Writing an informative speech about federal gun laws

[Kimio]

I'm not sure if this would fall under the General section or here, so please forgive me if this is in the wrong sub forum.

As the title states, I'm putting together an informative speech for my college class, and would like to know what typically are the most common laws that the general public does not know much about? Also, I'm looking for laws that the anti gun community is trying to drive forward that already have been addressed in past laws (Laws that ban so and so from getting x for example), which only tighten the reigns on an already defunct law. The AW ban of 86 and of course the one Clinton ban are some of the big ones, the Hughes amendment and the Brady laws also come to mind.

I'm still learning myself, so any other suggestions would be highly appreciated, possible sources that are easier to read for those who are not as savvy with legal lingo would be appreciated, though official sources are welcome.

Thank you for the assistance.

[Librarian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

The content of the wikipedia article here is OK.

The thing that seems completely unknown, after 46 years, is that interstate transfers must go through a Federal Firearms Licensee, no matter what state law may permit for gun transfers for citizens of that state.

There are exceptions, but folks seem astonished that person-to-person sales between residents of different states are illegal without the FFL.

[Spats McGee]

Well, here is A Repository of Reliable Sources & Citations that might help you with some of the factual underpinnings.

On the legal end, you might consider addressing the non-existent Gun Show Loophole. Common misperception is that gun shows are exempt from background checks on FFL sales.

[Rifleman1776]

It is hard for me to comprehend why you will be lecturing students on a subject you are not educated in.
This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with higher education today.
Get a guest lecturer who knows the subject.
I'm not a brain surgeon but I'm going to get some advice on a discussion forum then lecture on how to do brain surgery. Want to be my test patient?

[carguychris]

It is hard for me to comprehend why you will be lecturing students on a subject you are not educated in.

Perhaps so he/she has to learn about the subject?

[btmj]

It is hard for me to comprehend why you will be lecturing students on a subject you are not educated in.

Maybe it is a class where learning how to prepare and give a speech is the point... not necessarily the content of the speech.

When I was at the university, I had to write research papers on subjects I was unfamiliar with, and the point of the exersize was to learn how to write a research paper, not become an expert on the topic.

Jim

[Spats McGee]

Let's not veer off into a discussion of the merits and flaws of the educational system, please.

[carguychris]

IMHO the 1934 NFA would make a juicier topic for a lecture than the 1968 GCA.

The NFA was the first truly substantial gun control legislation to be enacted on a national scale. It arguably had a more substantial and lasting effect on availability of certain types of firearms than the 68 GCA or the 94 AWB did; the 68 GCA import restrictions created a temporary vacuum of cheap small-caliber automatic pistols, but this was rapidly filled by domestic producers, while the 94 AWB arguably didn't have much effect on the availability of the affected items, only their prices. The NFA is interesting from a constitutional law standpoint because it relies on the Taxing and Spending Clause rather than the Commerce Clause, as it was enacted prior to the Wickard v. Fillburn decision. Finally, the NFA used to be obscure and poorly understood within the gun community- older (pre-1980s) gun literature often treats the buying and selling of NFA items almost like a black art- but there's been a recent surge of interest in it caused largely by the Internet and reality TV.

[EDIT: This last point will help the uninitiated understand that so-called "assault rifles" are NOT the same thing as legal machine guns. It's also fun to watch the look on the faces of the finance, accounting, and investor types when you explain that the values of transferable machine guns have outperformed almost all conventional investments over the last 20 years. ]

[Kimio]

I'm doing research right now, which is why I'd like to get information from more informed individuals.

Also, yes, the class is about "Public Speaking" we're supposed to deliver informative or persuasive speeches, and I figured I'd do my speech on something that I'm very passionate about. I can't however talk about something that I'm not very well versed in. Hence the questions here.

On topic, I appreciate the links and suggestions, I'm always open for more resources and reading material to help provide even more clarity on the subject.

[ClydeFrog]

I'd look into www.paladin-press.com www.deltapress.com www.nra.org www.gunvideo.com .
There are a few books & videos/docs about firearms and the legal issues related to them.
Massad Ayoob is a good source too. He's the author of many books & gun press articles. He's also a legal expert & testifys in court trials all over.
www.massadayoobgroup.com

[Fishing_Cabin]

Since its for a college class, and you may not be going very far in depth due to time limitations, what about discussing the Bush '89 import restrictions vs the current availability of similar firearms made in the USA? You could also tie it in to the gunshow loophole debate, as well as discussing the various FFL license types to round everything out.

Ive found doing a comparative speech vs a lecture type more engaging to a general group. So maybe start with comparing, say banned from import FN-FAL rifles, to DSA FAL type rifles, and similar with the AK type clones from then and now, and so on and so forth, then tie in the debate of the gunshow loophole by attaching sales of the used banned import firearms, and their high collector value compared to the new USA made versions, then you can then tie in the FFL license type(s) and the debate over that, to combat the anti-gun view of the gunshow loophole.

Even with that, you could also touch on the 1968 GCA if you wished by using the sporting use exemption for shotguns, and explaining why its illegal to import a certain type, but it would be legal to make and sell here in the USA.

Try to keep a level of relevance to the speech which the others can relate to.

[zukiphile]

The danger in asking for sources here that that you will be swamped with excellent ones.

I'm doing research right now, which is why I'd like to get information from more informed individuals.

Also, yes, the class is about "Public Speaking" we're supposed to deliver informative or persuasive speeches,...

One of the difficult aspects of persuasion is getting people to listen if they don't care to. If you can hone your thesis down to a question people might react to viscerally, like "Gun laws are proposed to make us safer. Have they done that?" or "What did federal gun laws do to stop Mr. (insert name of famous killer)?", you may have a better shot (no pun) at keeping people tuned in even if they have lots of other things to think about.

[44 AMP]

Are you looking at simply explaining the laws, or something else?

You might consider mentioning things like how we came to get the laws, and their real vs. claimed effects.

We got the 34 NFA shortly after the repeal of Prohibition left a lot of Treasury agents looking for something to do...

We got the 68 GCA as a "do something" response in a time of civil unrest and high profile political assassinations. And it was supported by many because of the included trade protection regulations.

We got the 86 FOPA after years of work to fix some of the screw ups in the 68 GCA. But to get it, we also had to accept the ending of legal private ownership of fully automatic firearms not on the Federal registry at the time.

We got the 94 AWB as a result of overreaching politicians taking advantage of the media led frenzy and glorification of some deranged losers using "assault weapons".

With the 94 law, we were able to insert a sunset clause, so that Federal law went away in 2004. You might want to look at what has happened, during, and after that law was in effect.

Take a serious look at how much time you have to speak, decide on the main key points you want to make, and don't get lost in the minutia.

Good Luck.

[Tom Servo]

Take a serious look at how much time you have to speak, decide on the main key points you want to make, and don't get lost in the minutia.

That's good advice. Bear in mind that your subject is going to be somewhat controversial, and you're going to have to answer questions.

That means two things. The first is that you're going to have less time than you think, and the second is that you'll have to be prepared to deal with rebuttals. You can do that by sticking to one particular point.

My recommendation is to discuss the big push last year, with an emphasis on the shaky and often false statistics our opponents threw around. Three things that spring to mind are these:

• The 1998 study that "proved" 40% of firearms are transferred without a background check
• The claim from the Quinnipiac study that 90% of Americans support universal background checks
• The paper Senator Feinstein attached to her bill to renew the assualt weapons ban, which actually admitted that the 1994-2004 ban had no effect on violent crime.

[Kimio]

The initial idea was to bring to light how many laws we have on the books already, talking about the nuances of some of them and touching on facts while trying to dispel some of the lies that the anti gunners spout. This is an informative speech, which is the topic of my next assignment. The following speech is to be a persuasive one, so I was hoping to make this one a prelude to the next, as well as for the final one which would likely be a mix of both informative and persuasive.

[Aguila Blanca]

There was a letter to the editor in a newspaper near me just last week complaining about crime and proposing that people should be required to get permission to carry guns.

This ignores two things (okay, three things):

1. The U.S. Constitution says we have a "right" to carry a gun.

2. My state's constitution says we have a "right" to carry a gun.

3. Despite the above, my state requires (and issues) permits to carry guns. So the fundamental premise of the letter to the editor was dead in the water because what they (the letter was written by a class at a local school) called for adopting is already required. It also ignored (in the literal sense of being ignorant of) the fact that what they called for (and what we have) is a system that by definition is in violation of both the state and federal constitutions.

Utah requires permits to carry, I believe. It might be interesting to ask how many in your audience are aware of that? And, if so, if they have any idea what the requirements are.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/utah.pdf

[Baba Louie]

Kimio
In the header bar above you'll find the link to the "Library"
Click on it.
Within you'll find several dozen links that will take you to years of research. I suggest you choose "GUNCITE" as an initial link (left column). Hit it. Read. Learn. Follow references within if you don't want to use TFL as a biased source.

Further down the left column you'll find "Positions on RKBA" with a few treasures there as well. Check out the "34 NFA Testimony".