Skip to comments.Petition to Reform the National Firearms Act
Posted on 07/14/2014 9:20:30 AM PDT by marktwain
The rifle pictured above is completely legal. Take off the stock and the barrel, and replace them with the two inch shorter barrel and the pistol grip, and it is completely legal. Leave the stock on, and put on the 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 Michigan has now repealed that law.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 five 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.
What really need to be de-regulated are suppressors. Who would have thought that buying a muffler (let’s face it - that’s all they are) could be such a hassle?
You are exactly correct. The whole law needs to be critically examined. Perhaps simply repealing the law would be easiest.
I am looking into a gun trust this week. I anticipate it taking the hassle out of acquiring suppressors. Likewise, I anticipate it facilitating the legal conversion of my newly acquired PTR PDW into a SBR. hopefully someday I can convert it to full auto.
or we could just elect a gun friendly republican president who could executively order his AG not to enforce it. That’s the new standard after all.
So you don't consider jumping through hoops legally a hassle? How much are you paying for your trust? Just remember, you're buying a MUFFLER.
It was and is about CONTROL, not about guns.
Repeal NFA '34, GCA '68 and FOPA '86 in their entirety.
Good for you.
I went the trust route and should hopefully get my first suppressor sometime between January or February. If it goes well, I’ll be looking into getting one for the AR that I’m currently building.
I paid a guy $300 to do the trust for me. Wanted to make sure all of my ducks were in a row, and he offers free follow up work if there are any problems.
Liberals believe that suppressors allow murderers to fire their weapons with a tiny pfft! like in the movies. They fear them even more than they fear armed citizens.
Other than some of the clauses in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers which reasonably imply that Congress can regulate the use of firearms for the armed forces, I see no clear delegation of power by the states to the feds to regulate firearms.
And what is disturbing is that federal laws for regulating firearms seem to have appeared in the books during the FDR Administration, FDR and Congress at the time notorious for blatantly ignoring the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
So with the exception of the federal government's Commerce Clause "wild card," federal firearms laws for private citizens with respect to intrastate commerce appear to be based on constitutionally nonexistant federal government powers. In fact, regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers in Wickard v. Filburn , FDR's justices wrongy ignored that a previous generation of justices had clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So what am I overlooking?
....”the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...”
Get rid of 18 USC 922 (o) first....or hell, Chapter 4 of the GCA if you want to watch the anti-gunner’s heads explode.
Machineguns and machine pistols, war trophies of foreign make, must be registered and deactivated to bring their possessons within the law.
For this purpose Treasury Department operatives will establish offices at police headquarters this morning and will maintain a 12-hour schedule for the next three days, from 9:00 a. m to 9:00 p. m.
Veterans possessing any firearm of foreign make can qualify themselves to keep their souvenirs lawfully by bringing them to police headquarters on any of the days today through Thursday.
After registrations, deactivation of the weapons makes them unserviceable but in no way mars the appearance of the guns as souvenirs. All guns are duly returned to their owners. Registration of guns is a nationwide program.
Investigations made in recent months under the National Firearms Act have a bearing on the risk and problem of exceptionally dangerous war trophy weapons, brought or shipped to this country by veterans, falling into unauthorized hands by theft or unrecorded transfer and being put to unlawful uses never intended or contemplated by the veteran.
Already there have been committed a large number of major crimes in various sections of the country, where foreign automatic weapons, introduced as war trophies or souvenirs were used. The drive cf the Treasury Department is aimed at preventing these weapons and firearms from falling into the hands of gangsters, racketeers, bank robbers and other types of criminals."[BALONEY!]
"The Alcohol Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue, is charged with the enforcement of the National Firearms Act, which provides a penalty not to exceed $2,000 or imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both, in the event a person is convicted of violating any provisions of the Act. Veterans, register your foreign weapons today!
Nov 19 1946 "Plattsburgh Press Republican"
Don't you get it?
The Law is What We Say it is!
I agree with you up to a certain point. I’d find a way to keep the Safe Passage Clause of the FOPA 86 around. Of course, the easiest thing to do might just be pass National Concealed Carry Reciprocity and put Safe Passage into it for non-CCW holders (CCW holders would already be covered by the CCW). Then the Safe Passage Clause becomes redundant.
What can you say about this device?
Good point ... However, if the First Amendment can be applied to State law, then surely the Second Amendment can as well. In fact DC v. Heller clearly does ... just not far enough.
Repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Repeal the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.
I enjoy squashing those kinds of arguments.
“Silencers are used by assassins! They can kill anyone and no one will know!”
Umm... There is still a dead body there. There is still going to be an investigation of the body and the background of the victim.
It’s more than likely that those two items alone is enough to determine the who, how and from where of such a crime.
Personally, I’m getting a suppressor because I don’t believe that my family going deaf along with myself (perhaps permanently) should be a price to be paid for using a firearm to defend against a home invasion.
Government should get out of the business of regulating our arms.
The ONLY gun laws we should have are felony laws against the use of a firearm in a violent crime. Otherwise, open and concealed carry outside a small number of government buildings should be completely unregulated, silencers should be completely unregulated, barrel length and stock configuration should be completely unregulated, bayonet lugs and pistol grips should be completely unregulated, and magazine size should be completely unregulated. Banks and other private businesses that don’t want firearms are free to ban them, just as we are free to boycott those we disagree with.
I’d even go as far as saying convicted felons, if they are safe enough to be released from prison, should have their God-given right to keep and bear arms restored upon release. Similarly, those with “mental illness” should not have to face restrictions on their rights - unless someone is dangerous enough to be institutionalized, it makes no sense to say that person cannot own a firearm.
Domestic violence? Felonies should be prosecuted (including felony false reports by an irate ex), but basic human rights cannot be denied based on unsubstantiated claims as so often happens under liberal judges. [Note: I am thrilled when an armed woman takes down a richly deserving violent ex in self-defense, but much less pleased when a woman throws out wild charges of child abuse and alleged threats purely as an attack on a man who just wants her out of his life.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.