Quote Originally Posted by asmotao View Post
Changing the NFA is hard -- and as far as I know its not on anyones RADAR. The biggest change that is about to come is the removal of the CLEO sign-off (will have to notify but not get permission) and the requirment to have trustees submit fingerprint cards.

Way way way back in thr 1940s and 1950s the NRA wanted to repeal the NFA. They changed their mind as they turned into a 'sportsmans organization'. I hear rumblings that they may want to get involved with that again someday -- but now is not that day.

The GCA wasn't written because the NFA was 'un-enforcable' (its unconstitutional, but that is a different discussion) - the GCA was done to limit interstate commerce of firearms (require FFLs, no more buying from catalogs, all firearms need to have serial numbers, etc.) and limit who could own weapons (no felons, dishonorable discharge, etc.). It was done in response to the Kennedy and MLK assasinations.
OK. I was citing Wikipedia which is far from a definitive source. Here is part of what they wrote about the 1934 NFA:

The United States Supreme Court, in 1968 decided the case of Haynes v. United States in favor of the defendant, which effectively gutted the National Firearms Act of 1934. As one could possess an NFA firearm and choose not to register it, and not face prosecution due to Fifth Amendment protections, the Act was unenforceable.
Part of my thinking behind raising this topic is that we see folks wanting to redirect the dialogue. It occurs to me that the past restrictions on firearms is lost in the dialogue today - especially when we (pro-gun) are accused of being unwilling to compromise. Perhaps one way of addressing the broader picture of firearm restrictions is to ALSO address the restrictions that have already been enacted and ask the hard questions as to the legitimacy of THOSE restrictions.