Nevada Carry
  • Home
    • Contact >
      • FAQ
    • Safety
    • Search
  • Blog
  • Open Carry
    • Open Carry Safety
    • Open Carry and the Constitution
  • Concealed Carry
    • How to Get a CCW
    • Carrying on a CCW
  • Car Carry
  • Local Laws
    • Public Buildings
    • Blue Cards
    • Preemption History
  • Self-Defense
  • Buying and Selling Guns
    • Universal Background Checks
  • Other States
    • CA Carry
  • 2025 Legislation

Nevada Carry Blog
For full archive, see the Blogspot archive

Things the NRA Said to Congress, 1965 Edition

2/26/2020

 
Picture
Proposed Amendments to Firearms Acts. Hearings. House Ways and Means. 89th Congress. July 1965. Part I.
 
In brief, the proposed legislation would do the following:
(1) Prohibit mail-order sales of firearms to individuals by limiting firearms shipments in interstate and foreign commerce to shipments between federally licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers;
(2) Prohibit sales by federally licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers, of all types of firearms to persons under 21 years of age, except that sales of sporting rifles and shotguns could continue to be made to persons over 18 years of age;
(3) Curb the flow into the United States of surplus military weapons and other firearms not suitable for sporting purposes;
(4) Bring under Federal control interstate shipment and disposition of large caliber weapons such as bazookas and antitank guns, and destructive devices such as grenades, bombs, missiles, and rockets;
(5) Increase license fees, registration fees, and occupational taxes under the Federal and National Firearms Acts; and
(6) Provide other Federal controls designed to make it feasible for States to control more effectively the traffic in firearms within their own borders under their own police power.[1]
 
Franklin L. Orth, NRA Executive Vice President, criticized "the flood of castoff military weapons that have been dumped in America, particularly crew served weapons...and 'destructive devices,'" but they did oppose the over .50 caliber cut-off and "sporting purposes" as being too vague.[2]
 
"Such things as mortars, bazookas, and rockets are not 'firearms' within the definition contained in the Federal Firearms Act. They can be, and they should be, controlled by amendment to the National Firearms Act in the same manner as machineguns. The National Rifle Association will support such an amendment."[3]
 
"Mr. Chairman, the National Rifle Association fully endorses H.R. 7472 as outlined and urges this committee to give strong consideration to this approach to the control of firearms as a material contribution to the President's war on crime."[4]
 
"Mr. Battin:...when you are talking about bazookas, antitank guns, mortars, and such weapons that cannot be used for sporting purposes, you do not include commercial weapons?"
"Mr. Orth: These are not for the sportsmen or used by the sportsmen and they ought to be stopped."[5]
 
The NRA issued a statement at the conclusion of its 1965 annual meeting: "The [NRA] will support [...] legislation to curb the flood of castoff military firearms that have been dumped in America as a result of the adoption of more modern weapons by most countries since World War II."[6]
 
            "However, the administrative power [of the NRA] is vested in an executive director and an executive council, and, in keeping with all organizations of considerable longevity, such councils tend to ultraconservatism. Equally, the influx of new administrative talent is kept to a minimum, for the business of the NRA does not require any particularly large number of policymaking personnel. Conflict in running of the NRA is therefore kept to a minimum. External influences which might suggest that the NRA is not the great white hope of the American sportsman are suppressed with whatever means the NRA can bear in particular cases and the one-party system of the NRA tends to preserve status in a changing world.
            "With this for background, it is not reasonable to suppose that the confidential or secret meetings between representatives or the Secretary of the Treasury, the National Rifle Association, and the Shooting Sports Foundation held Thursday or Wednesday of last week reflected the principle of 'open covenants openly arrived at.'.. These appear to be the facts:
            "Mr. Franklin Orth [NRA executive vice president] and the representative of the Shooting Sports Foundation were told by the administration spokesmen that they had about 5 minutes to make up their minds." Essentially, they could accept the whole of the bad bills "rammed down their throats" or they could compromise. "It did not take 5 minutes for the SSF and NRA people to decide they would lie down and accept this seeming lesser of evils."[7]

[1] Dillon, Douglas. Letter to House Speaker McCormack. March 12, 1965. p. 3

[2] Orth, Franklin L. (Executive Vice President, NRA). Statement on Proposed Amendments to Firearms Acts. July 19, 1965.  pp. 183, 185

[3] Orth, Franklin L. (Executive Vice President, NRA). Statement on Proposed Amendments to Firearms Acts. July 19, 1965. p. 193

[4] Orth, Franklin L. (Executive Vice President, NRA). Statement on Proposed Amendments to Firearms Acts. July 19, 1965. p. 194

[5] July 21, 1965. p. 228

[6] Statement of Joseph W. Barr, Under Secretary of the Treasury. July 12, 1965. p. 33

[7] Edwards, William B. pp. 681-682

Comments are closed.

    Archives

    April 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    May 2015

    Categories

    All
    Campus Carry
    Ccsd
    Schools

    RSS Feed

    Blogspot Archive
    Blog roll
    Clayton E. Cramer
    Gun Watch
    Gun Free Zone

    The War on Guns
    ​Commander Zero
    The View From Out West
 This does not constitute, nor should be implied as, legal advice. Always seek an attorney's advice and consult state and local laws yourself. User assumes all liability for use of the information provided here. Site has been reviewed by certified instructors. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.​ Copyright 2024.
  • Home
    • Contact >
      • FAQ
    • Safety
    • Search
  • Blog
  • Open Carry
    • Open Carry Safety
    • Open Carry and the Constitution
  • Concealed Carry
    • How to Get a CCW
    • Carrying on a CCW
  • Car Carry
  • Local Laws
    • Public Buildings
    • Blue Cards
    • Preemption History
  • Self-Defense
  • Buying and Selling Guns
    • Universal Background Checks
  • Other States
    • CA Carry
  • 2025 Legislation