This article has been stolen (with permission) entirely from user https://www.reddit.com/user/CookingWithoutWater of Reddit. Permission is granted to repost with credit to him, in it’s entirety only.
WARNING: Wall o’ text! tl;dr for the lazy:
In the official congressional record, no reasons were given at all. In fact, in any official record, “silencers or mufflers” were not mention on the house or senate floor, outside of when the bill text was read aloud, and only mentioned twice in the committee sessions:
- During the Hearing for the Committee of Ways and Means (House), to state that the only use for a machine gun, sawed-off shotgun, or a silencer is criminal, outside of the use be officers.
Mr. Fuller [Committee member from Arkansas]. If a man is carrying that type of weapon, if he is not an officer, he ought to be taken into custody anyway, because we know that he is carrying it for an unlawful purpose; I am referring to such a weapon as a sawed-off shotgun or machine gun, or silencer. General Reckord [Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America]. We agree with that.
- During Hearing for Subcommittee on S. 885, S. 2259, and S. 3680; Committee on Commerce (Senate) to add “therefor” after “a muffler or silencer” in the definition of “firearms” for the purposes of the act, makes it clear the mufflers or silencers being regulated are just the one for use with a firearm (as opposed to all mufflers or silencers for anything). A mistake that wasn’t made in the house version of the bill.
It appears that the reason for the inclusion of silencers in the National Firearms Act of 1934 is completely unknown to the official record. The NFA was cooked up in the Department of Justice and advocated for by Hon. Homer S. Cummings, Attorney General of the United States and (especially) Hon. Joseph B. Keenan Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice. I have been unable to find any credible source outlining the reason silencers were included in the NFA, and this knowledge likely died with Cummings, Keenan, and their staff. If anyone can point me to a credible source, I’d love to see it.
I will also note, that the National Rifle Association of America, the American Game Association, and the American Legion strongly advocated for many changes that were, in my opinion, the sole reason we’re even having this fight today. More on that at the end. (Also, Colt Patent Firearms Manufactuing Co. and Auto Ordnance Co. can suck a bag of dicks.)
In depth discussion
Back in this thread on r/firearms about the Hearing Protection Act, u/Average_Sized_Jim claimed the reason for inclusion of scilencers in the National Firearms Act of 1934 was to prevent poaching (one of the most frequent reasons given). u/Estaban2 asked for a source for this reason, and u/DaSilence responded that (s)he’d never been able to find a source online, but that you could go to the Library of Congress (LOC) and get the transcripts of the floor speeches that were made on the record in 1933, and that they talk extensively about poaching.
That response was interesting enough, that I decided it was time to do a little investigating. Typically the LOC (and any government documents repository) will have many of these records digitized and available online, so I was surprised that u/DaSilence handn’t been able to find them. After a quick Google search, I learned that the NFA was passed during the 73rd congressional session, and that transcripts are available online via the LOC for most US Congressional Sessions, but there is a gap between the 43rd congressional session and the 104th. Damned, the NFA was passed right in the middle of the gap. So, let’s just ask a librarian at the LOC if the transcripts are available online anywhere. (Note, I could just request the transcripts via InterLibrary Loan, but as you’ll see, talking to the librarians first saves a bit of effort.)
My Inquiry:
Is there a digital archive containing transcripts of speeches made on the house and senate floor during the 73rd US Congressional session? I am researching the political conditions surrounding the passage of the Nation Firearms Act of 1934 and I’d like to be able to read the discussions surrounding the passage of that act. Thank you, ~ u/CookingWithoutWater
I also mentioned I had looked at the above LOC webpage in the “Resources Already Consulted” section of the Ask-A-Librarian form.
Inital response:
Thank you for using the online resources of the Library of Congress. The Digital Reference Section has received your question. Your question will be assigned to a digital reference specialist and you should receive a response within five business days.
Okay cool.
The very next day, I recieved this reply:
The Congressional Record, which contains House and Senate floor debates and speeches, is not available on the Library’s website from the 1930s.
That being the case, we have attached three PDF files to this message that contain the floor debates related to the National Firearms Act of 1934 as they appear in the Congressional Record. According to the legislative history of the National Firearms Act of 1934, this act was only discussed on the following three dates:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 78 Congressional Record, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session (1934)
June 13, 1934, Rules suspended; passed House June 18, 1934, Amended and passed Senate; Senate receded from amendment June 18, 1934, House disagreed with Senate amendment
For future reference, you can find the Congressional Record from 1876 to 1988 at a local Federal depository library. Federal publications such as the Congressional Record are made available for free public use in Federal depository libraries throughout the United States. The Congressional Record is available in print, microfilm, and through online subscription databases such as ProQuest Congressional and HeinOnline. A listing of Federal depository libraries in Tennessee can be found on the GPO website at: http://www.gpo.gov/libraries/
From this page, click on the link “Locate a Federal Depository Library Near You” to find a listing of Federal depository libraries in your state.
You may also find useful the following hearings and reports that are part of the legislative history of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The full-text of these hearings and reports can be found on the HathiTrust Digital Library at:
Hearings
TITLE: National Firearms Act DATE: Apr. 16, 1934 Apr. 18, 1934 May 14-16, 1934 COMMITTEE: Committee on Ways and Means. House LENGTH:170 pp.
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015013467827?urlappend=%3Bseq=379
TITLE: To Regulate Commerce in Firearms DATE: May 28-29, 1934 COMMITTEE: Subcommittee on S. 885, S. 2258, and S. 3680; Committee on Commerce. Senate LENGTH:108 pp.
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951d021562917?urlappend=%3Bseq=3
Reports
TITLE: Taxation and Regulation of Firearms DOCUMENT-DATE: May 28, 1934 COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole House. House; Committee on Ways and Means. House DOC-NO: H.rp.1780 SERIAL-VOLUME: 9776 LENGTH: 4 pp.
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b633011?urlappend=%3Bseq=1111
TITLE: Taxation and Regulation of Firearms DOCUMENT-DATE: June 6, 1934 COMMITTEE: Committee on Finance. Senate DOC-NO: S.rp.1444 SERIAL-VOLUME: 9770 LENGTH: 3 pp
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3995035?urlappend=%3Bseq=1199
Thank you for using the Library’s Ask-A-Librarian service.
Sincerely,
The Digital Reference Section/KD Library of Congress
Hell yeah, librarians are the best. You can see the three attached transcripts here (PDF WARNING!): PDF1, PDF2, and PDF3.
78 Congressional Record, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session (1934):
Unfortunately, silencers and mufflers were not discussed on the house or senate floor at all, except to declare that the act regulates them. So, the reason for inclusion of silencers cannot be found in the transcript of floor speeches (sorry u/DaSilence).
These are all short PDFs and actually a interesting to read, so I’d suggest reading them; points I found particularly interesting:
- This act was to prevent “criminals, racketeers, and gangsters” from gaining access to the types of regulated arms. Dillinger and Capone were the bogeymen of the era, and much of the discussion revolved around them.
- “Ladies’ organizations” and “promenent women” were lobbying hard for keeping pistols and revolver in the bill, but the Committee on Ways and Means removed pistols and revolvers because:
The majority of the committee were of the opinion, however, that the ordinary, law-abiding citizen who feels that a pistol or a revolver is essential in his home for the protection of himself and his family should not be classed with criminals, racketeers, and gangsters; should not be compelled to register his firearms and have his fingerprints taken and be placed in the same class with gangsters, racketeers, and those who are known as criminals.
- Self-defense was a prominent reason in the 1930s to own a pistol or revolver, a fact that should shock no one.
- The $200 amount for the tax as set because that was about the cost of a machine gun of the time — effectively a 100% tax.
Okay, so that was a bust in terms of silencers, so what about the other documents referenced that are part of the legislative history?
Hearing for the Committee of Ways and Means, House:
The only time mufflers or silencers were mentioned was to state that the only use for a machine gun, sawed-off shotgun, or a silencer is criminal, outside of the use be officers.
Mr. Fuller [Committee member from Arkansas]. If a man is carrying that type of weapon, if he is not an officer, he ought to be taken into custody anyway, because we know that he is carrying it for an unlawful purpose; I am referring to such a weapon as a sawed-off shotgun or machine gun, or silencer. General Reckord [Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America]. We agree with that.
Hearing for Subcommittee on S. 885, S. 2259, and S. 3680; Committee on Commerce, Senate:
The only time mufflers or silencers were mentioned was to add “therefor” after “a muffler or silencer” in the definition of “firearms” for the purposes of the act, makes it clear the mufflers or silencers being regulated are just the one for use with a firearm (as opposed to all mufflers or silencers for anything). A mistake that wasn’t made in the house version of the bill.
Report for the Committee of the Whole House; Committee on Ways and Means, House:
Just a short summary of the bill.
Report for the Committee on Finance, Senate:
Just a short summary of the bill.
Total bust; no real mention, discussion, or debate around them in the entire legislative history (sorry again u/DaSilence).
Okay, but, having read all that, I did find quite a bit of interesting stuff in there. Mostly, we have been having exactly the same [redacted] debate for near 100 years! The arguments that took place in the record (in no particular order):
- Automobiles; “but licenses and registration because they are dangerous”
- But [insert favorite country]’s homicide rate is ____
- Pistol licensees are some of the most law abiding citizens
- defensive gun use happens all the time and here are newspaper clippings to prove it
- New York sucks a bag of dicks
- criminals will get guns anyways
- Only use for ____ is criminal (even body armor came up because it’s “for armament and purely a matter of criminal use.”)
- NRA are propagandists (but the antis are honest and forthright) and publishing magazine articles about legislation and informing their members is nefarious (because informed citizenry has always been a bad thing apparently) [Note: senate committee meeting has the text of most of the NRA publication about the NFA of the time. Someone asked the NRA to bring in copies to submit to the record.]
- Wont someone think of the children?
- “Crime literature” is bad and influences our poor children (why won’t someone think of the children?)
- for manufacturers to “keep on file at least one bullet fired from each gun”.
- Micro-stamping of bullets. (I didn’t know that argument was so damn old either.)
- Magazine capacity (original definition of machine gun had it as any automatic or semi-automatic gun capable of shooting more than 12 bullets without reloading)
- Regulating ammunition like a firearm
- Criminals mostly steal their weapons
- Firearms are designed to kill
- Police, in general, don’t know marksmanship
- The great equalizer
I cannot believe how amazing close to word-for-word this argument was compared to today’s arguments.Reading this whole shit show has been… interesting… to say the least.
On the NRA
When this bill was first introduced, the NRA had only gotten wind of it the day before, but came in on a train that night to testify in front of the house committee. General Reckord [Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America] was by far the main voice of opposition to this bill. I believe he alone speaks as much as the DoJ does. The NRA focused their entire effort on preventing:
- Machine guns being defined as any automatic or semi-automatic gun capable of shooting more than 12 bullets without reloading. It was General Reckord that proposed the single action of the trigger definition we are all familiar with today.
- Removing pistols and revolver. From the testimony, it is clear this is entirely due to his advocacy, and that of members of the NRA, and was bitterly fought by the DoJ.
- Registration of all pistols and revolvers, and the ability to transfer them between citizens. Again, NRA vs DoJ.
Overall, I’d suggest that this was the most critical time in terms of the ability of a citizen to own, carry, and use firearms in general. It was very clear machine guns and sawed-off shotguns were going away and there was nothing anyone could do about it. All the congressmen balked at even the slightest hint of not including those. The machine gun and sawed-off shotgun clearly, in the eyes of the nation, were super evil scary things thanks to Dillinger and Capone (who gave them this whole regulation-by-tax idea, btw). Evenmore so, the Department of Justice really, really, wanted to essential end civilian firearms ownership, and without the NRA, I believe today we’d essintially be there. I’d say the NRA picked the right battles of the time and we (the firearm owners of America) all came out as best we could.
Likewise, silencers some how gained the same status of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns in the eyes of the DoJ, but I can’t think of any particularly high profile use of them for the era. There was more discussion of not regulating machine guns and sawed-off shotguns than all talk of silencers combined. It’s still utterly mystifying that they were included at the same level as machine guns, but not discussed at all, nor challenged by the NRA.
On last tidbit: at the time, Annual membership to the NRA was $3/year at the time; lifetime $25. They had approximately 1/4 million members. At the very end of the senate committee hearing, there is a income and expense statement for the NRA in 1933. A rather large, and well funded organization for the day. Oh, 1/2 of membership dues went to printing the American Rifleman magazine.
Link to /u/cookingwithoutwater’s original post https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/9qai6e/offichttps://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/5t2qsa/on_why_silencers_were_included_in_the_national/ial_politics_thread_22_october_2018/e888ecx/