Sbs/sbr presented dangers to society?

Status
Not open for further replies.

beeenbag

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
1,821
Location
Grayson, Ky
What basis of argument was made when the law was made to classify sbs/sbr as class 3 nfa items? I can't understand how length of barrel makes that big of a difference. What dangers do these items present to society or the law enforcement that made them class 3? A handgun can be concealed easier, a longer barrel makes the weapons more accurate and provide for more velocity. I think it would be nice to have a sbr for it's handiness but i can't put my finger on why the government wanted them hard to obtain.
 
Still, how common was it back then for people to be packin sawed off shotguns over a handgun?
 
Very

The power of the shotgun, and reliability, made for a great intimidation control.

It was the other cut down rifles and model 5s that made LE threatened. Automatic weapons that were cut down to be portable in cars gave gangs big advantages over LE who were typically equipped with 5" revolvers and shotguns. It started an "arms race" that ended in the law abiding, who couldn't afford these weapons back then, having no interested in opposing moving these guns out of easy reach.
 
Hmm, I am not from that era so I had no clue. Kinda null point with the mg laws, not to mention it kinda goes back to the "criminals will do it anyway" arguement.
 
It was hype, just like all gun control laws.

Now, that .45 pistol (full auto???) with the Tommy gun foregrip and long magazine... AWESOME! :D
 
I always get upset when talking about this issue. Basically every gun law passed is robbing future generations of rights, and only ensaves us more with less and less means to defend the other rights.

1934, '68, '86 are pretty trecherous years in my mind, not to mention stupid state and city laws.
 
I think handguns were originally part of the NFA 34 law but too much resistance got it removed before final passage. They were trying to highly regulate anything concealable or full auto. Now some of these make no sense since handguns didn't regulated that way.
 
I looked it up, and it was a .38 Super (you can see the groove on the magazine). It was made up by a gunsmith in Texas.
 
I believe there was originally far more restrictions proposed for pistols so the sbr regs were more or less there to prevent people from getting around pistol regs by shortening rifles. The pistol regs never passed but the sbr ones got left in. Now due to hysteria they're pretty much politically impossible to change. Just think how many people actually believe that shortening a shotgun's barrel has a dramatic effect on its deadliness.
 
The original National Firearms Act would have included handguns. Allowing people to make concealable weapons from rifles and shotguns would have undermined the handgun ban, so sawed off rifles and shotguns were included in the NFA. Handguns evetually were left to to state control, but the federal restriction on SBS, SBR and AOW were kept in the NFA.
 
Guys, vamo has it exactly right.

The BASIS of the restriction was concealability, as hso said, but it only made a lick of "sense" in the context that handguns were to absolutely be restricted out of common availability, PRIMARILY. That was really the core of the matter. The "SBR" and "SBS" stuff was simply created because the powers that were knew that folks wanting a concealable weapon would just make one from a hunting rifle or shotgun if they couldn't get their hands on a pistol or revolver.

So, they make "firearms made from a" rifle or shotgun expressly just as [strike]illegal[/strike] heavily regulated and taxed as handguns were to be.

But then, amazingly and oh, so thankfully, handguns were stricken from the bill before it was passed.

The shotgun and rifle corollary was simply left in as a bit of sloppy housekeeping.

But then as the years went by, the idea of a sawed-off shotgun (especially) grew in the public consciousness. Since it was so very especially illegal, it MUST be a devastating, extra lethal weapon! :uhoh:

Once you grasp that these laws are just a matter of legislative sloppyness, and that the law tying silencers into the whole mess comes from largely socially irrelevant anti-poaching concerns, the whole stinking pile that is the NFA starts to be seen as more and more of an embarrassment and outrage.
 
Actually, the reputed use of short-barreled shotguns by the Mafia -- the so-called Sicilian "Luparo" ("Wolf gun") was the motivation behind the short-barrel limitation.

Also at that time, surplus Lugers and Mauser pistols were being sold with shoulder stocks and advertised as "pocket machine guns."

Congressmen who knew no more about guns that they do today were persuaded to list both short barreled weapons and shoulders stocked pistols in the act.
 
Doesn't anyone here watch any movies? A 12ga with 16" barrel just makes a big hole through your gut or takes your head off... but anything shorter knocks your dead body back at least ten feet and smashes it through at least five other innocent bystanders. A SBS is FAR more deadly!!
 
In it's Miller decision, the SCOTUS ruled against sawed off shotguns because the military didn't use them.

Funny how now the antis want to ban our guns that are like ones used by the military.
 
Actually, the reputed use of short-barreled shotguns by the Mafia -- the so-called Sicilian "Luparo" ("Wolf gun") was the motivation behind the short-barrel limitation.
I can't argue that they didn't recognize that this was already being done, because if nothing less, there have been short barreled shotguns and muskets and carbines for always. Heck, there were Winchester and Marlin factory options for 14" (or thereabout) barrels.

I don't believe that was the primary reason for the legislation, though, as such things existed in a continuum of many different sizes/lengths of guns that were only minimally distinguishable from one another.

Throwing a specific (26") length requirement into it is all about the concealability aspect, and that's precisely what they were getting at with handguns. What can someone stick in a pocket or under a coat?
 
IIRC, the NFA initially had pistols as a restricted category, which then makes the SBR/SBS rule make some sense in context. I forget when/how the pistol regs were dropped because of public/legal outcry.

To the guys invoking Dillinger and sawed-off BARs; way to sound like a Grabber circa 1930 :rolleyes:

The vast, vast majority of crimes, then as now, were accomplished with cheap and readily available weapons, ranging from black jacks to fists to shotguns to cheap revolvers that would break after a couple uses. Then as now, the few instances of heavier firepower being brought to bear were blown out of proportion by an eager news media desperate to sell papers. Then as now, they helped individual men hold the entire nation in suspense and terror, and then as now, loudly proclaimed that the citizens' rights should be trampled that they may be saved. Machine guns were far less common and far more expensive then than now; except for a very few who made a point of using these guns for extremely aggressive tactics, guns were cheap and easily concealed or discarded, and used more for threatening victims and last-ditch self defense than for all out war on the peaceful "decent" folk cloistered away in the nice parts of town but kept terrified by yellow journalists.

TCB
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top