A little-known law, passed as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 offers the Trump administration a powerful lever in its stated goal of rationalizing America’s firearms laws. It would be an effective way of rolling back some of the Second Amendment infringements of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
The National Firearms Act (NFA) is an ill-conceived, poorly-written omnibus gun control law passed by an ascendant Roosevelt administration. It was designed to outlaw the possession of handguns through the imposition of draconian taxes and regulations.
The $200 tax stamp it imposed for a single item was equivalent to a year’s income for an average laborer at the time. Thrown in the mix were machine guns (just to add some pizazz…they weren’t a real problem), silencers (for no known reason), and sawed-off rifles and shotguns (apparently because it made no sense to outlaw handguns, when anyone could make a handgun from a rifle or shotgun with a hacksaw and 15 minutes).
Fortunately, outlawing handguns at the time was a bridge too far for Congress. What was left was passed as a sop to Roosevelt. After all, it only applied to machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns that crossed state lines. Few people owned or used those items anyway. Even fewer took them across state lines.
Not many people paid attention to the law. There was no provision for those who failed to register their items during the initial grace period to register them afterward. A few registrations trickled in during the following decades under lenient Treasury Department tax policy. The law become a bigger problem, though, with the Supreme Court decision Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. In that decision, the court expanded federal law to apply to items that didn’t cross state lines.
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, Congress concurrently passed a bill to allow an amnesty for people who still had unregistered NFA items. No fingerprints or tax was required. Fill out a form and send it in, and your NFA item was registered.
The initial amnesty was for 30 days. The law contained a provision for further amnesties at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. They only needed to be announced in advance in the Federal Register.
From PUBLIC LAW 90-619-OCT. 22, 1968, found on page 1236 of United States Statutes at Large Volume 82.djvu/1278:
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of this title. TITLE III — AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VII O F THE OMNIB U S C R I M E CONTROL A N D S A F E S T R E E T S ACT O F 1968
I don’t believe this statute has ever been repealed or superseded. Back in 1968, there was an expectation that amnesties would be a common occurrence used to bring unregistered NFA items into the legal fold.
Many gun owners believe the NFA should be repealed, as an obvious infringement on the Second Amendment. That may, however, be a step too far for the Trump administration for the first term. But the NFA is terribly flawed legislation and is ripe for reform.
It’s insane to regulate silencers at levels far more strict than it’s done Europe. In New Zealand any child with the money can walk into a hardware store and buy one for $20. It is insane to regulate short barreled rifles and shotguns more strictly than handguns.
In 1986, in a nasty legislative maneuver, the Democrats managed to place a ban on the future production of strictly regulated machine guns for civilian ownership. It was added as an amendment to the 1986 Gun Owner Protection Act. This punished legal owners of machine guns, who were already highly regulated by the NFA.
Never mind that no citizen had murdered anyone with a legally owned machine gun in the 54 years of the NFA. Future ownership of highly regulated machine guns had to be banned.
The Hearing Protection Act would change the regulation of silencers from being treated the same as machine guns to being treated like rifles or shotguns.
Short-barreled rifles or shotguns should be eliminated as a special class. Instead, handguns should be re-defined as any firearm that is designed to be fired in a configuration shorter than 26 inches. Twenty-six inches is the current standard for short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
The ban on highly regulated civilian ownership of machine guns made after 1986 should be repealed. The amnesty provision offers the lever to accomplish these reforms.
If Democrats want to filibuster the Hearing Protection Act, offer a 90 day amnesty on the registration of silencers for the NFA. No tax, no fingerprints, just fill out a form and send it in. If the Democrats refuse to relent, just rinse and repeat. Pound the new media and Twitter with the insanity of the current law. One hundred million gun owners will appreciate the Trump administration’s defense of the Second Amendment.
The same thing can be done for reform of the insane short-barreled rifle and shotgun provisions and the repeal of the 1986 ban on manufacture or licensing of machine guns under the NFA.
These tactics can be used sequentially or concurrently. The NFA infringements can’t be logically defended. They will, of course, be emotionally attacked. But the power of the establishment media to define and control the debate has been broken.
Trump supporters are Second Amendment supporters. They work. They organize. They vote. Their support is committed. It is deep and strong. Most of them voted for Trump, but some were uncertain and hesitant because of statements President elect Trump made 15 years ago. These reforms will make President Trump a hero to Second Amendment supporters.
Opponents of these reforms are billionaires and the usual gun control suspects who want to disarm the public. They have deep pockets, but their popular support is shallow and weak, propped up by their cash and the establishment media. They will never support a Trump presidency, no matter what.
Besides, what Democrat could be against an amnesty that brings formerly illegally owned items into the regulatory fold under existing law?
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
GTFO!!! As we speak, Sig is building me a select-fire, suppressed MPX SBR. With about a dozen 30- and 20-round mags. I am CERTAIN they are! Puh-LEEZE!
Sounds good to me. Now let’s drain that swamp already!
Oh and can we bring back 7N6 imports so I can afford a giggle switch on my AK74? I’d thank my stars for that one.
What the cathair is a giggle switch? You flip it and giggle as you spray and pray?
Can you imagine what will happen if he signed an amnesty every 90 days for his presidency? wow.
I’m ready, willing, and waiting to buy.
The only problem is that selling items, even during an amnesty, is still impossible. It will allow you to register your rifles and shotguns as SBRs / SBSs / MGs, but it won’t get you new suppressors as you still won’t be able to buy them without the seller jumping through hoops.
Step 1: Buy solvent trap.
Step 2: Drill a hole down the center.
Step 3: Register your new suppressor.
Step 4: ?
Step 5: Profit (or don’t, but hey at least you get a silencer).
Wasn’t there supposed to underpants in that, somewhere?
That must have been the step 4 he was missing. Everybody knows you have to have underpants to make profit……………….Unless you are a lady of easy virtue, then skip that last statement.
Well, sort of — just register your MagLites/Solvent traps/oil filter adapters/pipes as silencers and go from there… 🙂 First thing on my list would be a Scorpion Evo 3 S1 –> A1. Once registered, the fire control group can be legally bought/build and dropped in. And the short barrel of course. 😀
Will be able to get a few out of the ‘oil trap kits’ out there though, which will at least be enough for some utility rimfire and pistol cans.
Or just mail in a signed form 1…
They don’t come around and ask to see your stuff now. And they would be so overrun with paperwork they wouldn’t be able to get out and check for the next 5 years. That would be plenty of time to make some suppressors out of solevent traps or mill and drill a couple hundred 80% or regular AR lowers to be full auto or sbr. You don’t have to have a complete product for it to register.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. But you could build your own during the period and register it. Maybe suppressor building parties? Its quite easy to cut down your rifle barrel then register it and convert AR pistols to SBR.
It’s easy to cut down a barrel.
It’s not so easy when you do it correctly, like properly crowning the muzzle.
If they pass that, guys like Dyspeptic are gonna be drowning in work. The downside to DG being swamped means a new crowd of hacks will call themselves ‘gunsmiths’…
Cut? Why cut? Just buy a factory made shorter barrel. Remove hand guard, gas tube, and gas block, spin off barrel nut, remove barrel, then reverse the process with your new barrel (and possibly change gas tube to shorter version).
This way you’ll have threads for your new homemade suppressor.
Just buy a complete upper.
Or a complete pistol with your choice of collapsing stock to attach after mailing paperwork.
“The only problem is that selling items, even during an amnesty, is still impossible.”
I believe that pwrserge is correct. And others are correct as well. If you constructed your own and then registered it I believe you would be good to go.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is NOT legal advice … consult a competent attorney before any dealings with firearms suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and full-auto firearms.
Mind you, if the amnesty was enacted, every single rifle I own would be registered as a SBR or MG overnight. (Depending on the terms of the amnesty.)
Yet, if they want simply gun registration, you’d be “Tar! Feathers! Cold dead hand!”. But if you can register it as an SBR, oh, well, that’s different.
We had that phenomenon here in California. The hope and dream that California would expand the list of AR lowers so that their modern, “off list” lower was added to it, thus enabling them to REGISTER their rifle as a full boat “Assault Weapon”.
Well, they sure got their wish in spades this year.
I own quite a bit more than I could readily convert into SBRs and MGs. Besides, not that concerned about handwritten paper forms.
Everybody ought to buy 3-4 bare lowers to register as MG SBRs. Decide later what to do with them.
It’s a step in the right direction.
The problem is not so severe as you imagine. A silencer is any part of a silencer. Go to HomeDepot and buy a “fender washer” with a hole slightly greater than the desired caliber. Buy a vibrating engraver. Practice your penmanship with the engraver on any scrap steel during the Federal Register publication period. Fill out a Form 1 post dated to the beginning of the amnesty period. On day 1, engrave on the fender washer: “My Name, My Town, 123”. File Form 1. A similar procedure ought to work for any other NFA item.
I am a (wannabe) full auto firearm “Dreamer”.
I want Obama to pardon me (his kind created the problem) and since he has no problem overstepping his authority to single-handedly and unilaterally both 1) make American citizens out of those who ain’t; and 2) sh_t America away to global fing aholes; and 3) pardon Hillocrap if she’s prosecuted; THEN . . .
I think I should get a little consideration.
I have been reading a lot of pie in the sky articles lately about our new lord and savior Donald Trump and all the magical things he’s going to do for us gun owners, and I cannot help but think that this is exactly the way the other side felt when Obama was elected 8 years ago. Since we can all see where that went, I am getting a little worried that we are all setting ourselves up for a massive disappointment in a few years. I genuinely hope I am wrong, but we should probably wait until he is in office at least before counting our unhatched chickens.
You do not get what you want if you do not ask. If we do not make the policy decisions available, we settle for what someone else thinks we want.
I’m standing right next to you on that.
Trump and more importantly, the Republicans in Congress will pass the HPA if we send in HAND WRITTEN short letters. If 5% of gun owners in the pro gun states did this it would be done very quickly. It still has a good chance if only a good fraction of 1% do. Otherwise, I believe the Republicans will just let it die. We believe that we can go to sleep and listen to Rush Limbaugh do Bill Clinton voices and feel like we “won” something.
Still, the HPA was unimaginable 10 years ago. As mentioned, even Democrats should have to admit that the SBR regulations are pretty silly, given they’re just relics of when the NFA first targeted handguns.
I think machine guns should be left out of the mix, just because I’m afraid of how ignorant and statist law makers and the media are. I think it’s a nonstarter for the time being.
I think machine guns are too politically expensive right now. Its a long shot and its an easy target for Dems. If we can get HPA, remove SBR’s, and National Reciprocity passed in addition to rolling back all the executive orders banning Norinco’s, 7N6, and that stupid spporting clause, plus have a booming economy on top of that, we could be looking pretty good for reopening the machine gun registry by repealing the Hyde amendment in a budget bill or something.
Hughes Amendment, not Hyde Amendment.
I honestly feel that if HPA passes we won’t see anymore meaning returns of Arms Rights in our life-time. Gutting/repealing NFA is more meaningful and productive, even if they have to pass replacement legislation on machineguns to get it done.
I want to press for a *reason* to keep any of those items unconstitutionally restricted. You know, how many killed by suppressors? SBR? SBS? Suppressed full auto SBRs? The law was stupid and unconstitutional then and it still is!
1) One – he’s not Hillary Clinton, so that’s a win out the gate. Even if he does NOTHING, we’re still in materially better shape than we’d be if he won.
2) He gets to nominate Scalia’s replacement, and likely at least one other Judge to the USSC. His picks CANNOT be worse than HRC’s would have been.
3) He could do a lot with even a few executive orders like allowing the re-import of the Garands and Carbines from South Korea.
Anything else is gravy.
But I do expect the NRA to remind him, frequently, the gun owners may very well have been his margin of victory in PA, MN and WI. And if they are miffed, they might not be there in 4 years (esp since a lot of those particular gun owners are centrist Dems, not hard-core Republicans).
Agree. Trump may not owe anybody, but NRA spent 38 million to defeat Hillary, he may have coincidentally gotten some benefit from that.
Look at it like this: Trump needs the PotG to support his other agenda items whether they are popular with us or not. For illustration, suppose he wants: support for the GOOD Trade Agreement with Greece; opposition to the BAD Trade Agreement with Bulgaria. OK, we can do that; PROVIDED that Trump is successfully working on the 2A.
As was elsewhere suggested, we write hand-written notes addressed to our respective 3 Congress-critters. “Dear . . .: What have you done today to ________ [advance gun rights; support the GOOD Trade Agreement; oppose the BAD Trade agreement]. Sincerely, John Citizen” Photocopy each of the notes (1 for each topic, 1 addressed to each Congress-critter). Stuff in envelopes hand-addressed to each Congress-critter (get right note in right envelope). Mail-off 1/day or week or month according to what you can afford in postage.
Trump could tell Congress that he wants a reformed NRA; one that is rational and justified under both the 2A and experience. He could start out with a series of 90-day silencer amnesties. If Congress is making meaningful progress on bills, he could continue with silencer amnesties. If Congress drags its feet he could up the bet to SBRs; the general public wouldn’t know what an SBR is. Continuing to drag its feet, add AOW amnesties. Eventually, Congress would realize that SBSs are next; they would have to wonder whether MGs or DDs would follow.
What we might get would be less than a repeal of the NFA; but, we could get some reform. And, such a strategy would be POLITICALLY feasible. Democrats would have to explain how it is that the Hughes Amendment is rational.
This thread shows some creative thinking that is unusual in the gun-rights blogs. Let’s keep this up.
I suspect he’d get a better response if he suggested a reformed and updated NFA, the NRA is pretty much outside their purview.
Personally, the NFA of 1934 and the 1968 laws should all be repealed. There would be no problem in getting this through Congress because many Democrats traditionally support the 2A.
That’s exactly why Obama et al haven’t been able to get any of their laws passed. Too many democrats vote to support the 2A because they know their constituency would vote them out of office just like they did in 1994 when they passed the assault weapon ban.
Agreed. I am more in favor of repealing that I am adding. Adding always leads to more hoops and bigger bureaucracies.
Sorry, Bud, anybody thinks there will be no problem legalizing private ownership of machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, is just not maintaining a foothold in reality. I’d love to see it, too, but you won’t be seeing me saying it’s no problem.
The NFA, and all its amendments, are federal TAX laws. Under current and past Senate protocals, the only legislation that cant be fillibustered are tax and revenue proposals. The Dems cant fillibuster an NFA reform act. All we would have to worry about is the RINOS. On day one, Trump should have ATF cancel the absolutely mental Sig stabalizing brace opinion. Either way, no one has been arrested or prosecuted under either the stupid pistol brace opinion (not a law) or a 922(r) import parts modification. The 922(r) crap and all references to a so called “sporting purpose” test, should be repealed as well. I would love to see to see a post by TTAG’s resident legal expert on these issues.
Dean, great plan! I’ll be happy if some of these infringement rollbacks happen. I’ll be even happier if they all go bye bye.
Begging for the ability to register a silencer without paying a fee is just stupidity. Get this straight – for anybody who doesn’t already have the feds up their ass the registration step is the problem, NOT the tax.
Unless the Hughes Amendment literally amends the 1968 Gun Control Act (and is therefore part of the 1968 Gun Control Act), the amnesty provision of the 1968 Gun Control Act would not apply to full-auto firearms manufactured after 1986. And even if the Hughes Amendment amends the 1968 Gun Control Act, I have no idea if the 1968 amnesty provision applies to future amendments such as the Hughes Amendment.
I would look into this but I do not have time today. Can someone else look into the Hughes Amendment to see if it amends the 1968 Gun Control Act? Also, any legal-eagles care to weigh-in whether an amnesty provision of the 1968 Act applies to a 1986 amendment of the 1968 act?
Very interesting. As mentioned by pwrserge, it only impacts those already in violation of Federal law. It wouldn’t affect those in violation of (say) CA law.
Dean touches on my favorite point regarding over-regulation: Wickard v. Filburn. This is perhaps the worst decision the Supremes have made since Dred Scott. Because of WvF the feds now can claim “Interstate Commerce Clause” to regulate anything that might possibly indirectly impact interstate sales, even if the actual commerce is totally intrastate.
James Madison explicitly stated that the Commerce Clause was meant to address actual commerce (sales or barters) and not production or things peripheral to commerce. Furthermore, he says that the right given to the feds is a negative right to block state regulations, not to add fed. regulations.
So here’s the important point. CA just imposed background checks on ammo purchases. That’s a big tax on every ammo sale. Trump could just nullify it with an executive order. Also, most semi-auto handguns are illegal for sale in CA (e.g 1 Ruger model is legal, 1 Walther is legal). Just nullify that too.
Here is a related non-firearm issue. My CA county just banned fracking oil/gas production. Could Trump nullify that outright? No, because it regulates production not sales. But maybe he could nullify the part of it that would impact the private sale of mineral rights to oil companies. So in effect fracking could be done on private land and not public lands. (I’m not a lawyer so take a salt shaker of salt.)
Is this “nullifying” a violation of the WvF decision? I don’t think so. It merely uses the original powers intended by the Commerce Clause, without addressing the powers added by WvF.
“Furthermore, [Madison] says that the right given to the feds is a negative right to block state regulations, not to add fed. regulations.”
Can you please provide a credible citation for that statement?
For the record I hold the same position 10,000% … I have severely criticized Wickard v. Filburn at least a half-dozen times on public forums over the last 10 years.
“My CA county just banned fracking oil/gas production. Could Trump nullify that outright? No, because it regulates production not sales.”
First off, Trump cannot formally/legally nullify that, other than refusing to prosecute anyone who violates any federal laws for oil/gas production … and possibly even going so far as to send in fedzilla to block California police from enforcing the local law which I doubt would ever happen. Rather, any oil/gas companies should petition federal courts to apply Wickard v. Filburn.
Also, the court applied the Interstate Commerce Clause to production in Wickard v. Filburn if I recall correctly. (The court did not allow Wickard to plant and harvest wheat for his own personal use on his farm!) Using that angle, a federal court could enjoin enforcement of the California law because it interferes with total production, which interferes with national supply, which affects national prices.
“The $200 tax stamp it imposed for a single item was equivalent to a year’s income for an average laborer at the time.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics puts the average family income at about $1500 per year between 1934 and 1936. ( http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1934-36.pdf ) So while they tax stamp did put items covered by the NFA out of reach economically for most, the average family was not scraping by on less than a dollar a day.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. The quote says the tax was equivalent to the annual wages of an “average laborer”. You’re looking at average FAMILY income, which would include the millionaires that existed during that time.
Obviously, there is a lot of wiggle room in what is an “average laborer”. I intended it to mean an unskilled person hired for simple labor. My reference was my father, who told me the common wage for farm labor was $1 a day. That is what he was paid for picking rocks out of fields, as an adult. Of course, there were a lot of days when no job was available.
Basically the same sort of day labor that we pay Mexicans $1 a day for today.
You are getting them very cheaply!
IANAL but post 86 mgs should be even easier.
Section A of the exemptions reads:
“(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or”
My interpretation of that is any person can be in possession of a post 86 mg under or by the authority of the US etc etc. Write and EO that says, I the president authorize possession of any post 86 mg.
I suspect a court challenge would happen. Then an alternative around the very permissive language is I the president require the ATF to process and approve all applications to make or transfer post 86 mgs blah blah blah.
“My interpretation of that is any person can be in possession of a post 86 mg under or by the authority of the US etc etc. Write and EO that says, I the president authorize possession of any post 86 mg.”
I think the courts would slap that down in short order since the President has no Constitutional or statutory authority to authorize firearm possession in contravention to the Hughes Amendment.
Now, if the President announced a general threat to the nation and, in response, ordered the unorganized militia to acquire and maintain machine guns for national defense against the identified general threat, that might actually fly under the militia clause of the U.S. Constitution. And if that Presidential order also included requirements to attain and maintain proficiency with machine guns, that would cover actual use for training and target practice.
Remember, Democrats always argue that the Second Amendment only applies to the militia under the control of the federal government. This would be playing upon that exact argument and leave them nothing but hysterical emotional pleas to stop such a development.
See I’m more thinking the atf works for him and there is language already in existence he can use in his direction of the agency as any new form 1/4s would be issued under the authority of a department of the gov.
I understand your line of thinking and I still believe it fails. All of the government, military, and law enforcement carve-outs are for government agents and employees in connection with their “official duties”. An order from the President of the United States to the ATF to accept a civilian’s paperwork in order for that civilian to own and operate a full-auto firearm for pleasure purposes does not satisfy the government carve-out requirements. The civilian would have to have some sort of official duty for a local, state, or federal government that requires a full-auto firearm before they qualify for the carve-out. Hence my tactic of the President ordering the unorganized militia (defined in federal law to be males between the age of 16 and 45 if they have not served in the military and up to age 63 if they have served in the military if I recall correctly) to acquire and be proficient in the use of full-auto firearms in response to a specified (if even generalized) threat. At that point the unorganized militia would acquire and possess full-auto firearms for an official government duty and should be able to register and keep new full-auto firearms as long as that duty continues to be in force.
Since Islamic terrorists have declared war on the United States, attacked people at multiple locations/events in the United States, and caused hundreds of serious injuries and deaths in those attacks, a Presidential order for the unorganized militia to be armed — and armed with full-auto firearms at that — is actually quite a reasonable order.
Note a related and alternative strategy: the local Sheriff deputizes all willing and responsible adults in their jurisdiction. At that point all participants are agents of the local government carrying out official duties to be able to respond effectively to terrorist attack in their community and should, as far as I can tell, qualify to own and possess full auto firearms. Of course that does not exempt them from registering their full-auto firearms. It merely removes the illegality of owning full-auto firearms manufactured after 1986.
I disagree it wouldn’t be a viable strategy, it’s all loose wording to be bent however the executive sees fit. Who’s to say simply paying taxes doesn’t put you in the realm of carrying out governemnt duties and obligations? How about jury duty? Voting? Draft registry? But I will definitely agree with you on your points and I do think your idea would be easier to justify because it is less abstract and imaginative.
The President has no authority under the militia clause, which grants authority over the militia only to Congress. Otherwise, good idea.
Ah, you are right! I have always thought of the President of the United States as being the “Commander in Chief” of the military … keyword there being “military”, not “militia”. That is a fascinating distinction! I wonder why the Founders put Congress (and the states for appointing officers and conducting whatever training that Congress requires) in control of the militia rather than the President? Perhaps it is a stopgap measure to prevent a President from becoming a dictator — which would be really bad since the President is Constitutionally charged with commanding the military.
Therefore, Congress would have to order the unorganized militia to acquire and become proficient with full-auto firearms.
Somehow, I don’t see that happening any time soon. I imagine Congress would repeal the Hughes Amendment (which means everyone would still be required to go through the 9 month wait for ATF approval and pay the $200 tax stamp) before issuing a command that the unorganized militia acquire full-auto firearms.
So, U_S, getting down to brass tacks, you’re advising we ignore NFA and GCA to work on repeal of the Hughes Amendment, at least insofar as MGs are concerned? Amnesty won’t work, freaking repeal of NFA won’t work (I really don’t understand that, but will take your word for it)?
Possession is not sale or transfer.
Possession is in the text of the exemption…
I talked to Rubio’s senior staff yesterday about repealing the NFA and they were pretty interested. Would help if everyone in Florida called his office and demanded it.
Relax, they were probably “interested” in the same way that stripper really “likes” you.
The 1968 amnesty was created in response to:
– the requirement to register newly regulated destructive devices, and
– the Hayes v. United States (390 US 85) decision of SCOTUS which found registration to be an unconstitutional burden on felons (but not on law abiding citizens!).
Don’t’cha just love it when courts decide criminals’ rights reach farther than those for the law-abiding?
An NFA Amnesty is long overdue and very easy process, lots of folks have been waiting over 40 years for this.
2 weeks ago many were pulling their hair out, wondering how we would ever stop president Clinton from passing a new AWB. Now we are exploring legal avenues for repealing NFA.
Personally, I think that defining a handgun as anything shorter than [xx] inches is setting yourself up for further headaches down the road. And what do we do when technology makes a 3″ barreled rifle a perfectly functional reality? (It may seem crazy now but so was the idea of a functional 7″ barreled AR just a few years ago)
Instead why not just define a handgun as any gun that is defined to be used/fired primarily with the hands, without the brace, support of any other part of the body? Or define a rifle / shotgun as a weapon that must be braced against a part of the body aside from the hands? That would make it much easier for everyone, wouldn’t it?
I am not sure that we need to have the distinction. We did not have it in law for many decades.
But there is quite a bit of state law that depends on distinctions between handguns and rifles and shotguns.
The primary reason, IMHO, was between concealable and not so easily concealable weapons. I suspect that is where the 26 inches came from.
How about we define a firearm as being a firearm, not to be infringed, and forget completely arbitrary and meaningless differentiation between vertical front grips and 15.99″ barrels being magically different from 16.01″ barrels, sig braces vs collapsible stocks, flash suppressors vs muzzle brakes, bayonet lugs and color schemes? This crap is absolutely *ridiculous*! We should at least be allowed to publically laugh at the imbeciles who pretend this accomplishes anything at all.
All gun laws are unconstitutional,,Americans have obeyed their last gun law,,Ten ch,Coxe said that “It is the birthright of every American to have every terrible instrument of war that the soldier has” LET’S ALL CHEW ON THAT
Let’s see the Trump-pecker has backed off on Hilarity’s prosecution; he’s rethinking climate change; not sure about the Wall; and his Foundation (sic) is distributing $ to folks it should not be. ?? He’s a con-artist of the first order, excellent at dispensing rhetoric, short on delivering on it. But then, borrowing from Oblowhole’s language, “it’s the difference between campaign rhetoric and governing. WAF’gJoke. So… if you all believe this sucker is gonna follow-through on his commitments to the 2A, don’t hold your breath too long. For me, I’ll continue to stock up on needed “supplies.”
With his just appointed Sec of Ed, Blondie has now backed off on eliminating Common Core. Yes, sireee, this is a guy we can all trust to do what he said during the campaign that he would do. NOT. Cannot wait to see what happens when the first piece of 2A legislation hits his desk??????
“With his just appointed Sec of Ed, Blondie has now backed off on eliminating Common Core…”
I’m assuming by ‘Blondie’, you’re referring to Betsy DeVos.
She’s the daughter-in-law of Amway cofounder Richard DeVos.
Yeah, *those* people.
Anyways – She’s a strong supporter of school vouchers. That’s a good thing, IMO.
Her family is interesting, to say the least. Her brother is Erik Prince.
Yep, *that* Erik Prince. Founder of ‘Blackwater’…
“For me, I’ll continue to stock up on needed “supplies.”
From your post, I’ll assume that includes “Hillary 2020” Yard signs. Jackass, he is not even in office yet!
@LarryinTX: Drink the kool-aid, idiot!!! Shit, he’s backtracked on everyone of these issues, AND INDEED HE’S NOT EVEN IN OFFICE YET. ??? I can’t wait to see what the bullshitter-in-chief does when he’s finally there. You’ll be eating crow during the first 100 days. If not, I’ll be the first to apologize for being doubting T-Rumper.
I also called Rubio’s office and expressed my support for the Hearing Protection Act and repeal of the NFA
They asked for the name of my home city in Florida and said they noted my opinion
Heck, why not just start with an ATF opinion that these are 100% legal:
Watch the video. Me want!
I hope it happens, I am already putting together my Christmas list. Anyone with half a brain already knows that it is pretty simple to obtain any of these items illegally if they chose to do so. My point being is that we all know current laws do not prevent crimes, they are just unnecessary government overhead which we all pay for.
Here is a petition for the White House to act on: