The New York Times recently ran an op-ed by Alan Berlow claiming that because the National Firearms Act (NFA) has both worked and stood the test of time, it should be expanded to include registering, fingerprinting and photographing of every gun owner—and that claims that reasonable limits on gun ownership are a serious burden to law-abiding gun owners are “nonsensical.”
But are they? 1934’s NFA (and subsequent amendments) have resulted in sky-high prices for NFA firearms and accessories, months-long wait times, and an open door to further gun control—all plenty burdensome. But contrary to Berlow’s claims, NRA has been fighting against NFA restrictions—as the march of suppressor legalization proves.
Berlow also admits that while the number of registered NFA owners who commit crimes is infinitesimally small, “NFA-classified weapons do show up at crime scenes, but nearly all of them are unregistered.” What’s that you say? Only the law-abiding will obey laws mandating registration, while criminals will ignore them? If criminals still manage to obtain firearms that were not only available in small numbers to begin with, but have also been illegal for 30 years, how effective is it really?