Rationale for banning shoulder-stocked handguns ?


PDA






Kentucky_Rifleman
August 4, 2010, 12:21 PM
I've wondered about this for some time now, and am hoping some of you can help me understand the reasoning behind the NFA ban on shoulder-stocked handguns.

I realize that having a shoulder stock classifies a firearm as a long-gun, and that rifles have a minimum barrel length of 16 inches. Is the ban on stocked handguns simply a product of expedient wording, or is there some other reason for it?

I could understand the reasoning (although I'd still disagree with the legislation) if the shoulder stock made the handgun fully automatic, or if it made the handgun easier to conceal. While I would disagree with the law, at least I could understand why some groups would want them banned, but I can't for the life of me figure out how stocking a handgun makes it more dangerous than an unstocked one.

And insight would be appreciated.

KR

If you enjoyed reading about "Rationale for banning shoulder-stocked handguns ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bovice
August 4, 2010, 12:23 PM
It looks scary. That's why!

ArmedBear
August 4, 2010, 01:01 PM
Negative association. Gangsters used them from cars, apparently. The origins of the stupid gun controller's notion that, if you ban a particular style of firearm (or tax it), the mafia will disappear. Stupid then, stupid now.

A few years back, Austria, which has fairly permissive gun laws for Europe, banned pump shotguns. A few high-profile teenagers-killing-parents murders happened, with pump shotguns as the weapons.

Semiautos and all kinds of break actions, including drillings and vierlings (3-barrel and 4-barrel guns) are perfectly legal, as are all sorts of handguns and rifles, and they all would kill people just as dead -- many with higher capacity and faster rates of fire. But pump shotguns had a bad image after some ugly headlines, so pump shotguns were banned.

Same BS everywhere.:)

dogtown tom
August 4, 2010, 01:26 PM
Kentucky_Rifleman I've wondered about this for some time now, and am hoping some of you can help me understand the reasoning behind the NFA ban on shoulder-stocked handguns.

I realize that having a shoulder stock classifies a firearm as a long-gun, and that rifles have a minimum barrel length of 16 inches. Is the ban on stocked handguns simply a product of expedient wording, or is there some other reason for it?

I could understand the reasoning (although I'd still disagree with the legislation) if the shoulder stock made the handgun fully automatic, or if it made the handgun easier to conceal. While I would disagree with the law, at least I could understand why some groups would want them banned, but I can't for the life of me figure out how stocking a handgun makes it more dangerous than an unstocked one.

And insight would be appreciated.

There is no "ban" on shoulder stocked handguns. They are as legal to own as any other firearm. Just as fully automatic firearms and silencers are completely legal. The ONLY difference is the requirement to pay a tax to the Federal government. Thank the National Firearms Act of 1934 for this.

Under the NFA '34, ANY rifle with a barrel of less than 16" (it was amended from 18") or an overall length of less than 26" is considered a short barrelled rifle (SBR). SBR's are fully legal under Federal law IF the owner is in possession of a tax stamp for that SBR.

Attachment of a detachable stock to a handgun makes it a SBR: that stock makes it a firearm intended to be fired from the shoulder (the definition of a rifle) as opposed to being fired with one hand (the definition of a handgun).

Attach that stock to a handgun with a 16" barrel- NO PROBLEM, NO TAX STAMP REQUIRED. You simply have a rifle. Conveting it back by removing the 16" barrel and then the detachable stock to make it a handgun again? ATF says that is a "firearm made from a rifle", requiring a SBR tax stamp. Thompson Center successfully appealed this ATF determination to the US Supreme Court. ATF's opinion is that the USSC decision ONLY APPLIES to that specific model of Thompson Center's Contender.

I can't get too wound up over the ATF's interpretation of a 1934 law. It's a bad law that takes little of modern technology or common sense into consideration. The blame lies 100% with the Congress for passing this legislation. (just as with the Gun Control Act of 1968).

Further, some handguns may utilize a detachable stock WITHOUT a tax stamp being required: certain Luger, Mauser and Browning Hi Powers are exempt from the NFA due to their status as curios & relics. There are conflicting ATF determination letters regarding the legality of original vs reproduction stocks for these handguns.

HGUNHNTR
August 4, 2010, 02:00 PM
Its the same reason for all of the restrictions placed on firearms: irrational fears (created in large part by Hollywood) that people attempt to alleviate by passing senseless laws. Do yourself a favor and don't spend any more of your valuable time trying to attach logic to illogical gun laws.

DoubleTapDrew
August 4, 2010, 02:27 PM
No rationale. Same for barrel/overall length limits.

It may have been left over in there from the origional version of the NFA which banned handguns.

Sensible sporting firearm:
http://sgcusa.com/images/large/Remington_870_Home_Defense_A.jpg
Super deadly killer firearm:
http://www.innovativetactical.com/catalog/images/remington/7r96e5m11.jpg

kk0g
August 4, 2010, 02:48 PM
Since when does ration and logic apply to gun laws?

Prince Yamato
August 4, 2010, 02:57 PM
It has to do with the fact that handguns were originally set to be controlled as NFA items. There was language in the bill to prevent making handguns from rifles and shotguns. When handguns were pulled out of the NFA, they forgot to remove the other language. Now we have SBRs, SBS, and AOWs. Thanks politicians!

ArmedBear
August 4, 2010, 03:12 PM
The ONLY difference is the requirement to pay a tax to the Federal government.


Aren't there interstate transport requirements, requirements that the firearm must be in the possession of the registered owner when transported, etc?

WRT DoubleTapDrew's post: one more thing. The super-deadly-killer firearm on the bottom is sold over the counter in Canada. For some reason, Canada, with far more restrictive laws about handguns, barrel lengths, carrying firearms, etc. than the US, doesn't see that shotgun as markedly different from any other.

FIVETWOSEVEN
August 4, 2010, 03:36 PM
What Yamato said is correct, Its really dumb. Why Smoothbore handguns are illegal i'll never know.

kjeff50cal
August 4, 2010, 04:45 PM
[QUOTE]Why Smoothbore handguns are illegal i'll never know./QUOTE]

Elementary my dear FIVETWOSEVEN.... look at any detective penny dreadful or gangster movie and you will learn cases of murder most foul by handgun can be solved by comparison of the fired bullets. The barrel of a rifled gun gives the projectile a distinct mark (or so sayth CSI) ;). (/sherlock off)

ArmedBear
August 4, 2010, 04:54 PM
Wouldn't making murder illegal solve the problem?:D

kjeff50cal
August 4, 2010, 05:05 PM
[QUOTE]Wouldn't making murder illegal solve the problem?/QUOTE]

nah.... but I'll propose a tax, no...., a stamp to make it too expensive for the Great Unwashed :).

JohnKSa
August 4, 2010, 05:10 PM
Attachment of a detachable stock to a handgun makes it a SBR...I believe that the restriction was really aimed at SBRs, not shoulder-stocked handguns.

Shoulder-stocked handguns were sort of a casualty of the SBR restriction, IMO. I don't believe that there was really an intent to limit shoulder stocked handguns, in fact, there have historically been some exceptions to the SBR restriction for certain shoulder-stocked handguns.

Deltaboy
August 4, 2010, 06:09 PM
The 1934 and 1968 acts need to be over turned by the Courts or by the Congress. They are out and out violations of the 2nd Amend.

Purgatory
August 4, 2010, 06:37 PM
DTD,

that second shotgun is AWESOME!!

Is that a 14" barrel?

I would LOVE to have one of those for around the house.

Wonder if it has normal 5 round capacity or so.

That'd be KILLER for camping/hiking in questionable predator (2 or 4 paws) areas. -especially stoked with unobtainium slugs.

Ok, sorry. Back to the thread.

Yeah, those crazy gun-hater laws BLOW.

Kentucky_Rifleman
August 4, 2010, 09:13 PM
Everyone,

Thanks for the info! I never realized that handguns had originally been part of the NFA. In that light, I can see why the drafters wanted to include them in the legislation.

Given the current state of things, I'd love to see the NFA go away entirely, or at least get radically revised to end the taxation of SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors. Considering the gains made lately, the changing climate politically, and recent attacks on law-abiding Americans along our border by drug-trash, maybe one day I'll see at least parts of them repealed.

I can dream, can't I?

KR

ThePunisher'sArmory
August 4, 2010, 09:23 PM
Cause the thugs just be lovin them.

bushmaster1313
August 4, 2010, 10:52 PM
I think because you usually end up with a short barreled rifle.

If you enjoyed reading about "Rationale for banning shoulder-stocked handguns ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!