Short barrel shotgun laws. Outdated and impractical?

[thatoneguy]

As time goes on and technology advances, i began to question the validity of certain firearm laws. Particularly the SBS laws. In my opinion a short barreled shotgun now a days should hardly be considered an illegal firearm. With most handguns in the semi auto category carrying 10, 15+ rounds and most semi auto rifles standardizing 30 round mags. How can a shotgun carrying 2, 3, 4 rounds be any more dangerous or threatening than the modern defense pistol?

I would love to hear some opinions and get some more insight on the matter.

Read More

 

[Member 3687]

I agree with you. From what I understand at the time it was loosely based on what the military would use in that day and they had no need for shotguns with less than 18 in bbls and rifles with less than 16 in (during a time when most military rifles where 26 in or longer) and so if you felt a need it became an NFA. (Only bad guys had the evil short cut down stuff)

This is a very, very loose understanding by the way.

Now days the military is issued M4s with 14.5 in bbls and special unit's even shorter and breaching shotguns are issued to some law enforcement units and military with 12 to 14 in bbls.

So those standards are no longer valid any more but it will not be easy to get change. Suppressors I can see as there is a strong movement going on now but it will still take a couple more years and I can see SBS and SBR next but it will be down the road a year or two more and a bit of a fight. (I hope I am wrong and congress and Trump can get it changed right away)

ARs are already evil to many folks and in many states and we all know that a short one with a rifle stock vs. a pistol with a sig brace is in their mind a million times more evil. You know how much more deadly the rifle stock will make it.

And any way why do you need a SBS to hunt duck are they that close and if they are why not just bend over and catch them?

 

[IronMonster]

Um... all NFA laws are questionable at best. The only restriction that might be justified is on full auto weapons.

 

[thatoneguy]

why do you need a SBS to hunt duck are they that close and if they are why not just bend over and catch them?

I "NEED" an SBS like i NEED another belly button. My issue is that it seems to be a none issue. Its more of a novelty thing now. There are only a couple practical purposes i can think of for an SBS. Small game hunting at close range (rabbits, squirrels etc...) but to go further, i dont NEED a suppressor either but it would be nice to have one. Same thing goes for 200 round ar 15 drum mags.

I too have high hopes in our new found president to start abolishing these silly laws over time.

 

[The Heretic]

All of the NFA laws are invalid because they are unconstitutional.

What the Second Amendment says - in simple terms (of the time) - is that any "arm" (all weapons, not just firearms) that the government has, so should the "people" have.

That includes anything that comes under the NFA.

As for practicality - that refers to whether the laws are effective from the perspective of those who want to subvert the Second Amendment and control the populace by making it harder to get the firearms that the NFA covers. To that end, the NFA laws/etc. are becoming less effective, but are still quite effective in many respects. With respect to SBRs and SBSs, less effective, but still somewhat effective.

The reason I am taking a bit of the devil's advocate view here is because you have to understand this issue from the perspective of those who do not want us to have these weapons.

You must understand how they think, and understand that they will basically oppose anything that will give the populace more individual power and the government less power. This is true of the GOP and the democrats - they both want power and believe in a strong central government. Only the Libertarian party wants to give power back to the individual.

 

[The Heretic]

I "NEED" an SBS like i NEED another belly button. My issue is that it seems to be a none issue. Its more of a novelty thing now. There are only a couple practical purposes i can think of for an SBS. Small game hunting at close range (rabbits, squirrels etc...) but to go further, i dont NEED a suppressor either but it would be nice to have one. Same thing goes for 200 round ar 15 drum mags.

I too have high hopes in our new found president to start abolishing these silly laws over time.

SBSs (and SBRs) are quite useful - e.g., for home defense.

The longer the long gun, the harder it is to maneuver in a building and the easier it is for an invader to grab the barrel and control or even take away the firearm. This is why I strongly prefer bullpups.

As for suppressors, again, useful for home defense as they reduce noise and flash significantly - an advantage that is very helpful for self-defense inside a building.

 

[thatoneguy]

there are alot of great points and opinions being brought up here.

I guess what i dont understand is why the Dark Side wants to continue an assault on types of firearms that have become a novelty and have become less and less effective compared to todays modern day firepower.

I do understand that they believe all guns are evil and that when they sleep we probably go out and plot crime and violence.

But lets be real here. The majority of us responsible gun owners just want to be left alone and be allowed to make our own decisions.

 

[Member 5605]

Looking at the background reasons... we realize that all of the NFA laws are asinine and have no real merit.

So what it somebody wants a fully auto pistol or rifle. If they can have one then they can support the ammunition costs to go shoot one. Bravo...

Sure, maybe limit explosives and explosive devices, yes that's not a firearm.

 

[The Heretic]

Sure, maybe limit explosives and explosive devices, yes that's not a firearm.

The Second Amendment is not about guns

 

[Member 5605]

The Second Amendment is not about guns

Correct. I prefer to chisel away at the rock until it's broken down.

In reality we don't need to buy C4 or dynamite etc. We have the smarts and ability to make all of this stuff for the most part in our garage. ANFO anyone? Walmart hand warmers... binary explosives... the list goes on.

Not everyone can make a barrel from steel in their gun room.

 

[Alexx1401]

Looking at the background reasons... we realize that all of the NFA laws are asinine and have no real merit.

So what it somebody wants a fully auto pistol or rifle. If they can have one then they can support the ammunition costs to go shoot one. Bravo...

Sure, maybe limit explosives and explosive devices, yes that's not a firearm.

Most gun law has ZERO to do with any kind of safety. Most of the people in congress who vote for them have no idea how most guns even work. Hand them one and they would not know how to load or shoot it. Problem is getting ANY gun law repealed is like showing Dracula the cross. They go berserk.

 

[CountryGent]

The NFA is indeed unconstitutional and it is a pretty stupid law in general. One could make the case that the SBR and SBS categories manage to be the most moronic because regular, non-DD/AOW handguns are Title I. The rationale, from what I've read, for the inclusion of SBR/SBS was that the NFA was originally conceived to included handguns. If they didn't address the barrel and overall lengths, people would just cut down rifles and shotguns to, roughly, handgun length. That language, of course, is superfluous in the final bill, yet it remains in force to this day. Frankly, the SBR, SBS, AOW, and silencer regulations need to go away. If MGs are kept NFA, then open the darn registry to new items because, after all, the law is supposedly a tax gathering scheme.

Even ignoring the legislative history, the whole thing is as brain-dead as any other gun control measure, because criminals aren't going to obey it. The law-abiding do and have to file paperwork, gather other materials (pics, prints, et al.), pay a tax, wait an eternity for approval, and comply with the other finer points (e.g., engraving, record keeping, etc.). The tax isn't as onerous as it was 80+ years ago, but the whole process is, at best, a waste for all concerned. And not just a waste, an infringement.

 

[The Heretic]

Correct. I prefer to chisel away at the rock until it's broken down.

In reality we don't need to buy C4 or dynamite etc. We have the smarts and ability to make all of this stuff for the most part in our garage. ANFO anyone? Walmart hand warmers... binary explosives... the list goes on.

Not everyone can make a barrel from steel in their gun room.

Making your own blasting caps can be dangerous to your health and freedom.

My dad still had some when he retired (he once cleared some land he bought back in the early 50's). As I was helping him cleanup his shop for a garage sale, I came across them in his tool box. I told him in no uncertain terms that possession could get him put in prison - the ATF has no sense of humor about such things.

I was tempted to take them (he offered them to me) but I declined (yes, I know how to use them - I used them when working in logging). I am not sure how he disposed of them - they were gone when I looked in his toolbox some years later.

ANFO is harder to make these days - they have restrictions on the ingredients and have used a different coating for the AN part of ANFO - because of McVeigh.

 

[Member 3687]

I have never been a shotgun guy so an SBS would be a novelty to me and yes I would have one if not for all the paper work and BS. I refuse to play that game and pay the money for a right I feel we already have.

I do not belittle those who do and I have lots of friends who have made that choice. It's just not for me.

But I guess I do still play a game as I have several AR pistols from 10.5, 11.5 and 14.5 with either the Sig brace the Blade or just a pistol buffer tube so I do push the limits with in the current laws. But I do not have to have additional permission from the government to own them.

I think full auto will always be regulated even thought I feel it is also against our rights because it has been issued to foot solders since the end of world war one in the BAR. Well before NFA.

Bad guys will always do bad things look at the North Hollywood shoot out they converted AK's to full auto without the government's permission.

You are correct making explosives is dangerous and could land you in jail but so can driving a car (DUI, racing, speeding or hit and run) as well as many other things we do day to day.

Most of us that have dealt with firearms for a number of years and have any mechanical ability can make a zip gun with the stuff they have in their garage without too much thought or work. A 12 gauge will drop into a piece of ¾ ID pipe with no problem and you do not need rifling.

I do not encourage or promote anything outside the law but any of us with a little home work could do some very bad and evil things and no law on the books could stop us. We all chose not too because we chose to be good honest folks. So telling us we cannot be trusted with certain firearms is nuts.

Tell me what is the difference between my AR pistol and an SBR? O-ya the stock yet I have still not chosen to do bad things and I do not need permission for the pistol. Why make explosives when black powder is sold across the counter in various cuts.

If I am a bad guy and want an SBS or a SBR a hacksaw is 7 bucks and if I stole the shot gun I probably would steal the hack saw as well.

So I guess after all this what I am trying to say is NO LAW written is ever going to stop bad folks from doing bad things. So saying SBR's SBS's suppressor or full auto regulations will stop bad folks from doing bad things is stupid. Could it make it easier for the bad guys, possibly but nothing has not stopped them yet. Some of the last major terrorist operations used trucks and crowded streets.

So gun laws had no effect on them what so ever.

 

[The Heretic]

Gun control isn't about controlling criminals, it is about controlling law abiding citizens

 

[thatoneguy]

Gun control isn't about controlling criminals, it is about controlling law abiding citizens

Precisely.

 

[Flopsweat]

there are alot of great points and opinions being brought up here.

I guess what i dont understand is why the Dark Side wants to continue an assault on types of firearms that have become a novelty and have become less and less effective compared to todays modern day firepower.

I do understand that they believe all guns are evil and that when they sleep we probably go out and plot crime and violence.

But lets be real here. The majority of us responsible gun owners just want to be left alone and be allowed to make our own decisions.

Their perspective is not your safety or anyone else's. In the eyes of the extremist gun grabbers, any law that infringes is progress. Ban a little here, ban a little there and eventually the frog is boiled. The less extreme ones have just fallen for the rhetoric. Some of them we can reach, along with the fence sitters.

 

[CountryGent]

Their perspective is not your safety or anyone else's. In the eyes of the extremist gun grabbers, any law that infringes is progress. Ban a little here, ban a little there and eventually the frog is boiled.

^ Exactly. Their game plan has always to ban what they can get away, and anything they can't, make owning said as restricted, expensive, time-consuming, or otherwise annoying as possible. Our Founders were wise to word the 2A "shall not be infringed" because they undoubtedly knew the way rights are chiseled away.

 

[mjbskwim]

My friend and I were talking about suppressors and trying to get them off the NFA list
I said I had some excuse as to why they were on there
Him,being anti gubment started ranting about how after prohibition the agents needed something to do so they made up the list. Didn't have a good argument against that
So yeah it's all out dated

 

[Boboclown]

Um... all NFA laws are questionable at best. The only restriction that might be justified is on full auto weapons.

Eh.... I'd still want to legalize them.