COMPARING NAZI AND U.S. GUN LAWS -- Freedom Underground

Navigation

Lists

Parties

Resources

Links

Sites

One time donation:

Subscribe:

COMPARING NAZI AND U.S. GUN LAWS
www.textfiles.com | 11 Aug 2008 | Alan Bock
COMPARING NAZI AND U.S. GUN LAWS

Alan Bock
Orange County Register Columnist

A call from the PLO to disarm all the Jewish settlers in the
West Bank region, in the wake of the despicable massacre of Arabs
in a mosque and subsequent unrest, got me thinking about a book
I've been reading. It's most unlikely that the Israeli government
would carry out the PLO's wishes, of course. But we've heard calls
to disarm Jews before.
The last time Jews were effectively disarmed by law was when
the Nazis passed their Weapons Law in 1938, which specifically
stated that no Jew could own firearms or be involved in any
business involving firearms, from manufacturing to retailing.
Aaron Zelman and Jaw Simkin of Jews for the Preservation of
FIrearms Ownership, in a provocative but persuasive book, argue
that the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 provided a direct model for the
1968 Gun Control Act in the United States. They make the case in

"Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny," published by JPFO.
The Nazi law built on previous gun-control laws passed during
the Weimar period. The 1938 law tightened up previous laws and
(of course) made sure Jews couldn't have weapons or have anything
to do with them. It was passed to protect the Nazi regime, which
had been elected with a plurality (i.e., a minority) and faced
widespread opposition within the populace. It required a license
to own almost all kinds of weapons, except for certain government
officials and Nazi Party functionaries and members.
The 1968 Gun Control Act also exempts government entities from
the controls that apply to law-abiding citizens. It also uses
federal control of interstate commerce to convert what the U.S.
Constitution calls a "right" into a government-granted privilege-
-even as the Nazis did.
There's another curiosity. THe 1928 Weimar weapons law
created the category of "hunting weapons" and treated such weapons
differently from other weapons. So far as Jay Simkin, who's
researched the subject extensively, know, this is the first time
that category appears in any country's weapon-control laws (of
which there were almost none in the world before 1920).
In the 1968 Gun Control Act the term "sporting purpose" is
introduced, making its first appearance in any federal law or court
decision. While "sporting purpose" is nowhere defined, the
secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use this vague concept
to decide which weapons can or cannot be owned by private persons.
All this might be coincidence, of course. If you want to
control people's access to weapons, which is what gun control is
all about, there are certain provisions you'll include.
What Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership did,
after hearing people talk about apparent parallels between the Nazi
law and the 1968 U.S. law, was to get original copies of the Nazi-
era and prior laws and have them translated. Then they placed the
provisions of the 1938 Nazi Weapons Act side by side against
provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
The parallels are downright eerie. The U.S. version tends to
be wordier and more bureaucratic-sounding than the Nazi version.
But the powers granted to authorities and the requirements placed
on people who want to own firearms track very closely.
Particularly dramatic are the various forms prescribed for
firearms dealers and government agencies. Not all laws include
examples of the forms they want used. The Nazi law dos. So does
the U.S. law.
Is there a more tangible connection? The JPFO researchers
looked at the representatives and senators who had been most active
in promoting gun control in the 1960s, seeking a German connection.
They found that the late Sen. Thomas Dodd, D-Conn., had been a
senior member of the U.S. team that prosecuted Nazi war criminals
during the Nuremberg trials. He lived in Germany, and his official
duties required him to look at Nazi records and Nazi laws.
Then another researcher pointed them to the published record
of the hearings held before the 1968 law was passed. And there was
a letter to Senator Dodd from the law librarian of the library of
Congress, dated a few months before the 1968 law was passed:
"Your request of July 2, 1968...for the translation of several
German laws has been referred to the Law Library for attention.
"In compliance with your request...we are enclosing herewith
a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938...as well as
the Xerox copy of the original German text which you supplied."
So Dodd had his own copy of the Nazi law and asked the
Library of Congress to translate it for him during the time the
1968 law was being drafted. Where and when did he get it? Did he
really use it as a model for the U.S. law? His family controls his
papers. THey haven't responded to requests to do research among
them.
However it happened, we have a Nazi-style, Nazi-inspired law
on the books. JPFO wants a full-scale congressional investigation
into how this happened, if not outright repeal, before we even
think about any more "gun control." It's a good point.

Posted 08/11/2008 03:08:20 pm CDT by Coral Snake
[ Reply ]
Category: Crime/Corruption
Keywords: Thomas J Dodd NAZI Weapons Act of 1938 Gun Control Act of 1968 Comparison Nuremburg filch pilfer pants
To: Coral Snake
Dodd is the devil based on all your posts. He didn't get his daily JPFO email like you. BTW, how much have you contributed?

1 Posted 2008-08-11 15:19:38 by buckeroo
(Oh ye take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland b'for ye.)
[ Reply | To 0 ]
To: buckeroo
I would like to know why exposing the misguided Jews in the gun grabber movement is okay but exposing the fact that the movement itself was FOUNDED by GENTILE JESUIT COADJUTORS like Franklain Roosevelt (National Firearms Act) and Thomas J Dodd (Gun Control Act of 1968 based on laws created in Germany by another Jesuit Coadjutor, Adolph Hitler) is not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 Posted 2008-08-11 15:32:12 by Coral Snake
()
[ Reply | To 1 ]

To: Coral Snake, CAPPSMADNESS

Did I say what was 'OK' to post vs. 'not_OK'? Hold on, lets get an independent judge on this issue; one whom all trust about objective results. CAPPSMADNESS, what say you?

3 Posted 2008-08-11 15:37:55 by buckeroo

(Oh ye take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland b'for ye.)

[ Reply | To 2 ]

To: Coral Snake, buckaroo

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/harcourt/harcourt_fordham.pdf

On the NRA, Adolph Hitler, Gun Registration,
and the Nazi Gun Laws :
Exploding the Culture Wars
[A Call to Historians]
Bernard E. Harcourt

[nc - footnotes deleted]

[...]

Finally, the Hitler argument is somewhat puzzling because we have, in a number of states in this country, a long tradition of gun registration. In fact, the Anglo-American tradition of gun registration dates back to seventeenth-century England. Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements. In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and their buyers from the past six months. [21] Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly. [22] These requirements �which constitute the first known gun registration scheme�remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that "the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." [23] The English history reflects a substantial statutory limitation on gun ownership before and after 1689. [24]

[...]

Exploring the Nazi Gun Law Argument

The same is true in the gun culture wars�and the Hitler-as-gun-control-proponent argument is perhaps the best illustration. The fact is, there is tremendous fragmentation internal to the pro-gun community on the specific issue of Hitler and gun registration. Not all pro-gunners buy the Hitler argument. The pro-gun folks at the talk.politics.guns web site, for instance, debunk the infamous Hitler quote. They rely primarily on the research of Clayton Cramer, a pro-gunner, [53] in his book, Firing Back, which refutes the Hitler reference, and they tend, to a certain extent�at least Cramer does�to minimize the connection between gun registration and the Holocaust.

More interesting, though, within the pro-gun community, there is sharp conflict over whether Hitler was a gun control proponent or not. The moving force behind the Hitler-as-gun-control-proponent argument is the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), which has published two books documenting Hitler's use of gun registration, translated the German laws, and drawn fierce attention to the issue of totalitarian gun control measures�the two books are entitled LethalLaws: "Gun Control" Is the Key to Genocide (1994) and "Gun Control� Gateway to Tyranny: The Nazi Weapons Law, 18 March 1938 (1993). This organization is clearly anti-Nazi and pro-gun.

---

One of the leading defenders of Hitler on the question of gun control, however, is also pro-gun. It's the National Alliance & National Vanguard, a white supremacist organization. According to a pamphlet published by National Vanguard Books, Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945 by William L. Pierce, Adolf Hitler was actually very much in favor of liberal gun possession. Pierce writes:

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, "You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms," or "The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns."

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German Firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

When you have read [and compare the 1928 and 1938 German gun laws], you understand that it was Hitler's enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people's right of self-defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense. [54]

Now, make no mistake. This argument is from a pamphlet published and promoted by National Vanguard Books and the National Alliance. In order to be a member of National Alliance, you have to be a "White person (a non-Jewish person of wholly European ancestry) of good character. . . . No homosexual or bisexual person, . . . no person with a non-White spouse or a non-White dependent" need apply. [55] This is a white supremacist organization. Yet it is also, perhaps, one of the most vocal opponent of the Hitler-as-gun-control-proponent argument and the Nazi-Second-Amendment connection. And it is vehemently pro-gun. Oddly, the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and the National Alliance are bedfellows when it comes to gun regulation�though not, obviously, when it comes to Adolph Hitler.

Reading the Nazi Gun Laws

The two most vocal commentators in the debate over the Nazi gun laws are, first, Stephen Halbrook, whose writings, most recently Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews, [56] set forth the position that the Nazis were pro-gun-control; [57] and, second, William Pierce, whose four-page essay Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945, published with the translated texts of the German laws by the white supremacist organization National Vanguard, set forth the position that the Nazis were not pro-gun-control. As noted, the other important participant in these debates is the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, which, through its two books, "Gun Control" Gateway to Tyranny (1993) and Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" Is the Key to Genocide (1994), presents full English translations of all the relevant German gun laws and regulations.

Neither Halbrook, nor Pierce are historians, [58] and their ideological commitments are so flagrant�Halbrook as a pro-gun litigator and Pierce as a pro-gun white supremacist�that neither can be trusted in these debates. But if you read the German gun laws, it seems fair to say that, first, the Nazi government had in place gun control regulations that required a permit to acquire, transfer, or carry a handgun, or alternatively a hunting license. In this sense, it is an accurate statement that the Nazis had a system of gun licensing. Second, the Nazis enacted regulations pursuant to their gun laws that prohibited Jews from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. Third, in other respects, the Nazis relaxed the gun control regulations that were in place in Germany at the time they seized power. In this sense, the Nazis appeared to be more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic. How to characterize their treatment of Jewish persons for purposes of gun control�banning the possession of dangerous weapons, including guns, in 1938, and subsequently exterminating Jewish persons�is, in truth, an absurd question. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill Jews, and their treatment of Jews is, for all intents and purposes, orthogonal to their gun-control tendencies. But if forced to weigh in, it actually seems, somewhat surprisingly, that the white supremacist Pierce may have the better of the argument: the Nazis were probably more pro-gun than their predecessors.

The history of general gun control in Germany from the post-World War I period to the inception of World War II seems to be, in general, a history of declining, rather than increasing, gun control. First, the Weimar Republic gun laws of 1928 represented a liberalization of the draconian post-World War I prohibitions on gun possession. On January 13, 1919, the Weimar Republic passed, as one of its first acts, a complete ban on the ownership of firearms, a ban which was in effect in Germany until the Weimar government enacted in 1928 the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928. The 1919 ban�entitled Regulations of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession�provided that "All firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." [59] Under the regulation as enforced, "Whoever kept a firearm or ammunition was subj ect to imprisonment for five years and a fine of 100,000 marks. That decree would remain in force until repealed in 1928." [60] On August 7, 1920, the German government also passed a Law on the Disarmament of the People, which put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty regarding the limits on military weapons. [61]

Against this background, the Weimar 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition represented a significant liberalization�through regulation�of gun possession. The law put into effect a system of permits: it provided for the issuance of permits to own or transfer firearms, to carry firearms including handguns, to manufacture firearms, and to professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. [62] These permit requirements applied to all firearms, whether long guns or handguns. [63] The 1928 law spelled out strict requirements about who could obtain such permits, and who was exempt from the permit requirements. So, for instance, firearms acquisition or carrying permits were "only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and�in the case of a firearms carry permit�only if a demonstration of need is set forth." [64] Such permits would not, by law, issue to "Gypsies" or "persons who are itinerant like Gypsies." [65] On the other hand, firearm acquisition permits were not required by "officials of the central government, the states, as well as the German Railways Company," [66] or by "community officials to whom the highest government authority has permitted acquisition without an acquisition permit." [67]

The 1928 law put into effect a strict licensing scheme that covered all aspects of firearms�from the manufacture to the sale, including repair and even reloading ammunition. [68] It explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, [69] which had banned all firearms possession, and thereby liberalized firearms regulation. As Halbrook himself notes, based on review of contemporaneous newspaper reports and official commentary, "the 1928 law was seen as deregulatory to a point but enforceable, in contrast to a far more restrictive albeit unenforceable [1919] order." [70] Halbrook continues: "Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law." [71]

Second, with regard to gun possession, the 1938 Nazi gun laws represented a further liberalization of gun control regulations. In fact, most of the changes in the law reflected a loosening of the regulations, not a tightening. The Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, is patterned on the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928. The two laws have the same structure, similar section headings, and broadly similar language.

Section IV of both statutes address the same topic with the same header, "Acquisition, Carrying, Possession, and Importation of Firearms and Ammunition." [72] These are the provisions that deal with possession and carrying of firearms. The first important revision in the 1938 law concerns the scope of the gun control regulation regarding the need for an acquisition permit: whereas the 1928 law regarding the acquisition or transfer of guns applied to "firearms and ammunition," [73] which included any and all "weapons from which a bullet or a load of pellets may be driven through a barrel, by means of the development of an explosive gas or air pressure" [74] �i.e. rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc.�the 1938 law applied only to "handguns." [75] In other words, the 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.

The second set of revisions effectuate an enlargement of the exceptions to the acquisition permit requirement. The 1938 law effectively extended the number of groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement. Whereas the 1928 law exempted primarily "officials of the central government, the states, as well as the German Railways Company," [76] "business owners" dealing in guns, [77] and holders of a "firearms carry permit," [78] the 1938 law included these exemptions, but extended them to include holders of "annual hunting permits," [79] as well as a larger group of government workers and Nazi party members. [80] The effect of these changes meant that anyone with an annual hunting permit did not need a permit for the acquisition or transfer of any firearms, whether long guns or handguns. Moreover, an additional provision in the 1938 law states that "a hunting license entitles the holder to carry firearms and handguns," [81] suggesting that the hunting license also extends an exemption for handgun carrying. Under the 1928 law, the hunting permit only entitled its holder to acquire "handguns as noted on it" [82] and to carry handguns during the hunting activity. [83]

A third revision lowered the age for the acquisition of firearms. Whereas the 1928 law did not allow acquisition or carry permits to issue to persons under 20 years of age, the 1938 law did not allow "juveniles under 18 years of age" to "buy" firearms; the 1938 law also allowed "the competent authority [to] make exceptions."84

A fourth revision extended the period that a permit to carry was valid. Under the 1928 law, a firearms carry permit was valid for one year from the date of issue; however, under the 1938 law, the permit was valid for a period of three years.85

4 Posted 2008-08-11 17:16:23 by nolu_chan

[ Reply | To 0 ]

To: Coral Snake

Chan is a nazi. He loved the nazi gun control act. His only problem is they didn't kill enough jews. He hates them. He worships Alah the satanic "god".

5 Posted 2008-08-12 00:17:18 by A K A Stone

(Jhoffas PM Harassment.. How about you meet me at the gas station at 50 and I275.. And I'll fucking beat your teeth in. Jhoffa_ to Stone) Im at www.libertysflame.com)

[ Reply | To 2 ]

To: A K A Stone

Chan is a nazi. He loved the nazi gun control act. His only problem is they didn't kill enough jews. He hates them. He worships Alah the satanic "god".

I believe in Godwin's Law and not the Stone god, Jobu and sacrificing chickens.

The multiple personalities of A K A Stone/TLBSHOW/Coral Snake believe in pimping the Nazis on every issue where they regurgitate false propaganda, and then to yell anti-semitism when their false claims are shredded.

I do not believe in that empty headed Stone sickness. Truth suffices. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own "facts."

6 Posted 2008-08-12 02:07:47 by nolu_chan

[ Reply | To 5 ]

[ Latest Posts ]