Petition to Reform the National Firearms Act

Gun Watch ^ | 13 July, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[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  Michigan has now repealed that law.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

[RandallFlagg]

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.

[redgolum]

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.

[marktwain]

Here is the article that I wrote about it:

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

[Dead Corpse]

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

Underwhelming.

[Dead Corpse]

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

I’m in the wrong business.

[marktwain]

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

[RandallFlagg]

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?!”

[Dead Corpse]

"We have to keep the pressure up."

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

[marktwain]

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

[OneWingedShark]

If by reform you mean repeal I'm all for it…

[353FMG]

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.

[NorthMountain]

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”.

[Dead Corpse]

Yep.

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

[ctdonath2]

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

[supercat]

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.

[Pollster1]

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.

[marktwain]

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.

[Still Thinking]

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?

[RoadGumby]

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.