Post Apocalypse Job Search

Got your PM, Frank. Check is in the mail.

 

Damn! Now I've seen it all? A fiscally conservative Yankee sending money to the ACLU.

 

Grabbed a ride with an old war buddy of mine

 

Fine mess I'm gotten myself into.

 

Moose, NOW HEAR THIS - I'm not coming to rescue you until you promise to shed that stupid pink costume. If you think, in the wildest stretch of your imagination, that I will take you to the BATFE office dressed as a big, pink VagJJ, your NUTZ

 

Obviously Mort is in touch with his feminine side now. All the cows are gonna be in heat for you now! Run Mort! Run!

 

Damn! How do you get a pink Moose out of a tree?

 

I had to chop the tree down with an ax; took most of the morning. Unfortunately, the vagina suit suffered some irreparable damage in the fall; he he...

 

The U.S. government was very helpful in making this training video. I have found all the necessary replacement parts on Gunbroker.com and we are about to challenge the BATFE with their BS rulings! Hey Quigley Shaprs? Just cause they say something don't make it a law.

 

Hey Federal Government? AndBATFE? I am a moose and I have a machine gun and $200.00 to pay the tax on it! Can't give you fingerprints, I'm a moose...we gots hooves.

 

Moose, that is not the way to do it! We go down to the BATFE office in Atlanta and apply for a tax stamp with a form 4 and pay the tax; when they refuse to allow us to pay the tax, we sue them.

 

I am proposing to a novel approach in the defense of Moose from Federal Firearms violations. I intend to use a dissertation from the protagonist of a fictional Novel written by John Ross, Unintended Consequences. Just because the novel is quasi-fictional does not negate the validity of the many points presented in young Henry Bowman's dissertation nor does it detract from the truth of the development and intent of the 1934 Gun Control Act or it's Bastard sibling, the 1968 Gun Control Act. I will paste the entire lengthy dissertation here for those of you that are not familiar with Mr. Ross's fine novel, albiet lengthy, it is well worth the read:
From Unintended Consequences, by John Ross

INTRODUCTION
A year after the 1933 repeal of Prohibition, Congress passed the
National Firearms Act of 1934 and created a situation that was (and is)
both unique and bizarre. The situation is unique because no other
consumer good or manufactured product in the entire country is treated
under the law in the same way that NFA firearms are treated. The
situation is bizarre because under this law, two absolutely identical
guns, consecutively produced within one minute of each other by the
same manufacturer on the same assembly line, can fall into such
drastically different legal categories that possession of one has the
government's blessing, while possession of the other (even by the same
person) merits a ten-year prison sentence. As if this were not unusual
enough, a 1968 amendment to the National Firearms Act now prohibits the
owner of the "bad" weapon (whichever of the two guns it may be) from
placing himself in compliance with federal law.
The National Firearms Act introduced a huge distortion into the free
market for all guns which fell under its scope. The result is a threetier
pricing schedule in the market for firearms regulated by this
obscure section of the U.S. Code, as well as several legal questions
which, to date, have not yet been resolved.
This paper addresses a distortion in the free market caused by
government intervention. It is not intended to be a political science
treatise. However, in order to fully understand this distortion and
"how we got here", some history is in order. This is an unfamiliar area
to most people, and it is quite possible that without a thorough
explanation of the history behind current law, the average person would
refuse to believe our present situation.
HISTORY
The issue of owning militia-type arms to protect oneself and one's
freedoms was not controversial in the early days of our country's
history. It was taken for granted. All citizens of this country had
this basic right. Prior to 1934, there were no federal laws regulating
firearms ownership1, and prior to 1865, there were virtually no such
state laws, either. All prohibitions (and attendant punishment) focused
on violent criminal actions and not possession of inanimate objects.
Two events changed this situation on a state level: The Emancipation
Proclamation, and large-scale immigration. Many lawmakers did not like
the idea of foreigners and former slaves having the same rights as
whites. They especially disliked the idea of these "undesirables" being
able to protect themselves and control their own destinies.
Legislators didn't want blacks being able to defend their freedoms,
either at the voting booth, or by having guns. Because the Second
Amendment guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, and the
Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law,
legislative creativity was required.
Poll taxes and literacy tests solved the problem of blacks voting.
Blocking Constitutionally-protected black possession of inanimate
objects required a slightly different strategy. One solution to the
dilemma was to require permits to possess or to carry arms2 . These
permits could then be arbitrarily denied. Another answer was for a
state to enact an outright prohibition on carrying weapons for selfprotection3
. These outright prohibitions were then selectively
enforced. The South Carolina legislature, perhaps pleased with the
success of their poll tax, passed a law in 1875 prohibiting ownership
of all firearms other than those manufactured by Colt or Winchester1
Since these makes were much more expensive than all others, this law
was a novel way to prevent poor people of all races from having guns
Immigrants got similar treatment. In complete defiance of the U S.
Constitution, California state law prohibited Chinese from testifying
against whites in any court of law for a 20-year period in the late
1800s5 . In New York, discussion urging the passage of the 1907 Sullivan
Law made mention of how that law would make it illegal for "swarthy
immigrants" to have guns6 . Texas gun restrictions subjugated Americans
of Mexican origin7.
All these laws, however, were passed on a state level. It was not until
1934 that any federal law was enacted which affected firearms
possession. There is some disagreement about the impetus behind this
law, as will soon be discussed.
THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934
The first significant federal gun law was passed in June of 1934 with
minimal fanfare. It attracted little attention because it only affected
a small number of arms: Full-automatic weapons (machine guns), rifles
and shotguns with barrels shorter than eighteen inches (amended to
sixteen inches for rifles in 1958), and rifles and shotguns with
overall lengths less than twenty-six inches. These arms now fell under
federal regulation. In addition, any device designed or redesigned to
muffle the report of a firearm (a "silencer") also fell under the scope
of the National Firearms Act8 , despite the fact that these devices were
not and are not in any way, shape, or form, "firearms".
Because of the Second Amendment, Congress realized it did not have the
authority to ban these arms. Instead, the bill was slipped in as a
revenue-raising measure under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Under the
National Firearms Act, no person may transport, deliver, or sell in
interstate commerce any firearm or silencer as described above without
first having in his possession a stamp-affixed form for the firearm.
The tax stamp must first be bought so that it can be affixed to the
federal form when it is approved. For the form to be approved, the
applicant must be fingerprinted, signed off by the local police chief,
and submit to an FBI records check. The "stamp" referred to in the law
costs $200. The owner of an NFA-regulated weapon must have this
approved form (with the $200 stamp affixed) in his possession before
the arm (or silencer) in question may be transported in interstate
commerce. This $200 tax must be paid each time the NFA-regulated item
changes ownership.
Because of the size of the tax, the frequency with which it must be
paid, and the method by which it is levied, the National Firearms Act
bears a strong resemblance to the Stamp Act of 17659 .
Being fingerprinted and forced to submit to an FBI investigation is
unusual, to say the least, for a revenue-raising measure. To put this
"revenue raising" tax in perspective, in 1934, $200 was more than a
month's wages for a worker building Model "A"s on the Ford assembly
line in Dearborn, Michigan10 . In the '20s, silencers sold for $2 in
hardware stores and Thompson submachine guns could be bought out of the
Sears catalog for $125. The idea that levying a $200 tax on these
manufactured goods would actually raise revenue is absurd. The demand
for each of the items covered by the National Firearms Act was elastic
enough that virtually no one was willing to pay the government an
additional $200 for any of them According to Treasury Department
records, there was not a single tax-paid registration in 193411 , and
there was one in 193512 .
Another consequence of the Act was that new development of machine guns
by individual inventors stopped overnight. Given that the vast majority
of full-auto weapons now in use were designed by private individuals,
this is a serious issue The U.S.'s foremost authority on machine guns,
Lt. Col. George M. Chinn, has frequently described the Act a
devastating blow to American security in that it has crippled all
future military small arms development in this country and will
continue to do so until it is repealed13 .
After passage of the Act, there were only three classes of people who
continued to buy these goods: Large companies bought the weapons for
strike control and other labor relations purposes14 . Police
departments, the military, and special occupational taxpayers15
continued to buy, for they were exempt from the tax. Violent criminals
continued to buy these weapons outside of legal channels, just as they
had obtained liquor during Prohibition.
This reality brings us to the next issue concerning this obscure
federal law.
REASONS FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT
In almost every published description of the National Firearms Act of
1934 is a mention of the 1929 "St. Valentine's Day Massacre" , and a
statement to the effect that the Act was passed because machine guns
were being used with horrible results by bootleggers and other
organized crime figures. There are several things wrong with this
claim.
First, it is laughable to hope that people for whom murder is a
standard business practice will go present themselves to the local
police chief to get fingerprinted, and pay $200 for the privilege.
Similarly, it is ludicrous to think that putting legal restrictions on
firearms will reduce their availability to those people whose entire
livelihood involves finding, buying, transporting, selling, and
delivering illegal goods.
Second, the highly publicized incidents of underworld gangs machinegunning
each other over liquor shipments stopped overnight with the
repeal of Prohibition, which occurred a full year before passage of the
National Firearms Act.
Third, the Act also affects weapons other than machine guns; rifles and
shotguns with barrels or overall lengths below a certain minimum are
regulated by the NFA. It is very difficult to conceive of a reason why
the owner of a shotgun with a barrel 17 1/2" long should be charged
with a felony if he refuses to be fingerprinted and pay $200, when
owning a shotgun with a barrel a half-inch longer is no crime at all.
To compound this utter absence of logic, under the National Firearms
Act a person becomes a felon if he affixes a piece of wood to the butt
of his pistol (doubling the weapon's physical size), for he is now in
possession of a "short-barreled rifle", which is covered by the Act.
To make the final leap from the illogical to the ridiculous, the Act
regulates noise mufflers, which are not firearms at all. Hollywood to
the contrary, the FBI has been unable to document a single case of a
firearm silencer being used in a crime in the last fifty years17 . Given
that citizens fire upwards of six billion rounds of ammunition per
year18' , the inclusion of silencers into the NFA is one of the greatest
contributors to hearing loss in the United States and therefore must
rank as one of the largest public health blunders of this century19 .
The real reason for the passage of the National Firearms Act can be
summed up in four words: Expansion of federal powers. In 1934, two
major changes had recently occurred in the United States. The first was
that Franklin Roosevelt had initiated an exponential increase in the
size and power of the federal government. The second change was the
ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Prohibition.
Let us examine the latter incident first.
In the thirteen years that Prohibition had been in effect, there was a
great proliferation of people involved in the illicit manufacture,
importation, and distribution of alcohol. This in turn produced a
tremendous expansion of the Treasury Department and the number of its
agents20 . With repeal, liquor distribution was done by legitimate
businessmen, and thousands of Treasury agents were idled. Federal
legislation levying $200 taxes on goods worth between $3 and $100 was
guaranteed to promote non-compliance by the citizens, thereby giving
former Prohibition agents something to enforce.
It is interesting to note that the original draft of the National
Firearms Act included all handguns then in existence in the United
States. Because of the handgun language, some of the strongest
opposition to the original version of the National Firearms Act came
from women, who were vulnerable to attack from stronger assailants and
got the greatest benefit from being able to carry a small weapon for
personal protection.
The number of pistols and revolvers in the U.S in 1934 has been
variously estimated at between thirty and one hundred million21 Compare
this figure with perhaps one million machine guns and short-barreled
long guns that fell under the Treasury's jurisdiction in the National
Firearms Act's final form22 . One can only guess at what would have
happened if in 1934 the government had told every citizen to cough up
$200 for each handgun he owned that he might some day want to take or
ship across state lines.
The removal of handguns from the National Firearms Act may explain the
odd inclusion of silencers in the legislation. In the first third of
this century, silencers were commonly available in any store where
firearms were sold. The term "silencer" is in fact a misnomer It was a
trade name coined by Hiram P. Maxim, an automotive engineer who applied
the principles of muffler design to safety valves, compressors,
blowers, and firearms23 . A "silencer" does not make a firearm
noiseless, any more than the muffler on a diesel truck exhaust conceals
the fact that the truck is approaching24 . With the 1934 Act making it a
felony to transport common noise mufflers in interstate commerce
without paying $200 (each!) to the government, millions of citizens
were now in violation of federal law.
Although the National Firearms Act stipulated a grace period where
owners could register these weapons and silencers free of charge, the
Treasury reported that a grand total of 15,791 registrations occurred
in this period25 . This indicates approximately 1% compliance. The 1934
Act was thus a huge success at turning millions of citizens into
criminals.
The National Firearms Act fit in perfectly with the systematic creation
of government programs and deficit spending that Franklin Roosevelt
immediately began to institute the instant he took office. The NFA was
a model vehicle for the continued expansion of government power: It was
arbitrary (i.e. the 18-inch rule); it gave the government sweeping
authority over something very common; it focused on inanimate objects
rather than criminal behavior; it levied draconian taxes on these
objects; and most importantly, it created millions of criminals with
the stroke of a pen, just as Prohibition had.
A clear example of the fact that the National Firearms Act had nothing
to do with crime and everything to do with government power occurred
immediately prior to its passage. Senator Hatton Sumners of Texas, the
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had been a virulent opponent
of the proposed bill and had bottled it up because it "did violence to
states' rights"26 . On April 23, 1934, Roosevelt called Sumners into the
White House for a chat. Sumners agreed to vote for passage27.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT PRIOR TO 1968
After the NFA was passed, sales of affected items came to an abrupt
halt. Domestic firearms manufacturers stopped producing any long guns
with barrels shorter than 18". They also quit making any pistols with
lugs on the butt for shoulder stocks. Manufacturers of noise reducers
(most notably the Maxim Silencer Co.) went out of business entirely.
After the short grace period, citizens who owned NFA-regulated items on
which the tax had not been paid had several choices. The first was to
pay $200 to the Treasury for each item. In 1934, no one did this. The
second choice was to relinquish NFA-regulated items to the Treasury
without any compensation. No one did this, either. The third option,
theoretically at least, was to avoid selling or transporting anything
covered under the Act outside the state. The fourth was to disassemble
the machine gun, short-barreled long gun, or silencer so that it was
inoperable, and keep the parts separate. In the case of short-barreled
arms, the owner could also replace the barrel with one of 18" or
longer, and have a legal, functional gun again without paying $200.
Short-barreled rifles and shotguns were produced in low numbers in the
years prior to 193428 but the same could not be said for machine guns.
The Colt-manufactured Thompson, BAR, and belt-fed Brownings had all
been produced in large numbers and had been available on the civilian
market for over a decade. Furthermore, two million American soldiers
had been sent to Europe in WWI, and over half of these had served in
combat units. These veterans brought home many "war trophies", as they
are called, with complete legality29. Machine guns were a relatively new
and interesting battlefield weapon in 191830, and captured examples were
brought home by most soldiers. A conservative estimate of the fullautomatic
WWI weapons brought into the United States by the returning
two million veterans is one million31. Other knowledgeable sources place
the figure at over twice that32.
The Treasury Department decreed that owners of these weapons could
either register them for $200, or remove critical parts (such as the
bolt) from them, which would render them inoperable. In this latter
case, the gun was no longer considered a weapon subject to registration
and $200 tax, but rather a "DEWAT", which was the Treasury's acronym
(sort of) for Deactivated War Trophy.
When agents encountered an otherwise law-abiding citizen with a nontaxed
machine gun in his possession, standard procedure was to give him
the choice of paying the $200 tax and registering it "live", or
removing the bolt and/or other internal parts.
As years passed, the economy improved, wages and prices went up, and
the U.S. fought in two more wars. A few million more veterans returned
home from WWII and Korea with a few million more war trophies. By the
'50s and '60s, some citizens actually were paying $200 and getting tax
stamps from the Treasury Department on weapons brought back from WWI,
WWII, and Korea, and on newly-purchased machine guns from the many
manufacturers around the world.
THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968
In 1968, the National Firearms Act was amended by the Gun Control Act
of 1968. This 1968 law enacted sweeping infringements on citizens'
rights to purchase and own virtually all types of guns. In also
introduced a "sporting use" test on importation of firearms and
ammunition. If certain guns or ammunition were determined by the
Director of the Treasury to be not suitable for "sporting use",
importation of them was prohibited. The fact that the Bill of Rights
concerns the preservation of freedom and not recreation is ignored in
the 1968 Act. A 1939 Supreme Court decision ruling that military
weapons are Constitutionally protected whereas sporting arms are not33
was ignored also.
GCA '68 also contained language which modified the treatment under the
law of NFA-regulated weapons. Since these provisions did not
immediately affect nearly as many people as the rest of the new
legislation, their significance was not fully understood at the time.
Under the new provisions, all existing machine guns in the hands of
U.S. citizens had to be registered with the NFA immediately, including
DEWATS. A one-month Amnesty was instituted where the $200-per-gun NFA
tax was waived. After this amnesty ended, however, registration of
existing non-taxed machine guns was prohibited. Registration of machine
guns manufactured in the U.S. after passage of these provisions posed
serious problems for citizens and created legal questions that have not
to this day been addressed.
First of all, among the millions of owners of live machine guns and
DEWATS, not everyone even knew about the one-month amnesty before it
was over. Second, of those who were aware of the one-month grace
period, there was a tremendous fear that the entire amnesty was a trap
and the guns presented for registration would be confiscated. For this
reason, only a tiny fraction of machine guns and DEWATS were submitted
for NFA registration during the Amnesty34.
The 1968 amendments to the National Firearms Act and the one-time
Amnesty completely ignored the fact that the Act only applies to those
weapons transported in interstate commerce. The 1934 Act does not apply
to a machine gun owner who never takes his gun out of state. The 1968
amendments have placed such owners in the position where they cannot
now comply with the law. An owner of a machine gun on which the tax has
not been paid is prohibited by the 1968 amendments from paying the tax
and putting the weapon on the NFA registry. This has created a
situation not duplicated anywhere else in the entire U.S. Code.
As an example of how this law introduces a severe distortion into both
the economy and the lives of U.S. citizens, let us look at an example:
A coal company heir owns a consecutive numbered pair of Model 1921
Thompson guns, serial numbers 1410 and 1411, which have been in his
family in the same location since the mid-1920s. In 1965 (but this
could be any year between 1934 and 1968), thinking he might someday
want to take one of the guns outside the state, he pays $200 and
registers one of them (either one) under NFA 1934. Just to be safe, he
removes the bolt from the other, rendering it inoperable. Prior to GCA
1968, he was in complete compliance with the law.
Today, the taxed gun is completely transferable to other citizens, and
the gun can change hands an indefinite number of times, providing
police and FBI checks are performed and $200 is paid to the Treasury
for a tax stamp each time the weapon is transferred.
Ownership of the non-taxed gun (the one without the bolt) is a felony35
, and there is no provision in the law to allow the owner to place this
weapon on the NFA registry. He can offer to pay two million dollars
instead of two hundred, and he will still be denied registration. Under
present interpretations of the 1968 amendments, the 1921 Thompson
without the bolt is contraband and it must be surrendered to BATF
without any compensation. A Model 1921 Thompson is worth between $1500
and $2000 at the time of this writing if it is transferable36.
There is another serious problem caused by the 1968 amendments to the
1934 Act. The "sporting test" section of the 1968 Act prohibits
importation of non-sporting weapons and ammunition into the U.S. This
includes importation of U.S.-made weapons produced before 1968 but
which were outside the country at the time GCA 1968 was passed. The
exemption for this import ban is for military and law enforcementrelated
sales. Thus, a 1921 Thompson gun currently in England (there
are thousands there) may only be imported into the United States by an
agency of the U.S. Government, a police department, or a special
occupational taxpayer who may then sell it only to one of these two
types of purchasers.
THREE-TIER LEGAL STATUS AND PRICING
The example listed above makes it clear that government regulation has
created three-tier status for identical manufactured goods. Machine
guns made in the United States can fall into three categories: a) Fully
transferable to any law-abiding resident37 upon federal approval after
FBI investigation and payment of $200 to the Treasury; b) Transferable
(tax-exempt) to Special Occupational Taxpayers, police, or government
agencies; and c) contraband weapons which may not be made legal.
These three different legal categories result in three different prices
for otherwise identical guns. To continue the Thompson example, a
transferable, mint-condition 1921 Thompson now brings approximately
$1800 on the U.S. collector market38 . An identical gun recently
imported from England and sitting in a customs bonded warehouse will
bring at most $150, for it can only be sold to police and government
agencies, and these entities are not willing to pay much for obsolete,
fifty-year-old weapons. What the third gun is worth is anyone's guess,
for the only buyers for it will be those willing to risk a felony
conviction39 .
FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT
The Gun Control Act of 1968, with its amendments to the National
Firearms Act of 1934, is a recent continuation of the trend started
during the Roosevelt Administration towards more government and less
freedom. Recent and current Administrations show no sign of reversing
this trend. When freedom is at odds with government policy, one of two
things eventually happens: Either freedom is crushed, or political
leaders are forced out in disgrace and replaced with guardians of
individual liberty.
CONCLUSION
The National Firearms Act of 1934 is a bad law. Colonel Chinn has said
on many occasions that the 1934 Act is the single most devastating
piece of legislation to this nation's defense ever enacted.
From an economic viewpoint, the NFA of 1934 is a bad law because its
tax is so high that it stops enterprise cold and distorts the free
market. NFA 1934 is a bad law because it raises virtually no revenue
at; all, when a $5 tax and relaxed regulations might easily raise
millions of dollars for the Treasury Department.
The 1968 amendments to the 1934 Act are bad law because these
amendments actually prohibit those people who want to pay the tax on
their guns from doing so. These 1968 amendments have made criminals out
of people with no criminal intent, and give these citizens no option
other than to surrender their property without compensation. These are
the kinds of laws which led to the American Revolution. The National
Firearms Art of 1934 should be repealed in its entirety.
---------------
1. There was a law enacted in 1920 which prohibited sending handguns
through the mail except by law enforcement entities, and required that
a common carrier be used instead.
2. Laws of this nature were passed in many states at one time or
another. Notable exceptions were Vermont and New Hampshire.
3. Many states, including my native Missouri, have such outright
prohibitions. Such statutes rely on vague wording, such as Missouri's
prohibition on carrying a weapon for protection into any "church,
school, or any other assembly of persons met for any lawful purpose."
(emphasis added) This last item allows police to arrest blacks and
ignore whites.
4. I have not found the actual text of this law, but there are many
references to it in several publications.
5. Stanford Lyman, Chinese Americans (New York: Random House, 1974)
p.71
6. This phrase became a buzzword with many politicians who wanted to
expand their political power, and is found in numerous texts.
7. Many people have serious misconceptions of Texas law, and think of
that state as one where everyone carries guns legally. Nothing could be
further from the truth. There is no provision in Texas law to carry a
weapon for protection outside your home or automobile. Those who do are
relying on the crony system to save them.
8. NFA of 1934, Section 11.
9. On March 22, 1765, Parliament levied a tax on the Colonists'
newspapers and legal and commercial documents, all of which had to
carry a special stamp. The Colonists formed the first intercolonial
Congress which met in October of that year to declare American rights
and grievances, specifically concerning the Stamp Act. Parliament
rescinded the Stamp Act in March of 1766, but coupled this recission
with passage of the Declaratory Act, claiming England's supremacy over
America "in all cases whatsoever". The Colonists rights and their
insistence on maintaining them became the basis for the American
Revolution.
10. About $5 a day, according to a conversation with Arthur Wilkes, who
was an assemblyline worker during that period.
11. New York Times. Dec. 25, 1934.
12. New York Times. Nov. 6, 1936.
13. Given that the most reliable U.S. designs now in use (1919A4,
1917A1, ANM2, MG52A, M2HB, BAR, M14, M1A1) were all developed by
private citizens, and the guns with major flaws (M60) were designed by
companies, Chinn's comment cannot be disregarded.
14. "You could not run a coal company without machine guns" is a quote
widely ascribed to industrialist Richard B. Mellon. Other large
companies with union problems (auto manufacturers, for example)also
purchased machine guns.
15. Special Occupational Taxpayers are those who pay an annual
licensing fee to actively deal in NFA-regulated items
16. Al Capone, irritated at having fifteen of his men killed in three
months by 'Bugs' Koran's North-Side gang, arranged a trap. On his
orders, a truckload of stolen whiskey was offered to the North-Siders
at an attractive price, with another truckload to follow if Moran was
satisfied. He was, and the second truck was sent to a trucking
warehouse owned by Moran. As this second delivery was being made, a car
appearing to be a Chicago Police vehicle pulled up. The "officers"
lined Moran's gang up against a wall, and the North-Siders assumed it
was time to pay off the policemen. Instead, the men dressed as officers
(but working for Capone) killed all seven of them, using two Thompson
Submachine Guns. The date was February 14, 1929.
17. Pillows and blankets have been used, because they more completely
eliminate the noise. Knives are also very commonly used as murder
weapons.
18. Spokesmen for Olin-Mathieson and Remington-Peters state that these
two companies produce over two billion rounds each for domestic
consumption. With other companies and imports added in, the actual
total is much higher.
19. Many European rifle ranges mandate the use of silencers for this
reason.
20. The actual increase in the number of agents is unknown. The
Treasury's budget for this type of work in 1932, however, was over ten
times what it had been in 1918.
21 Domestic production of handguns in 1928 exceeded 5 million units
Given that firearms almost never wear out, the 100 million figure may
actually be low
22. This number takes known domestic sales and assumes that, on
average, one out of every three soldiers returning from WWI brought
back one machine gun. If the discussions I have had with WWI vets are
typical, the 1 million figure is low.
23 Hiram Percy Maxim was the son of Hiram Stevens Maxim, who invented
the first practical machine gun in 1884. No evidence has been found to
indicate that the National Firearms Act was intended to single out the
inventions of the Maxim family. It just ended up that way.
24. Noise reducers for firearms are less effective than those for
engines for two reasons: first, gas pressure in a gun barrel is much
higher than exhaust pressure in a tailpipe. Second, a design for a gun
must include a straight, open path from the gun's muzzle to the exit
end of the silencer to permit passage of the bullet. A muffler for an
engine may employ all manner of reversing baffles, diffusing screens,
and serpentine pathways to redirect exhaust gases that don't contain
chunks of lead traveling at supersonic speeds.
25 New York Times, December 25, 1934.
26. William J. Helmer, The Gun That Made the Twenties Roar (London:
MacMillan & Co., 1969) p.125
27. New York Times. April 24, 1934
28. Ithaca Gun Company produced the "Auto and Burglar" gun and
Harrington & Richardson made the "Handi-gun" in modest numbers. Both
are now collector's items.
29. Bringing home U.S. ordnance is technically theft of government
property, but at the end of a war it is typical for a U.S. soldier to
keep the weapon he carried in combat without comment from the
authorities. Arms captured from the enemy have always (prior to 1968)
been acceptable for U.S. soldiers to bring home.
30. WWI was the first major war fought with them.
31. Thomas J. Fleming, in a phone conversation 8/27/70
32. Lt. Colonel George M. Chinn, author of the now-declassified 2000-
page work The Machine Gun for the Department of the Navy, in a phone
conversation 8/30/70
33. U.S. vs. Miller, United States Supreme Court, May 15, 1939
34. Many of the people I have spoken to who had a significant number
(20 or more) of non-taxed NFA weapons and DEWATs decided to Amnestyregister
two or three guns, hedging their bets in case of confiscation.
35. As the law is now being interpreted. The case mentioned before
where the gun has never crossed state lines has not yet been tested in
court.
36. From current price lists from six Special Occupational Taxpayers
licensed to deal in these type of weapons.
37. Individual state laws may prohibit ownership.
38. Average of several advertised in dealer publications. Examples with
a documented history (i.e. a weapon owned and used by "Pretty Boy"
Floyd) command a premium.
39. Police and dealers I questioned were uneasy about estimating the
"street value" of a non-taxed Thompson Submachine Gun. The only dealer
who was willing to say anything at all suggested "Couple hundred bucks,
tops" as an estimate.
---------------

 

Realistic perspective, an economic decline (either yours or in general) is such that the benefits of labor saving technology start getting less and less pervasive, so everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that we benefit from on labor saving devices becomes more labor intensive. That means more cooks, more dishwashers, more farm labor, more maintenance people, every aspect of "submodern society" will have labor shortages and stuff deteriorates because of it, or someone figures out how to solve the labor shortage. That generally means finding a new equilibrium between labor demand, labor supply, ability to pay, and willingness to pay.

So one big danger to look out for is lacking skills valuable enough to demonstrably negotiate with. If your resume says "I is a hard worker", then you will be lucky to get off on two meals a day and a shared bunk in somebodies slave barracks with day jobs that include cutting and processing firewood without power tools, or squatting in fields to tend crops. All under the watchful eyes of supervisors with shotguns, who work "security and supervision" under the watchful eyes of guys in watchtowers with rifles. That's lucky, unlucky is just being looted and shot or shot and looted. If on the other hand you can present yourself as an able seaman who can sail a boat and handle nets, (think sailboats converted to fishing vessels), engineering wizard, maybe skilled builder (and better not think trade specialization cuts it, skilled builder means you better do it all or most of it, none of that shit where electricians get fired for picking up a hammer or carpenters get fired for handling a pipe wrench). General purpose repair guys, junkyard mechanics in the Mexican or East European tradition - highly valuable and likely to be invited into a business partnership. Same goes for those who can do things like break horses or run beer and cheese making operations. Ability to build and run a moonshine still will definitely get you a seat at the table of small town or neighborhood elite.

Farm labor though is a biggie, and as a recovery happens, there would be incentives to entice the slaves and serfs from neighboring farms to bail out and go to a better paying farm. Organized labor, those who would handle planting and harvests for a more or less set price would eventually win out over those who require an elaborate security operation to keep their lower end labor from escaping or rebelling (which is why prison farms only work for governments but not so well in the private sector, since the guard staff eventually organize and demand higher levels of compensation or else they just mistreat the slaves for a while and threaten not to quell the inevitable slave rebellion).