Why not solve the brace controversy by taking SBR's out of the NFA?

Clyde Barrow loved to chop the barrels down on every long gun He and Bonny had, form BAR's to A-5's.

It would solve the problem but it is unlikely to happen. Part of the reason is because half of Congress wants to ban all guns and the other half wants to keep partial bans in place as a way of raising campaign money.

Them allowing more freedom is HIGHLY unlikely. I get your point, but I do not expect that to be their solution to the situation when the left can punish mostly people on the right with this. They will legalize marijuana as that makes their voters happy, more gun freedom won't make their voters happy.

Balrog said:

Why were semi automatic SBR's ever included in the NFA?

Click to expand...

Originally all "short" barrelled firearms, including handguns, were included. Fortunately, handguns were removed from the bill at the last minute.

Balrog said:

Seems like there is no reason to make SBR's a restricted item. Why not just pull them off the NFA list, and solve the AR pistol brace question that way?

Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that the end goal is to reduce crime. That assumption is incorrect, IMO.

Balrog said:

Why not solve the brace controversy by

Click to expand...

aligning Federal firearms law with the Constitution?

Hey, since we're talking, can we just rediscover enumerated powers too?

And yes the left wanted all short barreled firearms controlled under NFA rules to include pistols and revolvers. But they had to make compromises to get the bill to pass. That is the how and why pistols are not NFA items.

I totally agree that the SBR issue does need to be addressed and most if not all of it needs to go away. A good start would be changing the wording from 26" OAL AND 16" barrel to 26" OAL OR 16" barrel. Really the 26" OAL ruling needs to be removed.

Most AR pistols with a 10.5" barrel and a standard length pistol buffer tube will measure 25-25.5 inches from the end of the buffer tube to end of the barrel not including the muzzle device. With the longer Kak Super Sig buffer tube, an AR with 10.5" barrel measures 26.5" OAL (not including muzzle device). Even at 25" OAL, it isn't very concealable, except under a long trench coat. But I can also hide a 16" carbine with stock fully collapsed under the same long trench coat.

We won't see the SBR rules go away anytime soon because it allows us more freedoms, loss of tax revenue, and it makes too much sense.

12Bravo20 said:

And yes the left wanted all short barreled firearms controlled under NFA rules to include pistols and revolvers. But they had to make compromises to get the bill to pass. That is the how and why pistols are not NFA items.

Click to expand...

"The left" isn't accurate. There was precious little dissent and Democrats (especially southern Dems) were far more conservative than many Republicans in 1934.
A decent quick and dirty synopsis of how the NFA legislation literally ran through Congress and was virtually unopposed: https://www.thecongressproject.com/national-firearms-act-of-1934 Of note...........no recorded votes. The NFA was passed by voice vote. Thats how overwhelming support was.

I totally agree that the SBR issue does need to be addressed and most if not all of it needs to go away. A good start would be changing the wording from 26" OAL AND 16" barrel to 26" OAL OR 16" barrel. Really the 26" OAL ruling needs to be removed.

Click to expand...

Well....it ALL needs to go away. "The SBR issue" is no different than the silencer issue, the SBS issue or the machine gun issue.

We won't see the SBR rules go away anytime soon because it allows us more freedoms, loss of tax revenue, and it makes too much sense.

Click to expand...

Loss of tax revenue is often cited, but the cost to maintain the NFA Branch far exceeds any tax revenue from Form 1's or Form 4's.
Further, the implementation of a tax was never about revenue, but about a tax that made possession prohibitively expensive except for the very wealthy. $200 in 1934 is equivalent to $3,884 today.

I saw a quote recently that said “If the punishment for breaking a law is paying a fine then that’s only a law for poor people.” It brought the NFA to mind.

because you have millions of Fudd types willing to ban them altogether, just like those DNC sponsored commercials with "I'm a hunter and I don't want weapons of war on our streets" by some stereotype who's clearly uncomfortable with the double barrel he's holding.
On this forum alone, you can read through the various threads last month and see a huge percentage of THR members are anxious to throw you under the bus.
With that kind of backing, there is no motivation to find middle ground. Besides, that doesn't accomplish the goal of making the US another Orwellian police state.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the National Rifle Association support the NFA in 1934?

AlexanderA said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the National Rifle Association support the NFA in 1934?

Click to expand...

Yes. Check out the link that dogtown tom posted. It's quite interesting.

The NRA has supported several major anti freedom "gun control" bills, including the NFA and the GCA '68.

All governments eventually want to restrict the freedoms of their citizens. The reason being, eventually the people get fed up with government doing things that benefit those in power, at the expense of the citizenry. Our founders understood this and wanted to guarantee the people had the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. They enumerated that we have the right to bear arms, they did not give us that right.

Any laws restricting that right is unconstitutional. We have had our rights eroded since the founding. So NFA, GCA and any since have just taken another bite out of our rights. While we argue about semantics. Not sure how this ends, but we currently still have some rights left, they are but a shadow of what once was.

Note, historical reference only. Please don't take this as anything but information.