The first national gun control act: the National Firearms Act of 1934

As far as I can tell - not an expert on this - the statutory authority for the president's executive actions on background checks stems from this law, as well as its follow up in 1938. The 1934 law places a tax - an excise tax - on the sale of machine guns and sawed off shotguns, meaning both were still legal. This was during a time when Congress was expanding - and the Supreme Court was accepting - the idea that the tax and spending clause of the Constitution allowed taxes to be used to as a regulatory device, not just to collect revenue for predefined purposes.

Since it was a tax bill, it was originally part of the Internal Revenue Code.

The 1934 law also required all sales to be recorded in a national registry. The 1938 act expanded the law to require the licensing of interstate gun dealers, mandated that they record their sales, and prohibited sales of guns to to people convicted or indicted of committing violent crimes. Later laws modify these requirements - as do the recent executive actions - but this seem to be the basis of statutory authority.

Why did it take until 1934 for the national government to get into the business of regulating guns? Prior to this time, regulation was a fully state affair, but the availability of cars and better roads made it easier for criminals to evade states. This explains the expansion of the federal government into criminal law in general.

Here's a bit more on the original act:

- The 1934 National Firearms Act, and why it is obsolete.
- Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control.
- Fully-Automatic Firearms.
- Full text of the law.
- 26 U.S. Code § 5845.

5 - Written Assignment GOVT 2305

In the ACA decision, the Supreme Court (unanimously) defined both the commerce clause and the necessary and proper by placing explicit limits on what they do not allow. The five person majority did continue to allow for an expansive interpretation of the tax and spending clause of the Constitution. This is what allowed them to find the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Notice that these are the elastic clauses. This decision - it seems to me - is an authoritative statement of the nature of the elastic powers of the national government at this moment in time.

I want you to read through the decision and detail exactly what they says about each of these. I want thorough analysis of the court actually said. That is what you will be graded on. Personal opinions may be offered only if you have done so - but since they're easy to give, they wont be graded.

- NFIB v. Sebelius.

The ACA decision

Here are A few links related to yesterday's decision:

The breaking story from the NYT: Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand, in Victory for Obama.

The text of the decision here: NFIB v. Sebelius.

An interactive look at the decision.

Andrew Sullivan's compilation of reactions here.

We read through the syllabus in class yesterday, but expect more soon. Analysis is pervasive. I'll link to some of the better comments. 01s and 02s will be hitting this hard next week (especially 02s since we start looking at the judiciary next week). 05s and 06s can expect written assignments on this later this weekend.