Dean Weingarten On SBRs
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 11 months ago
The National Firearms act regulation of short barreled rifles and shotguns from 1934 should be eliminated. It made little sense when the primary purpose for the regulation was thwarted when it passed, it has become increasingly irrelevant, and it makes no sense at all after the Heller and McDonald decisions.
The reason for the ban on short barrelled rifles and shotguns had very little to do with the criminal use of such items. After all, criminals use handguns many, many, times more often. Short barreled rifles and shotguns are, in fact, as modified and used by criminals, expediently manufactured pistols.
The National firearms act of 1934 originally lumped in handguns with full auto firearms. It is clear that the Roosevelt administration wanted to subject pistols and revolvers to the same draconian regulations and taxes that machine guns were finally subjected to. Congress simply would not go along. It was a step too far for even the heavily Democrat Congress of 1934.
Once you understand that licensing of handguns to the point of prohibition was the major target of the legislation, the reason for including short barreled rifles and shotguns becomes clear. What is the point of banning handguns if any person can buy a rifle or shotgun, a hacksaw, and make a functional pistol in fifteen minutes from that rifle or shotgun?
That’s the first explanation I’ve ever heard that makes any sense at all as to why the law exists. If seen in a vacuum, it is completely irrational and unworkable. If seen in context, it is part of a larger scheme to deprive us of God-given rights across the spectrum, not just with SBRs. It’s just that they failed with the rest of the control. Thus, this piece of legislation sits alone, in need of more heinous and draconian controls to make any sense.
|
|
On January 31, 2015 at 6:04 am, Daniel Barger said:
These laws exist…..and persist for one fundamental reason. ANY law of ANY type no matter how useless, ineffective or pointless that makes it harder in any way possible for a citizen to exercise their rights is….to a gun grabber or evil politician……a worthwhile effort and a law to be kept on the books till hell freezes over. If you create enough badly written, highly focused and bizarre laws over the years you will eventually have pieced together a patchwork quilt of nasty that accomplishes the true original agenda….the disarmament of the intended slaves. That is why gun grabbers proffer up the weirdest most bizarre and useless abominations of legalese. They lose nothing if the law fails but if it passes they have inflicted one more stroke in the death by a thousand cuts they intend to inflict on the Second Amendment.
On February 2, 2015 at 1:08 pm, Archer said:
Which is why many of us are saying that gun owners and their advocacy organizations (local, state, and national level) need to get it in gear and go on offense.
It’s no longer enough to fight off the anti-gunners’ advances; we need to get bad laws repealed and take back some metaphorical territory. Like you said, they lose nothing if they keep trying and fail, but stand to gain if their repeated attempts eventually win. In the same vein, we gain nothing if we continue to fight a defensive battle, but stand to lose much if we lose even once. The solution, then, is to introduce bills and initiatives that repeal unnecessary laws, and force the anti-freedom crowd to defend those laws and show-and-tell exactly how they’ve supposedly benefited society in the real world.
If nothing else, it forces them to expend time, money, and effort defending their laws, which (Bloomberg notwithstanding) is time, money, and effort they can’t use to launch further attacks.
On February 5, 2015 at 10:38 am, Pat Hines said:
SBRs, SB shotguns, and silencers all need to be removed from the NFA list. Silencers are a health and safety device, which never should have been put on the list.