Automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and gun restrictions don't work

J.D. Tuccille
Reason
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 18:27 UTC

Stephen Paddock "appears to have used at least one fully automatic rifle" during his murderous rampage in Las Vegas, according to the Wall Street Journal. Let's tentatively accept that for the moment while recognizing, as Nick Gillespie has noted, that early reports in situations like this are often wrong. If true, though, it demonstrates the pointlessness of the predictable calls for tighter gun restrictions issued by the usual suspects. That's because automatic rifles -machine guns- have been tightly regulated at the federal level since 1934, and subjected to further restrictions since then.

The history of federal machine gun regulations is well-covered at the website of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Regulation began with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a $200 tax on the manufacture and transfer of "shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as 'any other weapons,' machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers" at the federal level (states and localities have always been free to impose their own restrictions). According to the ATF, "As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms."

The law was amended in 1968, and then again, in particular, in 1986. The latter revision was to "prohibit the transfer or possession of machine guns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machine guns to, or possession of machine guns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986."

So for civilians, the only legally available automatic rifles in the United States under federal law come from the fixed pool of such weapons that existed on May 19, 1986. With a limited supply, shrinking at least a bit over time through attrition, prices for legal machine guns have no place to go but up. A glance at Gunbroker.com, an online listing service (with actual transfers handled by licensed dealers), reveals prices starting in four figures and rapidly going to five for individual weapons.

Purchasing and owning any NFA firearm, including automatic rifles/machine guns requires undergoing a background check and entering the weapon in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record, which is "the central registry of all NFA firearms in the U.S. which are not in the possession or under the control of the U.S. Government," according to the ATF National Firearms Act Handbook. This handbook is an excellent resource for familiarizing yourself with the federal regulation of automatic rifles/machine guns and other NFA firearms. You might want to put aside some time if you decide to peruse it since, including preface and appendices, the book is 220 pages long.

Which is to say, short of outright prohibition, automatic rifles are subject to just about every rule and restriction that has been proposed by opponents of easy civilian possession. If the weapon Paddock used in his rampage was legally acquired and owned, it was done so in accordance with laws intended "to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions" in such firearms in the words of federal regulators themselves.

But what if Paddock's weapons were illegally acquired, or illegally converted to automatic, or were semiautomatic weapons mistakenly identified as machine guns?

Black markets and illegal acts exist everywhere, under every legal regime. I've written at length about the long history, not just in the United States, but around the world, of overwhelming defiance of gun laws. In recent years, Connecticut achieved an underwhelming 15 percent compliance rate when it attempted to require the registration of semiautomatic (not machine guns) "assault weapons," and New York's similar requirement resulted in 5 percent compliance (both addressed here).

That's just registration. To achieve something like the outright prohibition of certain firearms that's been proposed in the wake of the massacre in Las Vegas, perhaps the best assessment comes from Professor James B. Jacobs, Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University. Summing up the prospects for banning handguns in his 2002 book, Can Gun Control Work?, he wrote:

"Prohibiting possession would require disarming the citizenry; whether done quickly or over a long period, it would be a monumental challenge, fraught with danger. Millions of citizens would not surrender their handguns. If black market activity in connection with the drug laws is any indication, a decades-long 'war on handguns' might resemble a low-grade civil war more than a law-enforcement initiative."

Banning private sales of firearms has also been proposed in certain quarters, but without any suggestion of how such a prohibition would be enforced. When I spoke with NYU's Jacobs two years ago, he said that's "probably a good idea," of such a ban, but acknowledged that it would be "very easy to get around" such restrictions.

After Colorado imposed a requirement for universal background checks on private sales, the results were unimpressive. "People are just ignoring this law," Colorado Sen. Greg Brophy (R-Wray) said.

Last word to NYU's Jacobs, from his 2002 book. Pointing to the long-term decline in violent crime-a trend that, despite recent blips, keeps crime rates far below the level of a quarter-century ago-he concluded, "Criminologists and policy makers should not be distracted by unrealistic proposals and slogans for 'gun control,' Rather, they should look to building on other anti-crime strategies and constructive social welfare policies that might be contributing to this unprecedented decrease of violent crime and gun crime."

Comment: There is a big public debate on gun control in America during all the major mass-shootings. Attention is being diverted toward this contentious issue rather than examining the actual incident, which more often than not raise questions about the official story being presented.

See:
More than 50 dead, 500 wounded in Las Vegas concert shooting - UPDATES
5 things don't add up about the Las Vegas shooting
Video suggests there may have been multiple shooters in Mandalay Bay, Las Vegas shooting

Reader Comments

stranger · 2017-10-04T23:37:59Z

What a bunch of blah blah BS written by an apparent numbskull.

I live in a country that restricts guns and I can tell you that yes, restrictions do work.

How about 0 mass shootings ever, feel like arguing with that?

No preponderance of guns, no gun shows, no gun-nut freaks, no "machine gun tourism"... no mass shootings. Duh.

baron · 2017-10-05T00:39:48Z

stranger First of all you don't have a Bill of Rights, and which means you don't appreciate the issues. For example, it is a principle of American Law that the individual is supreme in their rights, which includes the right to be safe on their person, in their own home, or anywhere they choose to be, and this right is secured by the right to bear arms.

Second, laws and regulations are not pathways to safety and security. If it were not for those Americans whom are armed, then your own disarmed nakedness might become more apparent to you (useless eater) when the reality of who's running your berg of the world decides you need to be disposed of for out-gassing carbon waste products.

The biggest mistake America made was not to force every single European Nation, including the British and French, to adopt the Bills of Rights after World War II. In fact, it should be the law that everyone must be armed at all times when they become legal voting age, unless otherwise prohibited or exempted by personal choice.

Ya know what's crazy is Europeans and how they reason. Every time there's a huge ass war it's because they themselves are defenseless. It's always a crazed lunatic or collection of same whom obtains power and control over the military and police and who has a population without any more means of self preservation than a table knife, and yet again I'm now supposed to believe that this mass shooting was the result of guns in America, or of failed regulations?

This is an attack on the last safety net, the last one held by the American Citizens, and without us standing between your overlords and our bills of rights you would be in gas chamber next evening. Count on it. The ruling elites have said exactly that in so many words.

We are in this together. You should try to understand because your own survival depends on it.

slbeaudry · 2017-10-05T03:00:38Z

This is about fear and control. What is his motive? It used to be we would establish motive. Otherwise the crime doesn't make sense. And when faced with the reality of so many senseless crimes, it ought to give one pause. This is not an issue of gun control, just control of the populace by fear, and if the state can use it as a means to restrict rights then that's just a bonus. Guns can be had on the black market (remember all of the cases of missing firearms from the military and police? Yeah I'm sure those were just accounting errors; shit, we arm the rest of the world -so they can defend themselves, sigh- but we should disarm U.S. citizens, really?) Divide and conquer at work here folks; argue about gun control instead of looking at the bigger picture and trying to ascertain what is going on, really, and why this has become so commonplace in today's America. It's not black and white, and it's probably not a real simple answer that can be wrapped up in a comment (or a 22 minute sitcom with a happy ending), but as far as simple answers go, I reckon this boils down to a bit of controlled chaos, fear, for control of the American populace as an organism; whether this man was triggered, a whack-o, or a patsy, the end result is fear and restriction of rights for the populace (with a boat load of bickering and division in between). It is quite sad because many people were killed and injured and it serves as a distraction, keeping us divided, emotionally and intellectually, while we squabble, or don't speak up about important issues because we don't want to offend someone or hurt someone's feelings. It just often is not as simple as a lone wolf, sad to say. That would probably make things easier, but what's the motive and how does this sort of thing happen logistically without help? Anyone? Unfortunately, the American populace as a whole is so over-emotional, under-educated, confused, and divided, as to have any chance at seeing objective reality at this point or asking the hard questions and having the ability or faculties to figure it out. Taking back autonomy and establishing a sane order to American existence is what is needed to get back on track ( (i.e. re-establishing proper education, exposing the underbelly of the 'intelligence' game, and getting some real, honest, public servants in office instead of the greedy shills we bow to today, for starters.) Seems like a fantasy, but that's what is needed, not more gun control. But it's a fantasy with very little hope for reality at this point in history. I think Oliver Stone was right in the 'Untold History of the United States' that we lost the moral high ground a long time ago. It has been a slippery slope and a slow boiling frog but here we are and now we find ourselves in a very dark place. No easy answers like, "Oh, we just give the gov't our guns and everything ends all neatly wrapped up and hunky-dory." On the flip-side it's probably also not healthy to just think everyone should be armed. Have you seen the opioid and psychoactive drug prescription rates in this country? Scary. Anyway, I'm sure the gun debate will roar on and we'll all be wiser and safer as a result - sarcasm. Sigh.