The rifle pictured above is perfectly legal. Take off the stock and the barrel, and replace them with a two-inch shorter barrel and the pistol grip, and it’s completely legal. Leave the stock on, and put on a shorter barrel, and you have just committed a federal felony with a potential five year jail sentence. The rifle pictured above is a single shot. The two semiautomatic handguns and the revolver have more power, more capacity, and are easier to conceal, but their possession is constitutionally protected . . .

The National Firearms Act of 1934 might have made some sense in 1934 when the Roosevelt administration was trying to make handguns illegal in the United States for people of ordinary means. It would have made no sense to require all handguns to be registered, and to pay $200 for a federal tax stamp (the equivalent of more than $4,000 today) if anyone could buy a rifle or shotgun and cut it down to make the equivalent of a handgun.

So short barreled rifles and shotguns were included in the gun ban, following the lead of Michigan a few years before.  Michigan has now repealed that law.

With the Supreme Court ruling in Heller, that the possession of loaded and unlocked handguns in the home is constitutionally protected under the second amendment, a ban on short barreled handguns and shotguns is archaic and silly.   There is no reason that short barreled rifles or shotguns should be subject to any more restrictions than handguns are.

It is the height of absurdity that possession of a .22 single shot rifle with a 15.9 inch barrel is a Federal felony with a potential ten years in prison, but possession of a 17 shot 9mm Glock is a constitutionally protected right across the nation.

J.O. of Tucson, Arizona, has created a White House petition to call for an end to this insanity.    I do not expect the Obama administration to pay the least attention to it.   They ignore facts, logic, and the law on a routine basis.   It will serve, however, to let other lawmakers know that this law needs reform.

Here is the text to the petition:

A rifle is a firearm with a barrel length greater than 16 inches. A Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) is a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches. An SBR is less effective than a rifle but more effective than a handgun for self-defense. It is also more efficient for traversing close quarters to clear a threat from your place of residence such as a burglar, etc. As of right now, you can purchase a bull-pup rifle or rifle with a folding stock which is, in most cases, shorter in over all length than a SBR. The need to register an SBR (and Short Barreled Shotgun) is unjustified and the requirement should be removed.

Here is the  link, for those who missed the one above:

Link to petition to  Remove the need for citizens to register a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) with the ATF, paying a $200 tax stamp.

The petition was started on July 2nd, and has until August 1 to collect the required number of signatures.   Over 9,000 have been collected, with 90,000 to go.

I signed it.   It is only symbolic, but symbolism can be potent.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

Recommended For You

115 Responses to Petition to Remove SBRs from NFA

    • Personally I would rather see it repealed, but we can’t do everything at once without the help of the supreme court.
      I think the SBR argument is more feasible right now because some firearms are only designed to work with short barrels (MPX, for example).

      • Same. I think suppressors have much greater utility, but one can more easily make the case to the uninitiated for deregulating SBR’s (especially with the sig brace deal).

        • The very fact the sig brace and bullpups don’t so much as raise an eyebrow is why SBRs should be removed from the registry. There’s no functional difference between a sig brace and an SBR at all. Hell you can even use a folding buffer tube Sig Brace on non-ARs. Suppressors might be a better use, but SBR vs Sig brace demonstrates the insanity of the ATF and its obtuse regulations. Fake suppressors are perfectly legal because they don’t function like a real one, SBR vs Sig Brace function exactly the same. Why penalize SBRs by forcing their owners to pay $200, wait a year for ridiculous paperwork processing, let the ATF audit their life, engrave the receiver, and have to piss around with prior notices to transport the SBR across state lines. The NRA would do some good in lobbying to get SBRs, AOWs, SBS, and suppressors removed from the NFA. Repealing the NFA is a much harder beast to get by since machine guns and grenade launchers send people into a feeding frenzy of fear based insanity, but most people aren’t remotely savvy about SBRs, AOWs, or SBS and aren’t quite as irrational about suppressors. So get this SBR, AOW, SBS *and* suppressor bullshit stricken from the NFA. Make it a two-fer package with disbanding the ATF. Removing SBRs from the registry would make life easier for LEOs as well. SBRs are a favoured weapon for entry teams and are ideal for patrolmen to use in lieu of a full size carbine. Being able to purchase a personal SBR without a year of bullshit would allow LEOs to arm themselves with reliable, compact weaponry they can deploy easily in an emergency situation.

        • To nighthawk, i’m pretty sure explosives are (and always have been) regulated under different laws.
          No matter how difficult it might be to get changes, in the end it will involve a complete re-writing of the NFA. The antis will try to make a compliant but restrictive revision. Fixing the entire problem in one swoop might be possible.

      • In the meantime tell the ATF to go F*ck themselves and make your own “virtual SBR” by buying a SB15 brace. You also have the additional advantage of it being classified as a pistol and much easier to transport across state lines.

      • Yep, signed both. I’d like to see a separate post on this petition to get the full force of the TTAG crowd (and yes, THE the truth..)

      • Thanks for the link. Also signed both.

        So what if signing is just symbolic? I’ll speak up in case someone else decides to speak up. If enough people speak up, eventually someone on the hill might grow a pair and float this idea. And it will still probably fail. But I’m not cool with the arbitrary entrapments and meaningless restrictions of the NFA, so they’re going to hear about it.

    • I would like to see both removed, so why not fight for all of them (Removing suppressors, removing SBRs, removing the NFA). They all seem like separate fights but they are all connected. We have to push on every domino we can in the hopes of starting them all falling.

      • Likewise, but it’s not going to happen all at once. We can get there one issue at a time.

        Be patient. Look how well the incremental approach has worked for the leftists.

        • Meh. Once rights have been infringed as far as they are today, an incremental approach will not work. It will only take a couple of generations to strip even more. There are too many pressures towards tyranny; the educational system, nature of government, destruction of the family, etc. The reason that it works for statists is because there is already a natural push for government to grow in power. The reverse is takes great effort and often within one generation. We won’t get there incrementally but I still signed the two petitions.

        • @PistoleroJesse: Concealed carry under a license is the exercise of a privilege and not the re-establishment of the right to bear arms. In Ohio we lost ground on that one in 2005. Only concealed carry without permit or license would be the exercise of the right.

    • Personally, I would rather see the NFA removed from the law.

      It was a bad law put in place as a band-aid over the consequences of another bad law (Volstead Act), which was the consequence of a lot of moron busybodies who should have been hacked to death with hatchets.

      If you’re going to have a law to infringe on folks’ rights, better to have one that infringes on the violently mentally ill to force them to undergo and continue treatment, supervised or no, with euthanasia as an option of last resort (where the person is violent, and where treatment is not effective). We don’t need gun control, we need crazy control.

    • I agree. We have to jump through hoops with ATF, pay them $200 for a Tax Stamp and then many more hundreds of dollars for the suppressor/silencer. But it is very easy to buy the gun. The U.K. has the opposite problem. Hard to buy a gun, but you can walk into any gun shop and walk out with a silencer (muffler in U.K. speak) for under $200 with no problem.
      2 months now since ATF cashed my $200 check. I figure 6 or 7 more months to get the Form 1 Tax Stamp returned.

  1. Signed.

    “It is only symbolic, but symbolism can be potent.”

    The U.S. flag is only symbolic. But I never hear people question why we fly it.

    • I’ve heard people question why we fly it. The only reason I don’t slap them in the mouth is because they are the kind of pansies that would absolutely sue the hell out of me for looking at them mean, much less actually touching them.

      • I generally prefer to use some sort of well worded brain slap while I imagine a swift backhand ha.

      • Remember, a forward palm slam is an act of discipline while the back of the hand slap is an act of concern. I had a cop buddy tell me that once.

  2. The $200 isn’t the bad part. It’s the registration, the wait times, and the inability to travel. And the registration x2

      • Eighty years ago, the $200 was the bad part. Just for comparison, a Thompson (which was a very expensive gun for the time) cost roughly the same amount. I’m not sure on prices, but most of the guns that would have been covered by the NFA would have been roughly 10% of that.

        • $3550.75 when you account for inflation.
          It was a ban. Limiting items to the highest social class is not freedom. If they added a clause to account for inflation, I really think it would have been changed or killed off 40 years ago.

      • No, C96 pistols with stocks are not based on date of manufacture, but are a special exemption defined by ATF – along with certain Browning HP pistols with certain stocks, certain Lugers with certain stocks, etc. In other words, a Navy Luger with an artillery stock is still an SBR, and an artillery Luger with a Navy stock is also a SBR. How many enforcement types know the difference?

  3. Possession of a 17 shot 9mm Glock is NOT a constitutionally protected right across the nation. Just ask anyone living in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey (to be sure, 15 rounds, but still) or California. (Not sure about the mag limits in Colorado–do they apply only to rifles?). California, for one, has a separate state law ban on SBRs (through an overall length requirement), as does Massachusetts, and both ban folding stocks. I agree that these laws are bizarre, especially when you can have an AR “pistol” that sneaks past the ban by not having a shoulder stock.

      • Not according to ALL of the courts that have ruled on the issue in these states to date (including both federal and state courts).

        • Yes it is according to ALL the courts that have ruled on this to date (including local, state, and federal). What you’re actually arguing over is magazine capacity.

        • Wait, what??? I’m not aware of any ruling in any court in the US that has held that magazine capacity is constitutionally protected. Both McDonald and Heller held that only outright restrictions on the individual right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional, and magazine bans have been held to be constitutional in New York and California at the very least. I’m certainly not saying I agree, but the current holding of the second amendment is very, very narrow in what’s actually protected by the second amendment.

        • Of course all we are arguing about is magazine capacity. Doh. In California, you can have a Glock if you want, as long as it is not a Gen 4 or has a capacity of over ten rounds (except for LEOs). [Technically, you can still do a “single shot exemption” transfer for a 10 round Gen 4, but a bill to ban the practice as of Jan 1, 205 has been sent to the Governor’s desk.] And to date, all magazine capacity laws have been upheld, including, as I recall, Colorado’s recent ban on “large capacity” magazines (at least in a trial court).

        • John, I didn’t say the courts can’t be wrong. I was responding to a comment that seemed to say no court has upheld a mag ban. That’s the opposite of reality. I’m all about a strict reading of the second amendment, but I’m also aware of reality, no matter how dissatisfied I am with it.

        • Fair enough, but I don’t think he was arguing the these laws are right or fair either. He was just correctly stating that most gun/mag ban laws have been held to be constitutional thus far. It’s fine to insist that gun/mag bans are unconstitutional, but that insistence by itself isn’t enough to make it so when the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

        • Oh, I see what you did there. You’re a crafty one, whomever this comment is directed at.

        • John, I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking or not. Generally, if a comment is directly below yours it’s a response to you, unless someone specifically directs it at someone else. I don’t think it’s that confusing – my previous comment was intended to be a humorous response to what I thought was a humorous response on your part.

        • @BlinkyPete: I was sincere and I’m glad that you cleared up the confusion because I was beginning to think that you weren’t dealing from a full deck. Now I realize that it was a minor misunderstanding. If you haven’t noticed yet, not all comments post at the same time. I suspect that this is due to moderation/spam filters, or whatnot. As such, comments can suddenly appear in between other comments afterwards. So, unless my comment is one branch off of the post of focus or I quote a user in my reply, I try to specify to whom my comment is directed.

          How that relates to your comment to me where I could not figure out if it was indeed a reply to me is as follows. Your comment actually did not relate to the intended and plain language meaning of my comment. My comment was simply that the courts have gotten it wrong before and they are wrong now. You comment doesn’t really fit as a reply to my comment. I made no statement beyond what my comment plainly means; i.e. I posted a simple opinion.

    • The 15 round mag limits in colorado apply to both handguns and rifles (and are much more restrictive for shotguns; I believe 8 is the limit there before all of the sudden it’s eeeevihul.). However, stuff owned prior to 1 July 2013 is grandfathered, and it would be pretty hard to prove you didn’t own your mag before then, even if you didn’t have the gun. (“But Ossifer, I bought the mag because I knew I’d want the gun someday.”) (Watch out for polymer mags with a date stamp, and of course any newly introduced model.)

    • Uhhh it is very much constitutionally protected it is just that in those state the politicians like to think of the constitution as a single ply piece of toilet paper. In the case of my state (ca) our politicians would like to use it as a target for the weapons they illegally smuggle to the gangs.

  4. It’s not just symbolic, it’s falling for the Executive Branch’s marketing ploy that it listens to “the People”. It’s more significant if your Federal elected Representatives get behind the idea and sponsor or otherwise support bills to eliminate the NFA.

    Those petitions are just a misdirection used to provide good feelings and waste time. It is fast, easy, and promptly ignored. The hard work with tangible effects are getting a repeal going.

  5. I tried taking part in “We the People” when it first stated. In the end, all it is doing is giving your contact information to the White House. They disregarded items they didn’t want to respond to, and gave the standard BS line to things they did respond to. I tried engaging them by replying, but all I got was an auto-reply.

    Don’t expect anything from the White House except a “We need to reduce gun violence, and these laws help us to accomplish that”, never mind that Class 3 firearms don’t have a record of being used in crimes. That logic is way more than we can hope for from our politicians and their supporting staff.

    • Do you see that you’ve just proved their argument, which is: “See, no crimes have been committed with Class 3 firearms because of the laws limiting their ownership to law abiding citizens and requiring the weapons to be registered with the Government. If only that were true for all firearms…”

      • Only if you buy into the narrative that criminals, in the planning of a crime, would let the law stop him (or her) from procuring a weapon he (or she) finds best suits him (or her) to help commit it.

        That’s a really big “if”.

  6. You should probably start a petition advocating unicorn farts as an alternative energy source, since that has a better chance of happening than potus recognizing this petition ever.

  7. Repeal select fire limitations. [As long as the anti’s are trying to go all ‘one world’ order on us] Spray-n-pray should be good enough for the average U.S. citizen too.

  8. Yes, definitely rather see suppressors removed from NFA before anything else. What politician is going to pound the table and rant against *gasp* HEARING PROTECTION.

  9. What the hell is wrong with these people? Do you people realize that you’re asking the Obama administration to enact new gun legislation? Really? Aren’t we trying to prevent him from doing that?

    Why do these people always come out and beg anti-gun administrations to make new gun laws (or, in this case, modify existing ones)? Seriously, you think that will go well? Wait until there’s not a gun grabber in the White House, mmmkay? If you ask Obama to come up with new NFA legislation, don’t be surprised if he does exactly that!

    Please, go back to open carrying rifles in Target or whatever other unhelpful nonsense you were doing before this short-sighted, ridiculous, naive idea popped into your little heads.

  10. I would love to put a full size stock on my mares leg in 357. As it is now I have a modified stock that will brace to my cheek and accomplished almost the same thing while still being legal. Sure I could stamp it but in doing so I can’t really freely travel with it. It makes a great little pack gun with enough juice to take most north american game if need be. The same gun with a full size stock is permitted in Canada but not here. Go figure.

  11. I can’t see how a pro-2A national firearm law can be passed, considering the current crop of politicians in charge.

  12. Even if the entire country signed it twice, the Democrats will never de-regulate anything to do with guns. Ever.

    • A Democrat controlled house passed FOPA. Yes, before the Hughes Amendment was added; in fact only a minority of them voted for that addition.

        • I can’t tell if you’re joking or just being obtuse… it can’t possibly be that you’re unaware of the deregulation of ammunition and long gun sales, interstate travel, and the predatory litigation made possible by the GCA, which FOPA/GOPA either halted or at least reduced. Right?

        • BP, maybe you should look up the word “de-regulation.” Get back to me after you get an education, ‘kay?

          And after you’ve done that, tell me why something that happened in 1986 has anything to do with today’s Democrats.

        • Well now; I don’t know if your big city, highfalutin education afforded you a secret dictionary that plebs like myself can’t access, but here’s my best shot:

          verb (used with object), deregulated, deregulating.
          1. to remove government regulatory controls from (an industry, a commodity, etc.)

          I surely would like it very much if you could let me know how removing regulatory controls from something doesn’t equal, um, removing regulatory controls from something. And when you’re done with that, maybe you can explain to me how a Democrat in 1986 isn’t a Democrat.

          Actually, don’t, because it’ll force me to provide another, more recent example of a Democrat voting for pro-gun laws, and then you’d have to passively modify your original thesis again to prove to yourself that I’m somehow the one who is wrong. For such an old guy you’re a staggeringly adept mental gymnast.

        • After the Gun Control Act was mostly rendered unconstitutional, new legal clarifications were needed. The FOPA (unamended) allowed for actual common sense stuff related to guns, like transferring weapons between states without needing extra permission assuming you weren’t selling it.
          In fact, the only significant negative change in the hughes amendment was the machine gun ban, which was never discussed or debated in the house. They didn’t even spend 5 minutes to talk about the damn thing, they just added the amendment at the last second and kept going.

  13. Unfortunately NFA 1934 is a firmly entrenched 800lb gorilla. It restricts SBR, SBS, machine guns, silencers, and AOW.

    It would take an act of Congress to modify/repeal NFA 1934. You can’t just single out SBR’s. If one item is up for petition, then all items are fair game for modification as well.

    • If it gets enough signatures the White House will have to issue a public response. I think that’s all we’re really looking for. Another line of pure BS straight from the tap for public ridicule.

  14. For starters I signed both even with my real last name.
    Personally.
    Id like to see the NFA repealed or at the least rewritten.
    Unfortunately a 200$ tax is a small price today to pay for some toys.
    If it was rewritten the fees would be astronomical which is what $200 was back In 1934??
    While we are at it, any petitions around to get rid of the ATF and big explosions???
    That is the biggest waste of our money ever conceived and run by such a bunch of incompetent people most who belong in jail themselves.

  15. I bet it costs the ATF more than $200 per stamp to process the paperwork. We could actually be trimming government spending by getting rid of NFA all together.

  16. I pasted both the SBR and suppressor petition into an email I fired off to my senator. I am representing them as demonstrations of citizens who all want to remove the unconstitutional NFA in order to not seem like one lone “gun-toting” constituent.

  17. The petition is not worded in a way that would make sense to non gun owners. Even if it was worded correctly it is aimed at the wrong administration. It will never happen,

  18. Signed.

    Might have been more effective labeling the petition, “Amnesty for arma corta”.

    A little subterfuge never hurt anybody.

  19. As of this moment, 11,586 gun-owning morons are asking Obama to help draft gun legislation.

    Wow.

    Just 88,414 more and they’ll get to see how foolish they were.

  20. The main point is The Constitution section 9 says there shall be not bill of attainder. The Constitution of the United States of America
    Section 9
    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.

    All firearms laws are Bill of Attainder. This includes CCW/LTCH licensing, NFA act, Gun control act of 1968, and yes even the authority the BATFE think they hold. In addition the BATFE creates laws Ex Post Facto. Shall not be infringed! Open or concealed is of no consequence. Those who wish to disarm you don’t care. People who are afraid of offending someone are slaves. You can’t reason with those who wish to disarm all of society. They are the useful idiots spoken of in the movie “The Agenda Grinding American Down” The founding fathers realized that the section 9 wasn’t clear enough so they detailed in the Bill of Rights as to prevent ambiguity that you are free to worship,speak, print, protect your self, have privacy etc…

    • You make a good point.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#U.S._usage
      I encourage everyone to read this section and interpret it however you want. We might be able to take this approach, and I will explain exactly how.
      Ex post facto, or enacting law that punishes people for past actions that were not illegal when they occurred. All confiscation laws are completely 100% illegal based on Ex post facto. The action of legally buying a 30 round magazine, and then facing arrest for refusing to give up your property over a law that was enacted after you bought said property is completely un defendable in court (providing the person who bought the mag didn’t break another law that would justify confiscation, like murder). For them to defend confiscation would mean that the whole idea of ex post facto is meaningless, even though it is prohibited by the constitution.

      • Thanks! But lets look at Bill of Attainder. During licensing you are submitting your self as guilty to have a governing body deem you innocent. It is illegal to hunt deer with out permission from the state. The body of people are prohibited from doing so and anyone doing so is guilty of a crime. We are innocent until proven guilty. We don’t need permission to speak, worship, print or protect your self with the height of technology of the day. The permit process causes you to have to submit your self as guilty until proven innocent. You then get a permission slip allowing you to break “their” law prohibiting the general populous from carrying a firearm. This in fact makes it a Bill of Attainder. This means all firearms laws, NFA, ATF, Sporting Purpose, Assault Rifle / magaziene band, licesing etc… are illegal. We don’t have to get permission to exercise a right protected by the 2nd amendment because any infringement is directly prohibited in the 2nd amendment and becomes a Bill of Attainder prohibited in section 9 of the Constitution.

        Cordially
        HK45Mark23

  21. Finally got them signed.
    Thanks for posting this stuff.
    We need to get this word spread to reach 100,000 signers.
    Spread it!

  22. SBR and suppressor petitions signed. Not that it will actually get either repealed just yet, but hopefully it will get a massive enough response to make a point.

  23. $200 was ten ounces of gold in 1934. (Well, technically 9.67.)

    That’s not $4k today, it’s $12,578.

    • Woops– 1934 was the year of dollar devaluation against gold. $35/oz. starting in January. That makes the gold equivalent 5.7 oz, or $7428 today.

  24. lol Dreamers. We will be lucky to see suppressors and sbr’s remain on the nfa list, to think they would be removed, appealed or excluded from nfa to normal firearms regulations is not understanding or accepting what reality we live in. While more join in on our beloved gun life the numbers pale in comparison to the number of anti-gun babies born each day. In politics, the thing that rules our kingdom, to be pro-gun is not only a rarity but it is a curse career wise. If any gun rights person thinks a petition will free up sbr’s from nfa then they are just not paying attention. It would be nice to go on the offensive instead of playing defense but in our world that just isn’t going to happen. Anyone that signs up for the white house petition site is a moron anyway.

  25. So the WH will ignore the petitions even if they make the 100,000 sigs. Maybe better to flood our Congress Critters with letters and emails demanding repeal of some or all infringing laws. I know I can get approval for a machine gun with my $200 to the ATF. What I can’t get is the $15,000 or more to buy the machine gun. There are only so many transferable ones in existence. I could, however, find a way to dig up 3 or 4 grand for a modern select fire rifle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns

  26. your very 1st statment in this artical is untrue. “The rifle pictured above is perfectly legal. Take off the stock and the barrel, and replace them with a two-inch shorter barrel and the pistol grip, and it’s completely legal”
    If you do this, you have created an SBR not a pistol witch in fact is not legal under ATF regulations. A Pistol CANNOT be created from a rifle, only an SBR or AOW can be created from a rifle acording to federal law. you need to do your reserch befor putting this crap out. https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

    • “On June 8, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Contender pistol and carbine kit are not a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. §5845(a)(3). This means that a consumer may possess the pistol with its 10″ barrel and may use the kit parts to make a rifle with the 21″ barrel, as long as the shoulder stock is not assembled onto the receiver at the same time as the 10″ barrel.”

      http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html

      The ruling that you cite simply moves ATF into compliance with the court decision. True, if the receiver started out as a rifle, then ATF has ruled that it cannot then be converted to a pistol. However, if it starts out as a pistol, it can be converted to a rifle and then back to a pistol without being in violation of the law.

      Your point goes a long way in showing the absurdity of the law. From the ATF ruling cited:

      ” A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when a pistol is attached to a part or parts designed to convert the pistol into a rifle with a barrel or barrels of 16 inches or more in length, and the parts are later unassembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol). A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4), is made when a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, is assembled or produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle.”

      • Speaking of the absurdity of the law…. Take two identical Ruger 10/22 receivers (aftermarket or Ruger). One was recorded on the FFL books as a rifle receiver and the other as a pistol receiver. The “pistol” receiver can be assembled into a pistol or a rifle. The “rifle” receiver must never be assembled into a pistol or be in violation of the law. Go figure.

  27. Some of the comments are wondering a bit off-topic; which I take to be, relief for SBRs (and possibly some other NFA items.)
    – – – I don’t regard the NFA’34 to be a high priority on our list; nevertheless, I credit the OP to prompting me to reconsider my view.
    – – – Observe that the Anti’s have no difficulty taking-up the valuable time of our legislatures debating gun-control bills doomed to failure by lack of votes or veto. Are we, the PotG NOT equally entitled to petition for a redress of grievance? Particularly where a fundamental right appears to be at stake? We may not get any bill passed; but that hasn’t stopped the Anti’s.
    – – – Observe that the NFA’34 is now 80 years old. Might some of its provisions be out-dated? Conceivably, might the original act have not been firmly grounded? I don’t think it has been substantially revised over those 80 years.
    – – – Shouldn’t the relevant Congressional committees review some of the provisions of the NFA’34 to see if they deserve to be revised? To start, I’d suggest a few:
    – – – SBRs as suggested by the OP
    – – – Silencers/suppressors as suggested by others
    – – – SBSs for the same reasons as SBRs
    – – –
    – – – Now, let’s pause for a moment, and consider something outside of NFA’34; Oh, say, national reciprocity, for example. If we got reconsideration on the foregoing NFA items plus national reciprocity, then I think we PotG could rest.
    – – – My thinking here is that the Anti’s would have a tough time defending SBRs, Silencers or SBSs for reasons we all recognize and I need not elaborate. The Anti’s would have to make a tactical decision as to whether they really want to articulate arguments in defense of the NFA treatment of these items. Perhaps they would prefer to save their breath for other issues (e.g., BCs). If we got something extra for our trouble – say national reciprocity – then the Anti’s would have to decide whether that something extra were worth opposing. Here is where the plot thickens.
    – – – If the Anti’s want to debate (probably national reciprocity) then we can add other items to the agenda for committee inquiry, as follows:
    – – –
    – – – whether the collection of the $200 revenue covers the expense of processing;
    – – – whether the NFA registry is complete and accurate;
    – – – whether the 9-month delay in getting a tax stamp is an infringement not justified by any rational argument;
    – – – What is the 1987 history of the “Hughes Amendment” in these committees? Not that we necessarily want to reverse the Hughes Amendment; we really want to air the circumstances as to how it was added to FOPA. How is it that a particular type of firearm has been bared from new production when it is that particular type of firearm that is the quintessential military small arm? Granted, there are a lot of technical – hardware/mechanical – issues involved here that will bore the public, the distinctions between: fully-automatic; burst-fire; and, semi-automatic. We need not go so far as to take-up the impact of “fully-automatic” on the 2A; keeping this mode OUT of the current debate is, arguably, important to keeping the discussion narrowly focused where WE want it.
    – – – In 1934, there was no notion of burst-fire; and so, Congress did not consciously consider this yet-to-be-invented category. An argument could be made that in contemporary usage, fully-automatic mode has been superseded by burst-fire. Being conscious of the precious value of Congress’ time, we don’t want to take-up fully-automatic mode as a type to reconsidered at the present time. What seems to be more germane to contemporary military usage is “burst-fire”. What is the status of this mode/type “burst-fire” with respect to its relationship to the contemporary standard of military-usage small arms? Shouldn’t our Congressional committees debate how it is that the NFA’34 and possibly the Hughes Amendment might have inadvertently infringed directly upon the indisputable standard for the highest objective of the 2A – at least as respects burst-fire?
    – – – What is the justification for the AOW category? What is the definition of this category? Is it Constitutionally ambiguous? Is the harsh penalty (for any NFA violation) “cruel and unusual” for an tax-payer’s failure to pay a $5 excise tax on the making/transfer of an AOW item?
    – – – Is the harsh penalty (for any NFA violation) cruel and unusual for a tax payer’s failure to pay a $200 excise tax on any of the other categories?
    – – – How does the DD category coordinate with the regulation of blasting materials? Is it rational to draw a line that distinguishes a DD from blasting materials? To illustrate, suppose a tax-payer is operates a ski resort where its patrons are vulnerable to avalanches. Or, a State maintains mountain roads so vulnerable. In times past, the most cost effective tool for avalanche control was artillery – i.e., DDs. Shouldn’t – at least some – DDs be regulated under the blasting materials laws vs. the NFA?
    – – – With respect to DDs that don’t belong under the regulatory regime for blasting materials, what is the relationship of such devices to the contemporary usage of military equipment? Are some such DDs hand-held by a single operator? Do they serve a military purpose? Is a $200 tax on each round fired from a DD make it prohibitive for members of the unorganized militia to obtain and maintain the proficiency expected by the standard “well regulated”?
    – – – Are these questions more properly the domain of Congress to consider? SCOTUS seems reluctant to make such technical decisions when interpreting the 2A. If not Congress, which branch of our Federal government could maintain Federal law consistent with the evolution of the regular equipment of a modern military?
    – – – Perhaps the Anti’s would prefer NOT to open these latter aspects of the NFA’34. Nor do I think we have a compelling need need to push these latter issues; at this time. I’d settle for relief on the first few NFA items along with national reciprocity.
    – – – Is there merit to pursuing such a tactic? I.e., to persuade Congress to take up some of our gun-rights grievances for the sake of maintaining Federal legislation consistent with the 2A?

  28. “It is the height of absurdity that possession of a .22 single shot rifle with a 15.9 inch barrel is a Federal felony with a potential five years in prison, but possession of a 17 shot 9mm Glock is a constitutionally protected right across the nation.”

    Actually, it is as much at 10 years and a $250,000 fine.

  29. If 26″ in OAL weapons can be purchased without paying the NFA tax and are not considered to be ” dangerous and unusual “, then SBR’s and SBS’s that are not less than 26″ in OAL are obviously not ” dangerous and unusual ” and protected under the 2nd Amendment just like other constitutionally protected firearms that are in common use.

  30. This is absolutely right up my alley…. One of my dream firearms to own is an ultra short PDW-style AR , 10/10.3″ etc. maximum , I really like the short 7.5″ sized… I guess my DREAM would be an HK 416 10.3″ but short of that , I am thinking the Adams Arms 7.5″ PDW Tactical Elite as an upper – piston PDW sized, hook it up with a full Magpul treatment on a lower w/ a Magpul ACS stock, their pistol grip, trigger guard, angled foregrip, XTM panels across the rails in a sweet camo pattern, MBUS back-up sights, and an Aimpoint Micro in a Daniel Defense mount… oh yeah baby. Ideally a suppressor as well but we’re getting greedy now, but I can dream right?

    Now I know most are thinking, “You can do that right now” but the truth is, I just moved from 33 years in NJ- where the NFA is more like GFUS — Go F Ur Self, GTFO lol. Now in Florida I understand I can use the NFA for a SBR, silencer, etc. But it’s expensive, 1-2 year wait, and I hate the idea of the NFA registry, the restrictive laws, what if I were to move, etc.

    I agree with the total premise of this, the whole idea was “OH NO THEY COULD STICK IT UNDER A COAT AND HIDE IT!” Etc. It’s ridiculous because if someone wants to shoot people they will shoot, be it an SBR, a “tactical shotgun” or a revolver w/ .38 SP rounds. You can hide or smuggle anything if you try a little bit. a 7.5″ AR uppper should be the damned same as a 16″ upper, no difference but the length of the gas system IMHO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *