Time to make SBS/SBR legal for all WA residents.

[seattlewingsfan]

Well I am looking at this from a standpoint of what can get done soon. There is no way you are going to get them to allow MG at this point in time. It will take one person to realize that MG will be legal and it will get shot down. Even many very pro gun people believe the average citizen has no business owning a MG. If you show a picture of a SBR to most of the senators they will assume it is a MG anyway and stop listening to you. The issue is education. Once Legislators knew that a suppressed firearm still has a sound level that is significant, they were much more at ease. Something like that is going to have to happen for SBR, SBS to get changed.

I really believe trying to get MG wraped up in this is going to backfire and cause more harm than good. If you think of it like a legislator, ask for more than you believe your going to get so you end up getting what you want. Then sure, but I think it's just going to scare away potential sponsors. And don't be fooled into thinking you can downplay anything. Especially in a session after a Firearms bill got passed! If we try to ask for a mile instead of an inch the bill will either get shot down before it starts... or have attention drawn to it, opening the possibilites of amendments and changes we really don't want, possibly the very things you say.

The defensive option I posed is not the goal of my work. It is mearly one part of a much bigger idea. And only mentioned because it is a SAFETY angle. I wish to do, much as you are saying. But when I meet with the Senators and I will. I am going to have as much and as many uses and reasonings as it takes to get thier attention.

One of the things is that the legislators that wrote the change did so to mirror the Federal AWB. Now that is gone, and there is proof that it did virtually nothing. It can be said that the same should happen on a state level. Alot of people think that giving away, or taking away a right if it does good ie. lowers deaths, robberies, etc.. is worthwhile. Once it's gone they are complacent to keep status quo unless you can show a market/use for the change, they will be fine with leaving it the way it is.

The safety issue, if it can be presented is the easiest for questionable people to get behind. Even the NRA is planning to use safety as the main push next session for Firing range legislation they are pushing next session. I think one key thing is that you don't have to push the same idea to all of the legislators. You can target your corrispondence to people as needed to influence them.

I am all for having all guns being Legal. I have just about everything, including a Registererd DD.

 

[Ranb]

I want to push SBS/SBR as normal firearms that are every bit as useful as their full sized counterparts. I would hesitate to emphasize that they are better for self defense as this would lead anti-gunners to say they are being promoted as "killing" tools. As mudane as I tried to make silencers, I want to do the same with the short stuff. But I am willing to listen to any suggestions.

I think we should work on SBS/SBR now and save MG for later.

Ranb

 

[seattlewingsfan]

The whole point of open forums like this is to bounce ideas and brainstorm as a group. I like your input, and I did think about it being harder down the road to get MG passed. However, I do not think it is short sited to leave it out in the current state of public opinion.

Depending on how conversations go on first contact and judging reactions, we could always slip the change in and meter a response.

 

[seattlewingsfan]

I want to push SBS/SBR as normal firearms that are every bit as useful as their full sized counterparts. I would hesitate to emphasize that they are better for self defense as this would lead anti-gunners to say they are being promoted as "killing" tools. As mudane as I tried to make silencers, I want to do the same with the short stuff. But I am willing to listen to any suggestions.

I think we should work on SBS/SBR now and save MG for later.

Ranb

I think you and I are basically on the same page on this issue as well. I found a article that i bookmarked on my cell phone while googling in the car. I'll try to get you the link. It talked about how the arbitrary length was decided upon, and basically states how silly it is that it is defined down to the hundreths of and inch and how a gun 1/100th of a inch shorter can land you in jail. It also talks about how smaller weapons are useful and could be argued safer for smaller people to use for things like hunting or target practice.

Like I said I only stated the safety issue because it was brought up as not being an option, when infact is is one of 7 directions I believe this could go. I plan to gather as much info as I can and weigh out which method is best, second, third and so on. Maybe it's the old eagle scout in me but I always plan to be prepared, and be able to change and argue another angle if the need arises.

I had to deal with the EPA once on a uderground fuel storage tank issue. I was basically able to push them to do what I wanted because I had an answer for everything they argued. This was after witnessing two professional engineering firms that tried to do the same thing with the property but failed. It was a good lesson.

 

[SVT]

I'm actually in awe that everyone was able to take the suppressor bill as far as what they did. If you would have asked me a year ago, I'd say you'd have a snowballs chance in ****. I prefer to shoot suppressed and taught my son to shoot with suppressed weapons (for safety) and hopefully others will see the benefits as well. My thoughts are similar to yours were the legislature will see the Hollywood portrayal of SBS/SBR's and immediately think "evil". If the bill's title or main focus mentions "Short Barrel" then I think we've lost them (especially if it hits the media). If we can re-affirm our Constitution then I feel we would have more of a chance. If the MG aspect comes up, we can deflect it with the fact that they are legal in most states, legal machine guns being used in crime is essentially unheard of and the fact that the "average" MG is over $10,000 means that they won't be flooding the streets (especially in this economy) not to mention that they can't make any more.

Californiafication is happening up here, and I'm hoping we can find a way to nip it in the bud by additional legislation supporting our current constitution. The fact is, our legislatures constituents are primarily Liberal so future battles I feel are just going to be a matter of time. We need to go through the various other states legislation and see how we can word craft the bill to minimize the negative connotations while freeing up the industry restrictions.

If the suppressor bill passes, we need to have a "quiet" shoot to celebrate!

 

[SVT]

The more angles/tact's the better. Yes you need to be able to counter every argument but also persuade (which is going to be the hardest part). I have a friend who is very short of stature (to put it PC) that I know that is into NFA and firearms, he may be a good person to speak about SBS and SBR. I have AOW's that are essentially SBR's and SBS's just without the stock. I feel that they are even more dangerous since it's harder to aim (but I don't want to make a case for making them illegal). Obviously, a pistol with a stock is much harder to conceal, it's really hard to argue why it should be illegal. Shortening barrels can decrease barrel harmonics (reducing barrel whip) making them more accurate, but we won't get into that. It would be good to talk to you later about strategies and arguments.

 

[Ranb]

If the suppressor bill passes, we need to have a "quiet" shoot to celebrate!

I have tenative approval for a suppressed firearms only shoot at the Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club on July 23rd.

Ranb

 

[seattlewingsfan]

I thought about taking two exact same barrells one legal length and one .125 shorter and setting them side by side and asking them what the difference was. And when they couldn't tell me. Say this one lands you in jail and this one is perfectly legal. It's not right that something that was clearly just deemed by you as insignificant means jail time. You could then go many ways, even possibly bringing up the way that they came up with the federal SBR and SBS standards and show that using the same method but "today". The outcome would have been different. Length of barrel has no real relavence as to it's usability, and the needs of the military have changed over the years. It's funny that the standard for SBR SBS was founded on military use, yet today military is exempt from it.

 

[NoEcm]

I thought about taking two exact same barrells one legal length and one .125 shorter and setting them side by side and asking them what the difference was.

Excellent idea

 

[Ranb]

I want to make a video demonstrating various SBS and SBR. Some very short, others just under the limit. Compare them to AOW's and full sized versions.

Ranb

 

[seattlewingsfan]

I thought of something today that i hadn't before. If you have a shotgun or rifle that was the Minimum length to be legal and heaven forbid the end of the barrell got damage while hunting. Even a simple repair could force you to shorten it a tad making it illegal. When you have no intention to break a law. But certainly you wouldn't want to scrap a perfectly good gun because you couldn't true and recrown. Thinking of a short savage 4/10-22mag over under my dad gave me as a kid.

 

[Topper]

I thought about taking two exact same barrells one legal length and one .125 shorter and setting them side by side and asking them what the difference was. And when they couldn't tell me. Say this one lands you in jail and this one is perfectly legal.

Great idea, you could also perhaps throw in an AK/AR pistol for more examples of what is already legal as well...

 

[68w]

Great idea, you could also perhaps throw in an AK/AR pistol for more examples of what is already legal as well...

I think that is a great idea. Showing how an AR pistol with just a tube, no stock is legal. but adding a stock or a forgrip makes it illegal.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I think we need to keep MG separate from SBS/SBR. I will make an effort for any pro-gun bill.

Ranb

Agreed, it's just on my wish list. One domino at a time

To the comments about MGs and federal law, it's not any different of an issue, legally. Fed law "allows" both. An emotional issue, yes, because of the planned execution of decades of anti gun propaganda. Keep in mind the evil AR 15 and AK 47? Just 20 years ago they were the devil incarnate. They are now seen by a much larger percentage of the populace as a right to own item

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I want to push SBS/SBR as normal firearms that are every bit as useful as their full sized counterparts. I would hesitate to emphasize that they are better for self defense as this would lead anti-gunners to say they are being promoted as "killing" tools. As mudane as I tried to make silencers, I want to do the same with the short stuff. But I am willing to listen to any suggestions.

I think we should work on SBS/SBR now and save MG for later.

Ranb

Push the concept that many/most suppressor users need the shorter barrels to be able to use their suppressors normally without having an abnormally cumbersome, long barrel/suppressor combo..

 

[sigman]

I agree that if we keep the MG seperate from the SBR/SBS that we will get farther than lumping all 3 together. Speaking to my (Thurston Co) Sheriff the morning of the hearing about supressors and he ask why I needed one. And suppressors are legal. So imagine the sell for a belt fed M-60?

 

[68w]

Because It should be your right to decide if you want own a .22 or a belt feed m-60. I know thats not how most people look at it, but thats how it should be. But I have to agree with Ranb, I think it would work best to not lump them together. Its gonna be really difficult trying to explain to all the anti gunnys why we should be allowed to own a fully auto weapon.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I agree that if we keep the MG seperate from the SBR/SBS that we will get farther than lumping all 3 together. Speaking to my (Thurston Co) Sheriff the morning of the hearing about supressors and he ask why I needed one. And suppressors are legal. So imagine the sell for a belt fed M-60?

One thing at a time. I want it all (freedom is contagious) but you have to start somewhere

 

[LWYM425]

I like the comparison between a legal and felonious barrel because its visual and makes you realize that a size limit on length is silly. I also like having reasons that are simple to understand and don't need much arguing when it comes to short barrels. People who don't shoot, or do shoot and feel no need for short barrels will need convincing- just something to attach the concept of short barrels to. "its a constitutional right" is an easily dismissed argument (I'm sorry to say). Lets brainstorm some more. Come up with arguments that make your opponent look insensitive if they disagreed.

I can only come up with three at the moment (I'm pretty new to this)...

Hunting perspective: shorter barrels would be preferred to improve ease of use, and better muzzle control (its speculation, I know, but I feel like it may help people pin a use to these weapons). "SBR/SBS's are for the safe/wholesome hunter"

User friendly: I think it would really help the case if we could get one or more petite women to shoulder a full size rifle (awkwardly). Maybe just before she does that she takes the weapon from a larger male who seems to fit the rifle better. Talk about weight issues as well, and how a previously male dominated industry finds itself in a more diverse society being held back by obsolete laws... These images might invoke some sort of emotion that lends itself well to softening this issue. It will also remind people that they might not know the demographic behind this. "SBR/SBS's level the playing field for women"

Indoor use: This could go along with the woman/mother. I don't use a rifle/shotgun as home defense... hey, maybe because I feel like I can't maneuver it well indoors/down halls. Can any of you guys construct arguements for the superiority of rifle/shotgun rounds for home defense (SBS: lower penetration then hand gun? SBR: more controlled then pistol?). "SBR/SBS's are for parents/adults who want to offer the ones they love better protection"

Randy, you'll have to tell us how effective of a tool that those videos actually were... to me they are a huge asset for conveying a concentrated amount of information in a short, engaging presentation.

 

[LWYM425]

It can be touchy, but I REALLY think we will cover the most ground if we can turn this into a "woman's rights" issue. Its touchy cause just saying it that way makes it look like I'm taking advantage of a noble cause... or maybe I'm over thinking it. Plus, I'm not a woman, and I by no means want to imply that they are not capable of handling full size weapons better then men. I just see the under-educated (on gun issues) clinging to that as something they can sell to others.
My fiance loves that I keep armed and protective, but has little interest in weapons beyond understanding basic use... and I don't have a rifle, but I do have a shotgun with a 28" barrel... I think to be fair we should do the demo within reason (don't hand the girl an elephant gun, be honest and show a realistic firearm and how it could still be improved by shortening the barrel). Anyone have a female friend who might be on board?

You could couple the indoor use/defense with the previously mentioned suppressor issue. I hate to throw that in the legislators face (cause the JUST passed it) but its a valid argument. I would LOVE to have a suppressed SBR as my all purpose defense weapon.

And what about kids? Could we say that SBR/SBS's are for kids learning to shoot/hunt with their dad. The image of a 12 y.o. decked out in his/her hunter orange learning how to hold a gun (.22, for squirrels?). Think about the CHILDREN!!! (oh man, i crack myself up; I hate it when people use that phrase)