What's the history of the SBR rule?

adamsgt

adamsgt

Jerry Adams
Was reading an article today on an ATF white paper on clarifications they may make in several areas. One positive sound note was on suppressors. However, there was a discussion on the use of a forearm stabilizing device. Misuse culd put you in violation of the rules on Short Barreled Rifles.

Question, just what is the reasoning about a short barreled rifle that makes them subject to NFA rules? When you consider the firepower available in a .44 Automag, what makes a SBR so nefarious?
 
IT IS BASED ON CLASSIFICATION.
SHOTGUN HAS A MIN BBL LENGTH...18 i believe
rifle has min length 16 i believe
overall length is also specified.
when you go below that WITH A SHOULDER STOCK, you run out
of those two classifications
it is not about power, it just just "classification".

adamsgt said:
Was reading an article today on an ATF white paper on clarifications they may make in several areas. One positive sound note was on suppressors. However, there was a discussion on the use of a forearm stabilizing device. Misuse culd put you in violation of the rules on Short Barreled Rifles.

Question, just what is the reasoning about a short barreled rifle that makes them subject to NFA rules? When you consider the firepower available in a .44 Automag, what makes a SBR so nefarious?
Click to expand...
 
CMaier said:
IT IS BASED ON CLASSIFICATION.
SHOTGUN HAS A MIN BBL LENGTH...18 i believe
rifle has min length 16 i believe
overall length is also specified.
when you go below that WITH A SHOULDER STOCK, you run out
of those two classifications
it is not about power, it just just "classification".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that it's about the classification. But what's the rationale for the classification. I mean I can buy a 14 inch T/C Contender barrel in 45-70 Govt or 30-30 Win. What's the bugaboo about a rifle with a 14 inch barrel? Is there any sense behind this? I suppose that years ago somebody made a big deal about rifles with shorter barrels but I can't think what they used to justify such a restriction. I'm ready to be educated on this.
 
I think it's just stupidity. Probably a political jab at gun owners. The rationale behind it can only be horribly flawed. I can own a pistol, but as soon as I attach a stock to said pistol (making it less concealable) it's an NFA item? Tough to reason through that...

GsT
 
I doubt it had much to do with a short barrelled "rifle", per se. I'd say it pertained to semi and full auto firearms that were readily available in those days. The broom handled mauser comes to mind. But then there was the stock attachment for revolvers back in those days. These were all guns that could be a lot easier to conceal and transport and when assembled were much shorter than the chosen limitations.

The AR buttstock rage is more about, hey look at me than much else. You can build a legal pistol/rifle and have a better setup. That ridiculous arm rest on AR's looks like an invitation to lose your 2nd amendment rights forever.

Although you can buy short contender barrels, it's best not to get caught with one on a receiver and a shoulder stock on the other end.

I have not read whatever the ATF has in mind so what's their plan or better yet where did y'all see it?

I found the paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
THINK CRIME AND how to fix it.
(in a beaurcrats mind)
1920/30's
sawed off shot guns etc
had to define between a "shotgun" and
a "crime" gun.
tommy guns
 
It had nothing to do with guns

When it became obvious that prohibition was costing a fortune and accomplishing nothing it was common knowledge that it would end soon. The bureaucrats knew that the officers and office personnel would loose there jobs and government would get smaller and taxes would go down. This is not something bureaucrats and congress could live with, so the firearms bill of 1934 was invented and past to keep government growing. It had nothing to do with firearms so no wonder it makes no sense.
 
ebb said:
When it became obvious that prohibition was costing a fortune and accomplishing nothing it was common knowledge that it would end soon. The bureaucrats knew that the officers and office personnel would loose there jobs and government would get smaller and taxes would go down. This is not something bureaucrats and congress could live with, so the firearms bill of 1934 was invented and past to keep government growing. It had nothing to do with firearms so no wonder it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I guess that it makes sense that it makes no sense. Ouch, my head hurt after that. Oh well, that's what I get for trying to figure out government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top