A Brief History
On May 19, 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law an act of Congress known as the Firearm Owners Protection Act. This law was passed in response to allegations of abusive enforcement by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Digging Deeper
Congress had investigated those claims and found that the allegations had merit, in that enforcement was being directed at convoluted interpretations of minor violations instead of aimed at hard corps criminals. The subcommittee conducting the investigation found that an incredible 75% of prosecutions pursued by the ATF were “constitutionally improper.”
Obviously congress saw a need to clarify gun laws to allow law abiding gun owners to exercise their rights while focusing enforcement on dangerous criminals. A key element of the Act was to ensure that citizens legally transporting guns across state lines would not be prosecuted and jailed for violating local restrictive laws banning guns or certain types of guns if the gun owner was just passing through. As long as firearms were packaged not ready at hand and not ready to fire, citizens would be allowed safe passage through states, counties, or cities with harsh gun laws. This law would not allow a gun toting citizen the right to stay for an extended period in such a district, just pass through with only minor stops.
Another problem addressed by the Act was the ATF harassing otherwise law abiding dealers with constant inspections and audits of their paperwork, to the point where the distraction seriously hindered business. Agents were now allowed to inspect a dealer and his paperwork once a year and only permitted to check more often if that dealer had a history of previous violations.
Much to the chagrin of gun enthusiasts, another provision of the FOPA banned the sale of newly manufactured machine guns (full automatic capable weapons) to private citizens. Automatic weapons built before May 19, 1986 would still be allowed to be owned and sold (transferred in gun law lingo) to private citizens as long as regulations about recording the transfer, paying a special $200 tax, and having the transfer approved by local and federal authorities. Another requirement of this section of the Act was that the transferor and transferee must reside in the same state. (Why? It is not clear how that accomplishes any particular public safety goal.)
The FOPA also clearly prohibited a national firearm registration program, but did still allow certain types of data to be kept regarding guns used in crimes, stolen guns, gun traces, multiple sales of guns to one person and others. It also (partly) clarified who prohibited persons were that could not legally own or possess a gun, or attempt to buy one. Prohibited people are those convicted of a felony, subject of a dishonorable discharge from the military, legal or illegal aliens (unless licensed and engaged in hunting), drug addicts, stalkers, persons ordered by a court not to be armed and mentally unsound people (as determined by a court or by involuntary incarceration in a mental health facility) and a few other provisions. In 1996 added to this list was any person convicted of domestic violence, even if the conviction happened years before the law was passed!
Laws passed later created the requirement for a background check of any gun purchased from a licensed dealer and a method of performing that check on the spot (instant background check); however, no provision has been made then or now for a national data base of mentally defective or dangerous persons, and such a register is often opposed by liberals and conservatives alike, mostly on the basis of how such a list could be abused by false accusations and used as harassment.
Americans seem to either love or hate guns, and of course the US has more guns in private ownership than any country in the world. Even with the enormous increase in sales over the past 30 or 40 years crimes using firearms have gone down sharply. Question for students (and subscribers): Do we need more gun laws? Do we fewer gun laws? Do we need to start prosecuting people who fail background checks? (This practice, incredibly, is rarely done!) Let us know where you stand on this controversial topic in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
United States Congress Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Firearms Owners Protection Act hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, first and second … December 9 and 11, 1981, and February 8, 1982. University of Michigan Library, 1982.
United States Congress Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Federal Firearms Owner Protection Act: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session on S. 914 … October 4, 1983. University of Michigan Library, 1984.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="2256 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=2256">68 Comments
It seems like Reagan had the same mind set that many of us have now. Assault weapons are not like having rifles. Citizens don’t need automatic weapons to protect themselves.
Why would people need a machine gun to protect themselves at home or on the go? That’s a little too intense, in my opinion.
The gun laws are very controversial today. A man from the NRA said in an interview that there should be ways to track stolen guns, and I agree with that.
I agree that background checks should take place become a gun is sold.
I agree that people should be able to own guns, but I think that we need to have more intensive screening before allowing just anyone to have semi-automatic and automatic weapons.
I believe that people should be allowed to own guns, but should obtain a background check before purchase.
I’m glad that later they required background checks. I believe gun laws should still be discussed and modified as time progresses.
I agree that average citizen does not need an automatic machine gun, and I agree that background checks are a good idea. However, I don’t think we need many more restrictions than that. Too many more would be far too restrictive, bordering on unconstitutional.
Background checks are essential.
Too many restricts or a ban could just turn into a repeat of the prohibition era
I completely agree that civilians do not need access to a machine gun or any kind of semi-automatic weapon. i also think that the background check needs to be more lengthy and detailed before a gun can be purchased.
I do completely agree with the idea of background checks before buying a gun. Everyone had the rights to a gun, but we do need to do a better job or preventing those who are mentally ill from purchasing a gun.
It’s crazy how controversial gun laws are still today. I really believe that Americans should be able to carry guns, but maybe there should be greater restriction on what types.
I believe that people should be allowed to carry a gun only if they have their conceal and carry and if they have a background check.
It’s crazy that for, as long as guns have been around, we still can’t seem to figure a good solution for the sale and distribution of them.
I believe there is a need for stricter gun laws, especially when it comes to mental health.
I think it is good that people get background checks before they are allowed to have guns and that there are people that cannot have guns because of a mental health disorder or their felony/criminal background.
I do agree about the AK-47 not needed in a private home. I also believe in background checks.
I agree that an AK-47 should not be owned by a member of the general public, I also agree that people should have a background check before they are allowed to purchase a firearm.
This is a very controversial subject in society today. I agree and think people should have an instant background check done when purchasing guns. I know this is hard due to private parties ability to sell guns making it hard to control who has guns.
People deserve the right to bare arms without question.
the entire reason to bare arms was if our government was corrupt we could
The right to bare arms is always going to be a conflict in the world.
People always deserve to own and use guns! I can understand why some would hate them, but you cannot blame an inanimate object for murders!
Gun laws and ownership have continuously been a problem in this country, which is proved in this article. I wonder if we will ever find a point of acceptance in regards to guns in the U.S.
This shows that then and now people have different views of gun laws.
Gun laws will be forever an issue because the US as a nation is torn between them.
Torn by propaganda spewing disinformation so that people willfully give up their second amendment rights as well as all their other rights. Communist/Marxists have taken over the democrat party and using it to try and destroy the U.S.
Don’t fall for their bullshit, globalism isn’t all butterflies and unicorns like they want you to think.
I guess gun laws and activities will always be a conflict in America.
Overall, gun laws will be hotly debated in America considering the many people that they kill but also protect. My overall stance is that they should be used for protection but not murder.
I think that background checks are very important for buying a gun. This will always be a talked about issue because it seems impossible to please everyone.
It appears that gun laws have always been an issue in this country.
Guns will always create the classic debate.
I would have to agree with Reagan in the first quote that was written in the article. People should have the right own guns for sport or protection but maybe their should be laws about what types of guns.
I remember when this passed and I do support it. I did not grow up with guns around me but my husband did and respects believes in the right to own guns. Most gun owners are responsible and kept ammo and guns separate during transport.
I agree with Reagan on this issue. There is no way that the power of an AK-47 is needed to protect the home or to use in sport.
In my opinion, I still do not agree that people should have freedom to own guns.
I still don’t have a definite stance on how I feel about guns, but I do agree with Reagan that, that type of gun does not need to be in homes.
I agree with Reagan that kind of gun was unnecessary to hold at home.
This was the beginning of attempts on gun control.
This is a very controversial act. I’m not sure how I feel.
I think that it was sensible to determine that firearm unfit for the home. It is a very powerful weapon and it serves no practical purpose in that environment.
I go wit the congeres you should control the gun and make strong law.
Most pro-gun activists believe in this. As someone who grew up around guns, I never wanted to own a machine gun, but simply to protect my family, and allow those who hunt and enjoy the sport to posess guns.
I feel that we just need to enforce the laws we already have. Many of us enjoy firearms as a hobby. There are many things out there that can kill people, much easier than guns.
More gun laws will do exactly nothing to prevent gun crime. Criminals do not adhere to laws. Just look at cities like Chicago and Detroit that have some of the toughest gun laws in the country and still look like Afghanistan. To be fair, Afghanistan may be a bit safer.
I understand the purpose being the act. At least he wasn’t trying to get rid of guns completely.
We need more gun laws, not fewer. I know too many people hurt or killed by guns.
I honestly believe more gun laws will not make a difference these days.
I own some guns but I don’t thinking making them harder to get will solve our shooting problem like I always say a criminal will always find a gun
I agree there should be stricter laws and stipulations to own a firearm. The sad truth is there will always be someway for someone to obtain a firearm illegally.
People are going to find a way to get a gun one way or another.
The 2nd amendment is constantly under scrutiny when the protesters should be focusing on the individuals committing the crimes. There do not need to be more regulations but more support for law enforcement to combat crime.
Most Americans should always maintain the right to “Bear arms”. This right is to ensure that citizens can protect themselves and their families. I do agree with doing background checks on individuals before buying firearms (Do not want criminals to have guns).
Is the people behind the gun that kill people. Criminals are always going to get a gun from the streets and they are not going to follow any rules or laws we put out. Only the good citizens of this country follow the law and comply with the law.
Gun laws will always be good and bad. People will always be on both sides for and against.
This was a good gun law. During the Obama administration there was so much focus on stricter gun laws, but the problem with that theory is that it would target mainly law abiding citizens. This law aimed at letting law abiding citizens exercise their right while targeting the criminals. This gun law not only implemented background checks to separate the criminals from the law abiding citizens, but the proof that the gun law worked showed in the numbers when crimes involving firearms decreased sharply during the next 30 to 40 years.
People kill people, not guns. People kill others with knives and they are not banneed. I am a proud gun owner and have a CCW. I am also proud of my wife for doing the same!
Agreeed. It’s people that kill others not the guns.
I will always see it as criminals will not follow the laws. The only one being hurt are the law abiding citizen that want to protect themselves. With proper knowledge and training, gun protection is a good thing.
I have no problems with guns but I can support the policies that Regan was trying to put into place. There is no reason someone needs a machine gun. Guns for protection and hunting are different from large powerful artillery bought for the hell of it.
I understand the phrase “People kill people, not guns”, but there would be less killing if those “People ” were screened heavily before purchasing firearms and also held accountable for their actions after purchasing.
No more gun laws. The citizens who want to arm themselves should be able to. The thugs of society will find way to obtain theirs.
I agree to an extent. They need to clarify the laws in place so there is no gray area. I don’t think they need new gun laws.
The Right to Bear Arms, I will always fully believe it is a persons right to protect their homes and their families.
I agree that we need to have some laws for gun control. For example, guns should not be permitted in schools, bars etc. Nonetheless when laws are being argued about guns most generally they are not looking at the picture logically. Guns do not kill people any more than knives or cars kill people. The laws that are being pursued are taking the guns away from law abiding citizens. It is the criminals that we want to get the guns away from but unfortunately criminals will always find a way to get them no matter the laws.
I am all for gun control. If anything, prosecution should happen to those who don’t lock their guns up correctly to keep others from stealing and/or using the gun in a wrongful manner. The parents of children who participate in school shootings should be prosecuted. Maybe then will people pay better attention to whats going on and their children.
I am all for gun control, nevertheless, I do believe people should be able to have them but must be in a secure location like a locked gun safe or something along those line. I do not feel they should be taken away completely.