Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Pb on June 12, 2020, 11:18:51 AM
-
What / when was the first gun licensing law in the USA?
-
NFA '34.
-
NFA '34 isn't a licensing law, it's a tax act.
-
To the best of my knowledge, it's New York's Sullivan Act of 1911:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act
-
Though not actually a licensing law, back in 1837, Georgia banned handguns except for flintlock "horse pistols" unless they were carried openly. And in 1865, various states enacted "black codes" to disarm newly emancipated former slaves.
-
And in 1865, various states enacted "black codes" to disarm newly emancipated former slaves.
I highly doubt that such laws were passed in 1865 when the South was still under Federal jurisdiction called "Reconstruction." Once the North was no longer administering the South, those laws got passed. (Some time after 1877, would be my guess).
(Checked my own work. Wow. I guess Mississippi was first in 1865. I was ignorant of that period. The codes WERE reversed by congress in 1867-1868, but they were passed prior.)
-
NFA '34 isn't a licensing law, it's a tax act.
You say potato, I say infringement.
-
You say potato, I say infringement.
I agree.
-
December 15th, 1791.
-
You say potato, I say infringement.
I quite agree. I will not tolerate any state banning or infringing my right to potato chips.
-
From Fly320s:
Quote from: Hawkmoon on June 12, 2020, 11:33:30 AM
"NFA '34 isn't a licensing law, it's a tax act."
You say potato, I say infringement.
Well said, sir ! I laughed, I cried.
$200 tax back then is about equivalent to $2500 (+/-) today at only 3% inflation a year for 86 years. If that ain't intended as a proscriptive (infringing) tax, I don't know what is.
Think about paying $2500 for a tax stamp nowadays for your legal suppressor.
Terry
($2,541.16 if you're being persnickety about it. =D )
-
I ran $200 through an inflation calc
$200 (1934) = $3,826.78 (2020)
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Or $3,936
https://smartasset.com/investing/inflation-calculator#AoS1mTQzWW
-
From Fly320s:
Well said, sir ! I laughed, I cried.
$200 tax back then is about equivalent to $2500 (+/-) today at only 3% inflation a year for 86 years. If that ain't intended as a proscriptive (infringing) tax, I don't know what is.
Think about paying $2500 for a tax stamp nowadays for your legal suppressor.
Terry
($2,541.16 if you're being persnickety about it. =D )
However, back then a new car was about $500. You don't get a new Ford for ~$7K these days.
-
However, back then a new car was about $500. You don't get a new Ford for ~$7K these days.
True, but there are other factors at play in that other than just inflation. Way more govt required safety standards/equipment and gadgets/stuff/crap on cars nowadays.
Even with the govt require stuff if we stripped a modern car down to it's bare essentials, closer to the way most 1934 era cars were sold, bet we could get it a lot closer in price.
-
To the best of my knowledge, it's New York's Sullivan Act of 1911:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act
I think there was at least one prior to that in Florida, applied to handguns and Winchester rifles... aimed at the black population. I can't find the law though.
-
It looks like several responses brought up gun laws in general. The OP asked about gun "licensing" laws.
-
Note: I usually use 3% as an inflation rate over long periods just to be conservative, realizing full well that it is usually higher than that.
So,
(1.0386) X 200 = 2,541.16, without going online over it.
I suppose you could quibble about the "3" if you want and come up with a higher present value, but that only reinforces my argument, so thank you. Some would argue that the real current inflation rate is closer to 8% or so.
I think Wiki uses about 3.5%.
Just for grins, WLJ's $3,826.78 present value results from using 3.49 % inflation, call it 3 1/2%.
His $3,936 present value results from using 3.525 % inflation. Call it 3 1/2% plus a red pubic hair.
Hawkmoon, I suspect that the 1934 gun grabbers jumped for joy when someone came up with the concept that they could get away with restricting firearms usage by creating high taxes for various things. But "licensing" or not, it still served their purpose in restricting firearms.
I for one do not understand why a 17.999 inch shotgun barrel is so much more dangerous (and taxable) than an 18.001 inch barrel. So the tax is a dishonest way of "licensing" firearms in the form of a $200 tax stamp "license." You don't have that license, and you have a 17.999 inch barrel shotgun, you go to jail.
I submit therefore that the $200 tax stamp is in fact a "license." And of course, since inflation has devalued that number --hell, $200 nowadays is just a fairly good night out on the town --they figured out that, as an example, they better just cut off the registration list for machine guns. This essentially banned new transfers of them.
As they say, if they can ban one, they can ban them all. All they have to do is fabricate a new legal concept to circumvent the highest law of the land.
Terry, 230RN
Edited for housekeeping.
-
I agree tax stamps are in effect licenses since they have the right to deny you the tax stamp for whatever reason in effect making it a May Issue license vs a Shall Issue one. Add to that they can revoke it for whatever reason. Well we decided people shouldn't have those. Bump stocks anyone? They have you on file and they know where it is.
Also add the fact your "license" is only for your state of residence and that you have to get written permission from them to take it out of state. Almost as if they don't consider it your property but theirs.
This is part of the reason that I went with Bullpups instead of messing around with all this SBR business, keeps the govt out of my business as much as possible. That and the fact that with a BP I maintain a full length barrel without the extra muzzle blast and loss in velocity
-
It looks like several responses brought up gun laws in general. The OP asked about gun "licensing" laws.
Yes... I am interested only in licensing laws... I just found a reference to gun licensing for free blacks in florida in 1824!
Still, I wonder what the first licensing was for citizens?
I know the early USA long had restrictions for non-citizens (slaves, free blacks in some places and Indians).
https://books.google.com/books?id=SFNdYJyfIqkC&pg=PA403&lpg=PA403&dq=%E2%80%9Cshall+enter+into+all+Negro+houses+and+suspected+places,+and+search+for+arms+and+other+offensive+or+improper+weapons,+and+may+lawfully+seize+and+take+away+such+arms,+weapons,+and+ammunition&source=bl&ots=PVMyn-3jAv&sig=94zuWM0Kzqb7Wr8web-JE9YAH3c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4i9Hmwc7NAhXC_R4KHRLBBCEQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cshall%20enter%20into%20all%20Negro%20houses%20and%20suspected%20places%2C%20and%20search%20for%20arms%20and%20other%20offensive%20or%20improper%20weapons%2C%20and%20may%20lawfully%20seize%20and%20take%20away%20such%20arms%2C%20weapons%2C%20and%20ammunition&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=SFNdYJyfIqkC&pg=PA403&lpg=PA403&dq=%E2%80%9Cshall+enter+into+all+Negro+houses+and+suspected+places,+and+search+for+arms+and+other+offensive+or+improper+weapons,+and+may+lawfully+seize+and+take+away+such+arms,+weapons,+and+ammunition&source=bl&ots=PVMyn-3jAv&sig=94zuWM0Kzqb7Wr8web-JE9YAH3c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4i9Hmwc7NAhXC_R4KHRLBBCEQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Cshall%20enter%20into%20all%20Negro%20houses%20and%20suspected%20places%2C%20and%20search%20for%20arms%20and%20other%20offensive%20or%20improper%20weapons%2C%20and%20may%20lawfully%20seize%20and%20take%20away%20such%20arms%2C%20weapons%2C%20and%20ammunition&f=false)
-
December 15th, 1791.
I see what you did there.