too likely to grant a license.

What is needed is not testimony, especially that of unknown people, but a report of a search of the files for the applicant's prior criminal record and of interviews with his employers and neighbors. A police department can make investigations of this sort most effectively. Hence the chief of police is made the licensing authority even more commonly than the judge.[33]

Though most chiefs of police make good licensing authorities, [Page 543] there are likely to be one or two in every state who issue licenses without proper examination because of friendship or for some other reason. The same danger exists when this authority is given to any large body of men. In Illinois it was the improper issuance of licenses by judges, which caused the state to give up the system of licensing. Because of this danger, New Jersey has entrusted, he licensing authority to a judge who may act only on applications already approved by the chief of police.[34]

An excellent plan is that now used in Michigan. In each county there is a "Concealed Weapon Licensing Board," consisting of the prosecuting attorney, the sheriff and the commissioner of public safety or their deputies. It may issues licenses to any resident of the county who has been approved in writing by the chief of police.[35] Perhaps an even better plan is that set out in the Uniform Pistol Act,[36] which provides that all licenses are to be granted by a single state licensing authority, preferably the Commissioner of Public Safety, on applications approved by the chief police officer of the applicant's place of residence. This provides for investigation in the first instance by the chief. of police or sheriff who is likely to know the applicant or have easy access to information about him. At the same time it gives the central police authority the right to investigate further or to reject applicants approved by chiefs of police thought to be careless. It also ensures a central file of applications and does away with the possibility that an applicant who has been refused a license in one county may secure one by moving into another where his record is not known.

The Uniform Firearms Act (1931)
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UniformFirearmsAct.html

Any person who commits or attempts to commit a "crime of violence"11 when armed with a pistol may be punished for being so armed in addition to, the penalty provided for the crime itself.12 The fact that such a person was armed with a pistol at the time without a license to carry it is deemed prima facie evidence of his intent to commit such a crime of violence

The Source of the Uniform Firearms Act
http://www.nccusl.org

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC, also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), established in 1892, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.

Uniform Machine Gun Act
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/1932...ne_gun_act.txt

The act is intended not only to curb the use of the machine gun, but to make it unwise for any civilian to possess one of the objectionable type.

The act defines a machine gun so that it will exclude automatic or semi-automatic sporting rifles or shotguns.

A "crime of violence" is defined as in the Uniform Firearms Act, except that kidnapping is added.

Possession or use of a machine gun of any kind in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime of violence, is declared to be a crime; following the similar provision in the Uniform Firearms Act. In this connection it may be proper to again call attention to experience in England, where it is still quite unusual to find crimes of violence committed by persons who are armed, undoubtedly because in that country a person found guilty of committing a crime of violence when armed receives, by a mandatory provision of the law, an additional sentence.

...

[ImminentDanger]

(Caution: Many of these references are Copyrighted Material)
(Warning: Articles Linked may raise your blood pressure!)

PISTOL REGULATION: ITS PRINCIPALS AND HISTORY
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Frederick1.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Frederick2.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Frederick3.html

American Journal of Police Science
Sept./Oct. 1931, Page 440
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.

PISTOL REGULATION: ITS PRINCIPALS AND HISTORY
By KARL T. FREDERICK

Editor's Note: For a number of years past the subject of proper regulation of the ownership and use of small arms has been engaging the attention of legislators throughout the United States. A great many bills have been enacted of which practically no two were alike. Some have appeared to have produced beneficial results, in other instances quite the opposite has been the case. In August, 1930, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, meeting in Chicago, finally approved a Uniform Firearms Act which had been before it for consideration over a period of several years. This Act was subsequently accepted as satisfactory by the American Bar Association.

In the article which follows, which was published by Mr. Karl T. Frederick, a distinguished member of the New York Bar, in The American Rifleman in its issues of December, 1930, to July, 1931, the draft of this Act is set forth, together with Mr. Frederick's discussion of the history of firearms legislation up to the present time. All persons interested in the subject of Pistol Regulation will find herein much valuable data presented by a person who has made a careful study of the situation and who is extremely well qualified to make there-from useful deductions.

Practically every State in this country has some kind of regulatory law relating to pistols, but it is impossible for anyone to show any logical connection between restrictive pistol laws and crimes of violence. Some of the States which have the most drastic laws suffer, nevertheless, from the greatest proportion of violent crime; others whose laws are extremely mild and reasonable stand high in respect to the absence of crime.

Most of the countries of Europe have statutes regulating pistols to a greater or less extent. Europe, however, shows one striking exception to the general rule. Switzerland has no restrictive legislation whatever to curb the general and promiscuous use of firearms of any kind. In no country of Europe is the use of firearms more common and general. Every able-bodied adult male is required by law to possess and know how to use a military rifle. In addition he may own as many pistols as he likes. In no country of the world is rifle-and pistol-shooting more universally indulged in by all classes of people; no country possesses a more enviable record in international rifle- and pistol-shooting than Switzerland. There is no requirement of a license to carry a concealed weapon upon the person. In spite of all of these facts, in no country in Europe, with the possible exception of England, are crimes of violence so rare as they are in Switzerland. This fact must give pause to the advocates of pistol prohibition as a crime preventive. These must be something wrong with their argument that firearms, and pistols in particular, are in some way a cause of crime. A defect in their logic is not hard to find. Inanimate objects, such as pistols, knives, axes, or clubs, do not and cannot cause crime. They do not and they cannot supply the motive or the impulse. The causes of crime must be sought elsewhere––in greed, hatred, jealousy, and general moral depravity–and the remedy, if any there be, is more likely to be found in morals and education, in improved police methods of detection, and in the more prompt and certain imposition of punishment.

...

[ImminentDanger]

Reserved for additional references #3

[ImminentDanger]

(Caution: Many of these references are Copyrighted Material)
(Warning: Articles Linked may raise your blood pressure!)

Commentary Regarding The National Firearms Act of 1934
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437703038.html

The first attempt at federal gun-control legislation, the National Firearms Act (NFA) only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on any transfers of such weapons. Despite these limitations, it led to a precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court decision.

National Firearms Act-Tax on Dealers (1938)
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Nation...rmsActTax.html

[Recently the attorney general has asked Congress to require every owner of a rifle, shotgun, revolver or pistol to register his weapon with the bureau of internal revenue. A tax of one dollar would be payable for every firearm sold. The attorney general stated that this legislation would broaden the scope of the present Act and "would place a potent weapon against criminals in the hands of law-enforcement officers." See Chi. Daily News, May 4, 1937, at 4.]

THE RIGHT TO BAR ARMS
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/MannII.htm

South Carolina Law Review Note, 19 (1967): 402.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.

THE RIGHT TO BAR ARMS

"A messenger from Henry, our dread liege, to know the reason of these arms in peace."*

In his crime message to the first session of the Ninetieth Congress, President Johnson requested the enactment of a federal gun control law. That bill,[1] designated the State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 1961[2] and commonly referred to as the Mail Order Gun Control Law or as the Dodd Bill, was introduced by Senator Dodd on February 9, 1967. The Dodd Bill is apparently the final product of several years of committee work and extensive hearings.[3] The consideration of this measure and several others preliminary to it[4] focused attention upon the second amendment to the Constitution, the so-called "lost" amendment.[5] The tremendous controversy precipitated by these efforts has pressed home the question of the reason, scope, and limitation on the legislative power of the constitutional guaranty of a right to keep and bear arms.

It shall be the thesis of this article that the second amendment does not confer any individual right to bear arms except when such conduct is necessary to the militia. Indeed, the better constitutional issue is whether the state and federal government have the right to bar arms entirely. Finally, a review of existing federal and state firearms regulations will be offered. Policy arguments touching the necessity and desirability of various firearm regulation schemes; will be left to those presently engaging in an extensive dialogue.

FIREARMS AND FEDERAL LAW: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

FIREARMS AND FEDERAL LAW: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968

FRANKLIN E. ZIMRING*

In 1968, after five years of debate on firearms control, Congress passed a Gun Control Act designed to "provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence."[1] This paper reports on an effort to study the impact of the Gun Control Act on the problems that prompted its passage. The study is of possible interest for two reasons.

First, it is an attempt to increase our rather modest knowledge of the effects of governmental efforts to control firearms violence. In recent years the rate of gun violence in the United States has managed to grow to alarming proportions without the benefit of sustained academic attention.[2] The 1968 Act--the only major change in federal policy since 1938¾seems a natural place to look for clues about the effects of gun controls. And the need for knowledge in this area seems obvious, inasmuch as controversy is rampant and new federal legislative proposals are almost a weekly Washington event.

Second, the study is an effort to gain some perspective on the difficulties [Page 134] and promise of empirical studies of "legal impact." Over the past few years, studies attempting to assess the impact of legislation have begun to occupy an important place in law-related scholarship.[3] Diverse both in subject matter[4] and methodology, these studies are motivated by the hope that they will build toward a deeper understanding of law as an instrument of social control.[5]

Shooting to Kill the Handgun: Time to Martyr Another American "Hero"
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Riley1.htm

Journal of Urban Law (University of Detroit) 51 (1972): 491.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.

COMMENT

Shooting to Kill the Handgun: Time to Martyr Another American "Hero"

VI. CONCLUSION

There is wholly insufficient justification for the private possession of handguns in contemporary America. The public suffering [Page 524] resulting from their criminal abuse far outweighs the limited legitimate usages of these weapons. Americans have no right¾natural, constitutional or otherwise¾to personally keep and/or bear these arms. "Strict" regulation of handguns short of outright abolition would inevitably fail to eliminate the widespread public availability of these weapons.

These proposals are hardly novel. They mirror almost exactly the conclusions reached by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. It is an inexcusable quirk in the American political system that "prestigious Presidential commissions," containing "a bipartisan array of some of the nation's most distinguished and knowledgeable citizens,"[179] can labor so long and diligently only to see their efforts negated by executive and legislative inaction.

Perhaps gun opponents should be grateful to "get what they can." Perhaps the Saturday night special will be banned. A short step, after all, is better than no step at all. History indicates, however, that significant gun controls will only result from some future phantasmagora of firearm violence. It took the shocking murder of two American heroes to produce even such an ineffectual result as the Gun Control Act of 1968. One can only wonder what aberrant incident would suffice to create real handgun legislation, and one can only hope that additional traumas will not be necessary.

ROBERT J. RILEY

Regarding the FOPA
http://www.hardylaw.net/FOPA.html - - - - - (interesting homepage here: http://www.hardylaw.net)
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf

THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT:
A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

DAVID T. HARDY*

17 Cumberland Law Review 585 (1986)

The controversy surrounding FOPA's genesis is commensurate to the legal impact of its provisions. FOPA effectively overrules six decisions of the United States Supreme Court,8 (pg.586) moots what would have become a seventh,9 and negates perhaps one-third of the total caselaw construing the Gun Control (pg.587) Act of 1968.10 FOPA's impact, however, is not limited to the Gun Control Act, nor even to federal statutes. By expressly exempting interstate transportation of firearms from the reach of many state firearm laws,11 it affects state proceedings as well. A detailed comprehension of FOPA is thus essential to an understanding of both federal and state firearm laws.(pg.588)

Unfortunately, such a comprehension is not easily achieved. FOPA reflects not a simple, single legislative decision, but a complex series of compromises, many of which are only partially reflected in the record.12 Even where the record is complete, it is rarely clear. The House bill that ultimately became FOPA is supported by a report, but the report explains not why FOPA should have been adopted, but rather, why it ought to have been rejected.13 The House bill's predecessor and Senate counterpart, S. 49, was never referred to committee and went instead to the floor with no report whatsoever.14 S. 49's ancestors were the subject of two reports15 which, unfortunately, are in hopeless conflict in certain aspects.16 To add to its original complexity, FOPA was, prior to its effective date, amended by a second enactment17 which was in turn modified by a concurrent resolution.18 The need for a comprehensive review of this (pg.589) controversial and convoluted legislation is thus clear.19 The statute's core can be found in the real consistencies obscured by seeming chaos.

The purpose of this Article is to examine the Firearms Owners' Protection Act in both historic and legal perspectives. Accordingly, the Article first examines the framework of federal firearm legislation as it evolved prior to FOPA. Then, the seven-year evolution of FOPA itself is analyzed. Finally, this Article evaluates the nature of the more significant changes embodied in this controversial enactment.

The United States Supreme Court Regarding The Second Amendment
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kopel2.htm

Saint Louis University Public Law Review
Symposium: Gun Control - vol. 18, (1999): 203
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.

THE SOUNDS OF THE SUPREMES: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR YASSKY

David B. Kopel *

The Standard Model scholars agree that the Second Amendment guarantees[23] a right of ordinary citizens to own and carry firearms. Almost all of the Standard Model scholars would include handguns, shotguns, and rifles within the scope of the protection, although Don Kates argues for rifle bans in urban areas.[24] With a few exceptions, most of the scholars have no Second Amendment objection to measures such as the federal instant background check for prospective gun buyers. The "Compelling State Interest" and "Least Restrictive Alternative" tests, which are well developed in Supreme Court jurisprudence, provide an easy template for preserving gun controls which make a genuine contribution to public safety without infringing the rights of the blameless.

There are still unsettled issues regarding the boundaries of the Second Amendment (are machine guns included?) and how much various degrees of licensing/registration/waiting periods might infringe the Second Amendment. But the existence of these unresolved issues at the edge of the Right to Arms does not mean that Standard Model scholars have failed to detail what is in the core. That First Amendment scholars in the 1930s or 1940s had not settled some issues (e.g., the boundary line for obscenity; exactly what requirements were appropriate for parade permits; how to treat non-verbal communication such as arm bands) does not mean that those scholars failed to "specify" what the First Amendment protects (most types of political and artistic speech, except for incitement, according to those First Amendment scholars).

http://uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vol60/vol60-6.html (2009)
Particularly...
Four Exceptions in Search of a Theory:
District of Columbia v. Heller and Judicial Ipse Dixit
http://uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vo...0-HLJ-1371.pdf

In broad terms, there are two general approaches to the exceptions. First, they could be examples of originalist reasoning at a fairly specific level of application, what Jack Balkin would refer to as “original expected application[s].”9 Under this view, the exceptions are justified because nobody in 1791 would have expected the Second Amendment to invalidate regulations of this sort. Indeed, in response to Justice Breyer’s dissent, the Court noted, “[T]here will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.”10 The Court thus implied that specific historical justifications are necessary to uphold the exceptions. Yet, as I argue in Part I, such a view is almost impossible to maintain. The Heller exceptions lack the historical grounding that would normally justify an exception to a significant constitutional right. Whatever the Court is doing here, it is not rigorously grounded in eighteenth-century sources.

Second, the exceptions might be explained not on originalist grounds, but as results of an unstated standard of scrutiny. Under this view, the exceptions can be “reverse engineered” to identify the standard of scrutiny actually employed. As I argue in Part II, the standard of scrutiny simply cannot be strict scrutiny, as many of the exceptions are inexplicable under strict scrutiny, a point hinted at by Justice Breyer in dissent.11 The Court is applying some lower standard of scrutiny, but it is difficult to know what precisely it is.

Also....

"...the handgun, has become a menace to our society." (1979) http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsProh.htm

"THE BRADY BILL COMES DUE: THE PRINTZ CASE AND STATE AUTONOMY" (1999) http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KopelGM1.html

You can Google Search here for other SAF material: " site:http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/ "


...

[anonymouse]

Now you got me reading.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Brabner-Smith1.html

I thought this had some good background information on the UFA:

THE UNIFORM FIREARMS ACT

After the World War the growing current of public opinion against the right of individuals to possess or carry freely revolvers and pistols became more assertive. An effort was made in a number of states to adopt the rigid provisions of the Sullivan Law in New York, which is the severest anti-firearm legislation in the United States. As the result the United States Revolver Association endeavored to draft legislation of a less drastic nature to be urged as uniform legislation throughout the states, in order to forestall laws which might seriously interfere with the privileges of pistol shooting and hunting.

This proposed uniform firearm law, which adopted various provisions from existing state firearm laws, was called to the attention of the National [Page 404] Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1923. The substance of these provisions was enacted in the California,[16] North Dakota,[17] and New Hampshire Firearms Acts[18] of that year. In 1925 the first draft of the proposed "Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms" was discussed at the Conference, and, after numerous changes, was adopted by the Conference in 1926.[19] This proposed act at once was severely criticized as not being sufficiently drastic.

These criticisms were principally made by law enforcement officers. The National Crime Commission received so many protests that it organized a committee to study and propose uniform firearm legislation. The resulting uniform act was considerably more drastic than the act proposed by the Conference. As the result both the Conference and the American Bar Association reconsidered the previous act. For four years there were frequent meetings between committees of the National Crime Commission and the Conference, and eventually the present Uniform Act was presented. This proposed law is summarized as follows:[20]

1. The carrying of a "pistol," defined as any firearm with a barrel less than twelve inches in length, in a vehicle or concealed on the person is forbidden to all except law enforcement officers and certain others, except upon the issuance of a license. (No license is required, therefore, for the purchase or possession of a pistol so long as it is not carried beyond the limits of the owner's abode or place of business.)

2. A crime of violence committed by one armed with a "pistol" carries a penalty in addition to that prescribed for the crime, and the fact that one charged with a crime of violence is armed and has no license is prima facie evidence of his intention to commit such a crime.

3. The delivery of "pistols" is forbidden to certain classes of persons, such as drug addicts, habitual drunkards and minors under eighteen, if there is reasonable cause to believe that the applicant is in one of the designated classes; and possession is prohibited to any person convicted of a crime of violence.

4. The sale of "pistols" is regulated by licensing the dealer. The sale may be made only after forty-eight hours have elapsed from the time the purchaser makes application for the firearm, and such application must contain certain information identifying the applicant and the weapon to be sold. A copy of this application must be sent by the dealer to local police authorities. Moreover, the seller must personally know the purchaser.

5. The pawning of pistols is forbidden.

6. A penalty is imposed for altering or removing the identifying marks of the [Page 405] firearm and the possession of a weapon from which the identifying marks have been removed is prima facie evidence that the possessor removed such marks.

This Act with minor changes was adopted for the District of Columbia by the Congress in 1932,[21] and by the State of Pennsylvania in 1931.[22]