Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Petition to Reform the National Firearms Act
Gun Watch ^ | 13 July, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

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  Michigan has now repealed that law.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.

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.
Link to Gun Watch


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; batf; guncontrol; gunlaw; gunlaws; nfa
There is no longer any logical reason to restrict short barreled shotguns or rifles.
1 posted on 07/14/2014 9:20:30 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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?


2 posted on 07/14/2014 9:27:10 AM PDT by Disambiguator (#cornedbeef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

You are exactly correct. The whole law needs to be critically examined. Perhaps simply repealing the law would be easiest.


3 posted on 07/14/2014 9:35:54 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

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.


4 posted on 07/14/2014 9:41:30 AM PDT by RC one (Militarized law enforcement is just a nice way of saying martial law enforcement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


5 posted on 07/14/2014 9:42:42 AM PDT by RC one (Militarized law enforcement is just a nice way of saying martial law enforcement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RC one
I am looking into a gun trust this week. I anticipate it taking the hassle out of acquiring suppressors.

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.

6 posted on 07/14/2014 9:45:29 AM PDT by Disambiguator (#cornedbeef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
There never was a reason consistent with a free country to restrict short barreled shotguns or rifles ... or machineguns or any other weapons.

It was and is about CONTROL, not about guns.

Repeal NFA '34, GCA '68 and FOPA '86 in their entirety.

7 posted on 07/14/2014 9:49:16 AM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC one

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.


8 posted on 07/14/2014 9:49:19 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

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.


9 posted on 07/14/2014 9:51:08 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The cure has become worse than the disease. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; All
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

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.

Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control

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?

10 posted on 07/14/2014 10:00:30 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

....”the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...”

(emphasis added)


11 posted on 07/14/2014 10:01:36 AM PDT by faithhopecharity ((Brilliant, Profound Tag Line Goes Here, just as soon as I can think of one..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


12 posted on 07/14/2014 10:07:31 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
==================== "Trophies to Be Made Legal in Program Under National Firearms Act

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"

13 posted on 07/14/2014 10:20:30 AM PDT by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits n firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
So what am I overlooking?


Don't you get it?
The Law is What We Say it is!

14 posted on 07/14/2014 10:31:16 AM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

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.


15 posted on 07/14/2014 10:34:19 AM PDT by lcms rev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

What can you say about this device?

http://sigsauer.com/StoreProductList/adaptive-carbine-platform-116.aspx


16 posted on 07/14/2014 10:36:23 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lcms rev
I’d find a way to keep the Safe Passage Clause of the FOPA 86 around.

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.

17 posted on 07/14/2014 10:38:11 AM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Repeal the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.

18 posted on 07/14/2014 10:38:14 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" means something different to 0bama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

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.


19 posted on 07/14/2014 10:44:26 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.]


20 posted on 07/14/2014 10:49:40 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
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.

I paid in total about $1,500 for mine. Trust, $200 tax stamp and SilencerCo Osprey combined price.
21 posted on 07/14/2014 11:13:31 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Like the bill to end the BATF and fold it into the FBI, I am looking for the angle here.

I am all for it, but look at what the word “reform” means in “Immigration Reform”. “Reform” could mean the end of all private firearms.


22 posted on 07/14/2014 11:15:51 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Here is the article that I wrote about it:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/04/sig-sauer-lawsuit-against-atf-muzzle.html


23 posted on 07/14/2014 11:23:23 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Any petition that doesn’t call for the complete repeal of 922 in its entirety seems a little...

Underwhelming.


24 posted on 07/14/2014 11:23:33 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

$1500 for something that costs about $30 to produce.

I’m in the wrong business.


25 posted on 07/14/2014 11:24:32 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

It is all symbolic. We have to keep the pressure up.


26 posted on 07/14/2014 11:24:52 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I hear ya, FRiend.
I was sitting here at my computer desk putting together the lower parts for my AR build saying, “People actually get PAID to do this?!”


27 posted on 07/14/2014 11:26:26 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Uninstall Fascist Firefox. Get Pale Moon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"We have to keep the pressure up."

I'd still prefer a JDAM. This seems like far too little...

28 posted on 07/14/2014 11:28:14 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Mistook your device for another that Sig Sauer is contending with the ATF on. Thanks for the tip.


29 posted on 07/14/2014 11:29:24 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If by reform you mean repeal I'm all for it…
30 posted on 07/14/2014 12:02:39 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Thanks for your report, but did you ever write one on SIG’s “Adaptive Carbine Platform”?

Would very much like to read your opinion on it.


31 posted on 07/14/2014 12:20:58 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Why does a brand-new “AR-15” cost about $1000, but a clapped-out 40 year old “M-16” cost $15,000?

Federal law. Specifically NFA & FOPA.

That is all.

Bushmaster, Colt, DPMS, Remington, SIG-Sauer et al. are cranking out “AR-15s” at a record pace. Semi-auto only. There is absolutely no engineering or manufacturing reason why they could not crank out select-fire rifles of otherwise the exact same design, at the same price.

The entire market is warped by ridiculous and unconstitutional “laws”.


32 posted on 07/14/2014 12:26:09 PM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

Yep.

I’ve built my last couple of AR’s. My next one will be a 7.62x51.


33 posted on 07/14/2014 12:51:59 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Tri nornar eg bir. Binde til rota...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

Indeed. Forget arguing the Left’s points, go way past them and make new MGs legal.


34 posted on 07/14/2014 2:51:44 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Obama, setting RoE with his opposition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
The ONLY gun laws we should have are felony laws against the use of a firearm in a violent crime.

Certain regulations requiring that e.g. ammunition bearing certain headstamps and no markings that would contradict them must have certain characteristics would IMHO be a perfectly reasonable and appropriate use of the interstate commerce powers, provided that

  1. The plausible intention of such regulations was to allow people to arm themselves more effectively than would be possible otherwise, and
  2. The government could convince a jury that somebody who violated the regulations that allowing the defendant's actions would materially impede a bona fide effort to achieve legitimate aims (a defendant would likewise be entitled to convince the jury that the real purpose of the regulation was to discourage effective armament, or that his actions were in no way impeded any legitimate government interest).
One major problem with the idea that judges should be solely responsible for "judging the law" is that judges are generally required to act under a presumption that laws are passed by people acting in good faith, and defendants are generally afforded little opportunity to challenge such a presumption. While having defendants' fates hinge on the luck of what jurors they get would be far from ideal, a recognition bad faith is a basis for illegitimacy would help undo the kinds of incremental encroachments politicians have been pushing for decades.
35 posted on 07/14/2014 3:54:49 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Certain regulations requiring that e.g. ammunition bearing certain headstamps and no markings that would contradict them must have certain characteristics would IMHO be a perfectly reasonable and appropriate use of the interstate commerce powers, provided that

I approve of those markings, of course, but exactly because of the bad faith of the far left I'd rather give up the few good gun laws/regulations if that would allow us to get rid of many the bad ones. Gun laws are in most cases presented as equivalent to prior restraint. That is not acceptable in the case of speech, and there is no reason we should tolerate prior restraint in the case of RKBA.

36 posted on 07/14/2014 4:41:41 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator; All

Update: Here is a sister petition to remove suppressors from the NFA:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-suppressors-nfa-regulated-item/wVgXbqP8

It has over 20,600 signatures at present, and runs until 5 August.


37 posted on 07/14/2014 6:08:05 PM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
The ONLY gun laws we should have are felony laws against the use of a firearm in a violent crime.

And even those laws, if any, should be state rather than federal. I'm actually not convinced those enhancement type laws are necessary anyway. If you have a law against murder, why does it need to be MORE illegal to kill someone with a firearm? If assault's illegal, why does it need to be MORE illegal with a gun than with a shovel?

38 posted on 07/14/2014 8:38:46 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Years ago, when I was a younger Freeper, there was a thread about the evolution of the Trading With The Enemy Act. It was changed greatly under FDR. That, coupled with FDR declaring a National Emergency, allowed FDR and all future Presidents to ignore law.

In a nutshell,

It allowed for the ‘licensing’ of occupations or activities.

It declared all Presidential actions to be ‘pre approved’ by Congress.

It removed wording that specifically excluded Citizens from the class of ‘enemy’.

Oh how I wish I could find that thread again.


39 posted on 07/15/2014 3:53:28 AM PDT by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson