Should There Be Delivery Receipts for Oswald's Weapons?
Jean Davison
regulations:
"846.53a -- Delivery receipts for firearms, and statements by shippers of
firearms (Forms 2162, 1508) Records for these forms should be retained
for 4 years."
The implication was that all firearms sent through the mails
required receipts, even though that's not what the quote above actually
says.
I haven't been able to find a copy of the postal regulations for
1963, but I have found references to forms 2162 and 1508 which indicate
that they relate only to mailing handguns and other concealable firearms.
Mailing such weapons has been prohibited since 1927, with certain
exceptions. That's why Oswald's handgun was shipped through Railway
Express, not through the post office. If the receipt applied to handguns
alone, this means it didn't apply to either of Oswald's firearms
purchases.
The Code of Federal Regulations of 1966 mentions these forms
only in section 15.5, which is entitled "Concealable firearms." It says
that concealable firearms may be mailed only to certain individuals such
as military and law enforcement officers, who must file affidavits stating
their qualifications. Firearms dealers and manufacturers were also
allowed to mail handguns to one another, but instead of an affidavit they
had to file Form 1508, "Statement by Shipper of Firearms."
This same section on concealable firearms says, under "(d)
Identification of addressee," the following:
"The postmaster at the office of delivery shall require the
addressee of any parcel ***covered by this section*** [my emphasis] except
a manufacturer of firearms or bona fide dealer therein, to call at the
post office and establish his identity to the satisfaction of the
postmaster. The parcel may then be delivered after the addressee signs a
receipt which shall be filed by the postmaster for not less than 3 years.
Receipts for delivery shall be taken on Form 2162, "Delivery Receipt,
Firearms," on all mailings ***covered by this section*** [my emphasis] ."
[pp. 44-45]
Hearings of the House Committee on the Post Office and the Civil
Service in 1968, says much the same thing on page 9:
" .. an affidavit from the addressee certifying as to the
addressee's qualifications for receiving the firearm under the exemptions
provided. Among other things... the addressee, if not known to the
Postmaster as a manufacturer or dealer, must establish his identity and
sign a receipt -- form 2162."
The Code of Federal regulations of 1970 has the same
information, pp. 50-51:
I searched these volumes at Google Books and found no other
references to Forms 1508 and 2162.
Although I was unable to find the particular Post Office Manual
that Lane quoted, IMO the burden of proof is on those who claim that
Oswald's pistol or rifle required these receipts. The quote about how long
the records should be kept doesn't establish that.
Unless someone can show that Oswald's purchases actually
required a post office delivery receipt, I see no reason to believe that
they did.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
I think the word you are searching for is anachronism. You seem to be
unaware of the fact that reforms in shipping firearms were sparked by the
Kennedy assassination and his attempts to reform the process before his
murder were hampered by the extreme rightwingers who wanted to kill him.
We can't blame it all on the NRA. As you should already know, JFK was a
lifelong member of the NRA and enjoyed trap shooting. If you ever watched
the movie Bowling for Columbine you'd see that Michael Moore is also a
lifelong NRA member.
Coondog
>
> Hearings of the House Committee on the Post Office and the Civil
> Service in 1968, says much the same thing on page 9:
>
> " .. an affidavit from the addressee certifying as to the
> addressee's qualifications for receiving the firearm under the exemptions
> provided. Among other things... the addressee, if not known to the
> Postmaster as a manufacturer or dealer, must establish his identity and
> sign a receipt -- form 2162."
>
>
> The Code of Federal regulations of 1970 has the same
> information, pp. 50-51:
>
>
> I searched these volumes at Google Books and found no other
> references to Forms 1508 and 2162.
>
> Although I was unable to find the particular Post Office Manual
> that Lane quoted, IMO the burden of proof is on those who claim that
> Oswald's pistol or rifle required these receipts. The quote about how long
> the records should be kept doesn't establish that.
>
> Unless someone can show that Oswald's purchases actually
> required a post office delivery receipt, I see no reason to believe that
> they did.
>
> Jean
I think you are very right.
Bill Clarke
Jean Davison
Thanks, Bill. This issue comes up often.
Jean
Jean Davison
>
> > Hearings of the House Committee on the Post Office and the Civil
> > Service in 1968, says much the same thing on page 9:
>
> > " .. an affidavit from the addressee certifying as to the
> > addressee's qualifications for receiving the firearm under the exemptions
> > provided. Among other things... the addressee, if not known to the
> > Postmaster as a manufacturer or dealer, must establish his identity and
> > sign a receipt -- form 2162."
>
>
> > The Code of Federal regulations of 1970 has the same
> > information, pp. 50-51:
>
>
> > I searched these volumes at Google Books and found no other
> > references to Forms 1508 and 2162.
>
> > Although I was unable to find the particular Post Office Manual
> > that Lane quoted, IMO the burden of proof is on those who claim that
> > Oswald's pistol or rifle required these receipts. The quote about how long
> > the records should be kept doesn't establish that.
>
> > Unless someone can show that Oswald's purchases actually
> > required a post office delivery receipt, I see no reason to believe that
> > they did.
>
> > Jean
>
> I think the word you are searching for is anachronism. You seem to be
> unaware of the fact that reforms in shipping firearms were sparked by the
> Kennedy assassination and his attempts to reform the process before his
> murder were hampered by the extreme rightwingers who wanted to kill him.
> We can't blame it all on the NRA. As you should already know, JFK was a
> lifelong member of the NRA and enjoyed trap shooting. If you ever watched
> the movie Bowling for Columbine you'd see that Michael Moore is also a
> lifelong NRA member.
>
>
You miss the point. Some CTs read the 846.5a regulation to
mean that all weapons sent through the mails required receipts.
That's not what it says. It hasn't been established that either of
Oswald's firearms should've had a P.O. receipt.
Yes, the gun laws have become more strict over the years, but
that's beside the point.
Jean
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
No, the point is that citing regulations from 1966 about an event in
1963 is an anachronism.
You need to cite the regulations in effect in 1963. Have you done that
yet? Will you do that? Are you capable of doing that? Look through your
collection of American Rifleman magazines. They routinely had articles
and editorials about the gun laws then.
Coondog
>
> You miss the point. Some CTs read the 846.5a regulation to
> mean that all weapons sent through the mails required receipts.
> That's not what it says.
That has never slowed down Marsh.
Yes, the gun laws have become more strict over the years, but
> that's beside the point.
>
> Jean
It certainly is beside the point since gun laws was pretty loose and
not strictly enforced (at least in Texas) until JFKs assassination
which began the modern age of gun control. Oswald had, of course,
received both of his weapons before the assassination and before these
new stricter laws was passed.
Marsh needs to remember that we are talking 1963 Texas here. At that
time electric blasting caps and explosives were not that hard to come
by if you had a project. Try finding some today! No, probably best
not to do that!
Bill Clarke
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4d90ed33$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
No, the CTs who claim that the post office required receipts for
Oswald's weapons need to cite something that actually says that.
Harry Livingstone, for example wrote, "... postal regulations
required that **any firearm ordered by mail** must have forms filled out by
both shippers and receivers that would be retained for four years by the
post office." His cite for this was "section 846.53a," which says no such
thing. It says:
"846.53a -- Delivery receipts for firearms, and statements by shippers
of firearms (Forms 2162, 1508) Records for these forms should be retained
for 4 years."
Mark Lane presumably had a copy of the postal regulations of
1963. If it contained a regulation stating that all firearms ordered by
mail required a receipt, he should've quoted *that*, not a regulation about
how long receipts were kept.
Federal regulation of handguns has always been more strict than
the regulation of long guns. I think it's unlikely that a receipt would be
required for a rifle in 1963, but not in 1966 (the earliest reference I
could find).
Again, the burden is on Lane and the CTs who make the claim
to support their assertion with something relevant. So far, no one has done
that. (Oh well, it's only been 45 years.)
Jean
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Pay attention. That was exactly my point. But there were no Texas laws
involved. Only Federal.
Anthony Marsh
I've already lambasted them for that. Again you citing post office
regulations is a Federal matter not a state law. Some have complained
about the Post Office destroying some of the records. I guess that was ok
with you since it didn't indicate conspiracy.
> Harry Livingstone, for example wrote, "... postal regulations
> required that **any firearm ordered by mail** must have forms filled out by
> both shippers and receivers that would be retained for four years by the
> post office." His cite for this was "section 846.53a," which says no such
> thing. It says:
>
> "846.53a -- Delivery receipts for firearms, and statements by shippers
> of firearms (Forms 2162, 1508) Records for these forms should be retained
> for 4 years."
>
How does that differ from what Harry said? Be extremely specific.
> Mark Lane presumably had a copy of the postal regulations of
> 1963. If it contained a regulation stating that all firearms ordered by
> mail required a receipt, he should've quoted *that*, not a regulation about
> how long receipts were kept.
>
> Federal regulation of handguns has always been more strict than
> the regulation of long guns. I think it's unlikely that a receipt would be
> required for a rifle in 1963, but not in 1966 (the earliest reference I
> could find).
>
Ok, you guess it is unlikely. That's fine with me. But I thought this
discussion was about law and that you would cite the law.
> Again, the burden is on Lane and the CTs who make the claim
> to support their assertion with something relevant. So far, no one has done
> that. (Oh well, it's only been 45 years.)
> Jean
>
>
Well they tried, but you like to nitpick. Maybe you want to claim that
"should" does not mean "must."
>
>>
>>
>
>
Jean Davison
> On 3/29/2011 12:36 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> You miss the point. Some CTs read the 846.5a regulation to
> >>> mean that all weapons sent through the mails required receipts.
> >>> That's not what it says. It hasn't been established that either of
> >>> Oswald's firearms should've had a P.O. receipt.
>
> >>> Yes, the gun laws have become more strict over the years, but
> >>> that's beside the point.
>
> >>> Jean
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> No, the point is that citing regulations from 1966 about an event in 1963
> >> is an anachronism.
> >> You need to cite the regulations in effect in 1963. Have you done that
> >> yet? Will you do that? Are you capable of doing that? Look through your
> >> collection of American Rifleman magazines. They routinely had articles
> >> and
> >> editorials about the gun laws then.
>
> > No, the CTs who claim that the post office required receipts for
> > Oswald's weapons need to cite something that actually says that.
>
> I've already lambasted them for that. Again you citing post office
> regulations is a Federal matter not a state law. Some have complained
> about the Post Office destroying some of the records. I guess that was ok
> with you since it didn't indicate conspiracy.
This has nothing to do with destroying records. Nice
sidestep!
>
> > Harry Livingstone, for example wrote, "... postal regulations
> > required that **any firearm ordered by mail** must have forms filled out by
> > both shippers and receivers that would be retained for four years by the
> > post office." His cite for this was "section 846.53a," which says no such
> > thing. It says:
>
> > "846.53a -- Delivery receipts for firearms, and statements by shippers
> > of firearms (Forms 2162, 1508) Records for these forms should be retained
> > for 4 years."
>
> How does that differ from what Harry said? Be extremely specific.
If you can't read read the two quotes and see the difference,
Tony, I'm sorry, I cannot help you.
>
> > Mark Lane presumably had a copy of the postal regulations of
> > 1963. If it contained a regulation stating that all firearms ordered by
> > mail required a receipt, he should've quoted *that*, not a regulation about
> > how long receipts were kept.
>
> > Federal regulation of handguns has always been more strict than
> > the regulation of long guns. I think it's unlikely that a receipt would be
> > required for a rifle in 1963, but not in 1966 (the earliest reference I
> > could find).
>
> Ok, you guess it is unlikely. That's fine with me. But I thought this
> discussion was about law and that you would cite the law.
Then you were wrong. It's about how the CTs making the claim
should cite the law.
>
> > Again, the burden is on Lane and the CTs who make the claim
> > to support their assertion with something relevant. So far, no one has done
> > that. (Oh well, it's only been 45 years.)
> > Jean
>
> Well they tried, but you like to nitpick. Maybe you want to claim that
> "should" does not mean "must."
No, they didn't try. Lane cited something that didn't support
the claim and CTs have been parroting it ever since. No one has cited
any postal or federal regulation saying that ***all firearms ordered
by mail*** in 1963 required a P.O. receipt.
It's not nitpicking to expect that anyone making a claim
should back it up.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
The difference is that you are a WC defender.
>>
>>> Mark Lane presumably had a copy of the postal regulations of
>>> 1963. If it contained a regulation stating that all firearms ordered by
>>> mail required a receipt, he should've quoted *that*, not a regulation about
>>> how long receipts were kept.
>>
>>> Federal regulation of handguns has always been more strict than
>>> the regulation of long guns. I think it's unlikely that a receipt would be
>>> required for a rifle in 1963, but not in 1966 (the earliest reference I
>>> could find).
>>
>> Ok, you guess it is unlikely. That's fine with me. But I thought this
>> discussion was about law and that you would cite the law.
>
> Then you were wrong. It's about how the CTs making the claim
> should cite the law.
>
I asked you to cite the law and you refuse.
>>
>>> Again, the burden is on Lane and the CTs who make the claim
>>> to support their assertion with something relevant. So far, no one has done
>>> that. (Oh well, it's only been 45 years.)
>>> Jean
>>
>> Well they tried, but you like to nitpick. Maybe you want to claim that
>> "should" does not mean "must."
>
> No, they didn't try. Lane cited something that didn't support
> the claim and CTs have been parroting it ever since. No one has cited
> any postal or federal regulation saying that ***all firearms ordered
> by mail*** in 1963 required a P.O. receipt.
>
> It's not nitpicking to expect that anyone making a claim
> should back it up.
>
That's why I asked you to cite the law.
> Jean
Jean Davison
Why don't you ask Mark Lane to cite the law? Or Harrison
Livingstone? Or any of the other CTs who've made this claim? They made
the claim, not me.
Jean