Having read the posted long article by JPFO, I have some observations:  1.  This article does NOT claim that the GCA of 1968 is a "verbatim  translation" of a Nazi law.  What it says is that in another place -- the book they're talking about -- they compare the two things section by section.  The implication is that the similarities are devastating. In the next sentence, they talk about how in that book they reproduce  the German text of the Nazi law, together with its translation.  Not  surprisingly, a reader could easily conflate these two things into a  single idea:  that the American GCA is a literal translation of the Nazi law; and sure enough, that's what the whole thing has mutated into,  urban-folklore style.  2.  The article goes to great pains to establish that Senator Dodd had a  copy of the Nazi law, either from his time on the Nurnberg prosecution  team or later.  This fact is considered highly incriminating, but I don't  understand why.  The author repeats several times that he is simply unable  to imagine how anyone could come into possession of the original text; and  yet in a paragraph towards the end, he explains it perfectly:  "If Dodd got his copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nurnberg, it likely was part of a collection of documents, for example, issues of the Reichsgesetzblatt [the German law registry]."  Bingo.  Exactly.    Dodd had a *book*, with a series of Nazi laws in it, including the one under discussion.  All of the stuff about "Why would a U.S. congressman have a copy of a Nazi law?" melts away, by the author's admission.  He then continues:  "But if he acquired the original German text of the  Nazi Weapons Law after his service at Nurnberg, he must have done so  for a very specific reason..."  But there's absolutely no reason to  think that this is the case.  In fact, as a "senior member of the U.S.  team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals", it seems to me that he would have *had* to have a copy.  All arguments about whether  the Nazi Weapon Law is really of historical interest (as it obviously is, certainly according to the author here), or whether Dodd personally prosecuted the Interior Minister who signed it, can be put aside as red  herrings.  3.  Having established that Dodd owned a copy of the original German text, the JPFO article then tries to draw sinister implications from the fact that he  asked to have it translated.  The problem is, in the context of the charge  levelled at Dodd, these two things work *against* each other.  People ask  to have things translated when they *don't know what they mean*.  If Dodd  took it upon himself to preserve the Nazi law with idea of someday introducing  it into American law, surely by 1968 he would have know what it *meant*,  wouldn't he?     Anyway, this precise charge -- the main one that I questioned in an earlier posting -- is just silly.  Why would Dodd need the exact translation for this purpose?  Is the idea that the gun controllers, despite being presumably bent on disarming the populace with the goal of eventually destroying all civil liberties, needed a crib sheet?  Didn't they have any idea how to do it on their own?     Once again, the author provides a perfectly acceptable answer to his own question: "Dodd may have offered his copy of the Nazi Weapons Law to show that the specific proposal did not resemble anything in the  Nazi law."  In fact, since the law and its translation *were* entered into the Congressional Record, under the heading of documents "concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation", Dodd's motivation isn't a  mystery:  he asked for the translation in order to put it in the CR.  4.  Even this article makes it clear that the part of the Nazi law that was added *by* the Nazi regime is only a small part of that law.   Registration of guns, for instance, was begun in 1928, and thus NOT a "Nazi-inspired" idea.  The parts of the Nazi law that parallel the  1968 GCA include handgun control of some sort, and the identification  of certain weapons as sporting weapons.  The JPFO then goes on to list  other parts of the Nazi law, forbidding ownership of weapons by Jews; of course, there are no such provisions in the American GCA.  Nevertheless, in a rhetorical move guaranteed to muddy the waters, immediately after the  discussion of the anti-Jewish parts of the law, the JPFO article continues,  "Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA'68..." -- so  as to get maximum emotional mileage out of that aspect of the law.