Short barrel shotgun laws. Outdated and impractical?

[Diamondback]

Ask the shades of Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday about the value of a shorty "coach gun" sometime... the Hughes Court had its collective head so far up its arse on more than just Miller you'd need to crack open its ribcage for it to see daylight.

 

[IronMonster]

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

They are legal most states now and I think new ones should be manufactured and sold. I do accept that some sort of restriction on full auto weapons (like an enhanced background check and registration) is warranted. On the other hand SBS and SBR and most AOW's should not be treated as anything other than a firearm and suppressors not even that. A suppressors is not a weapon, it's a damn muffler and there should be no restrictions on purchase, not even a simple BGC. It should require the same thing most other transactions do.

"Do you have the money?"

Yes

"OK great, here is your suppressor"

Done...

 

[Boboclown]

They are legal most states now and I think new ones should be manufactured and sold. I do accept that some sort of restriction on full auto weapons (like an enhanced background check and registration) is warranted. On the other hand SBS and SBR and most AOW's should not be treated as anything other than a firearm and suppressors not even that. A suppressors is not a weapon, it's a damn muffler and there should be no restrictions on purchase, not even a simple BGC. It should require the same thing most other transactions do.

"Do you have the money?"

Yes

"OK great, here is your suppressor"

Done...

Legal at state level doesn't mean much when only pre-bans are allowed at the federal level. Which means poor redneck folk like me ain't get no "automatic uzis." And to be honest I disagree with there being more restrictions on automatics than other firearms. Still would be a lot better than it is now, but I don't like it. I do agree with everything else you just said though.

 

[IronMonster]

I can see why you would not want a three time convicted bank robber to be able to buy crates of FA uzi's and why it would be prudent to keep track of automatic weapons for that reason. Honestly I can even see a punitive tax like the one in place now. I think every eligible person who wants one should be allowed to buy one, but I don't see a problem making the person sign a paper saying they will behave and keep track of it.

 

[Boboclown]

If a three time convicted bank robber could get a regular gun, then the background check system failed in the first place didn't it?

Its still just another gun. But hey, what would be the point of a Democratic Republic if everyone agreed on everything?

 

[mkwerx]

1.) the NFA was written more to keep weapons out of the hands of poor people, and poor black people specifically, than anything else. At the time $200 was an enormous amount of money. There was also no grandfather clause, so you were required to register your already-owned guns with the feds. At the time it was passed, it wasn't even widely published - hence the Miller case.

2.) Military frequently used short barrelled rifles and shotguns in trench warfare - long barrelled guns didn't navigate trenches well.

3.) For all of the Hollywood BS about criminals here in the US using full auto weapons in their murders/drive bys/robberies - there's no documentation to back up that assertion, at least in modern times, and very little documentation even back before the NFA. Government thugs have used automatic weapons against the people far more than any of the people have used them in crimes.

It was and is all about people control, and keeping effective implements for potential resistance out of the hands of the people. The crafters of our Constitution wanted every man to have common military arms of the day, because every adult man was subject to call up to come defend his state or country, and certainly to defend his own home and to provide meat for the table. But then like cancer, people sleazed their way into power and decided they are better than the rest of us, and that they should concentrate power, and dismantle the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government.

The US government has committed multiple atrocities against US citizens - and is just as likely as any government in history to turn against us as any other. A well armed populace is a big deterrent to them pulling that kind of crap off on a wider scale than they have - so by drafting laws like the NFA and GCA they chip away at our ability to fight back. It's blatantly unconstitutional, but the courts upheld it despite it being so obvious. Political, racist courts can and are wrong.

 

[Ralgha]

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.

I need a suppressor, I happen to like my hearing. I estimate another month or so before I get it. I don't need a SBR, but I got one anyway.

 

[DB is Here]

Gun laws, NFA, Government programs & Taxes...

Once passed it would seem an Act of God is required to remove them.

 

[CountryGent]

Gun laws, NFA, Government programs & Taxes...

Once passed it would seem an Act of God is required to remove them.

Sad, but true. Ronnie said it well:

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"​

 

[thatoneguy]

I was unaware of the concept behind the NFA being in relation to modern military arms. But if that is the case shouldnt the civilian market advance as the military market has???

 

[DB is Here]

I was unaware of the concept behind the NFA being in relation to modern military arms. But if that is the case shouldnt the civilian market advance as the military market has???

There you go again with your silly Common Sense.

 

[thatoneguy]

There you go again with your silly Common Sense.

I guess thats what i get for thinking...

 

[CountryGent]

I was unaware of the concept behind the NFA being in relation to modern military arms. But if that is the case shouldnt the civilian market advance as the military market has???

One would think. There have been at least one major ruling that firearm wasn't enough of a military arm to be covered by 2A (e.g., Miller), while other laws/rulings finding that specific firearms being too military (e.g., sporting test that resulted in import bans, reclassifying certain shotguns as NFA, etc.). It is all pretty much bullplop.

There you go again with your silly Common Sense.

^ Precisely.

 

[Boboclown]

I guess thats what i get for thinking...

You're thinking? That's illegal, I must report you to Obama, you're supposed to believe everything the media and the government tell you.

 

[Diamondback]

One would think. There have been at least one major ruling that firearm wasn't enough of a military arm to be covered by 2A (e.g., Miller), while other laws/rulings finding that specific firearms being too military (e.g., sporting test that resulted in import bans, reclassifying certain shotguns as NFA, etc.). It is all pretty much bullplop.



^ Preciously.

The ONLY way I could see such a double standard being legally/morally justified would be restricting non-citizens to so-called "sporting arms" only.

 

[Diamondback]

You're thinking? That's illegal, I must report you to Obama, you're supposed to believe everything the media and the government tell you.

Obuttnugget can go choke on a d*ck. :flipoff:

 

[thatoneguy]

Im not a fan of the "Government Brand Kool-Aid"

 

[Boboclown]

Obuttnugget can go choke on a d*ck. :flipoff:

Hey, only a little while to go before he's gone. I don't know whether to drink or go to the range for celebration.

 

[wired]

I agree that they shouldnt be illegal or NFA but they are. Ask Randy Weaver what happens when that little technicality gets disregarded.

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

Why? Aimed semi auto fire is much more accurate and deadly than full auto fire unless its in the hands of someone who practices a LOT.

 

[Flopsweat]

You're thinking? That's illegal, I must report you to Obama, you're supposed to believe everything the media and the government tell you.