- Messages
- 962
- Reactions
- 230
Short barreled rifles (SBR) and short barreled shotguns (SBS) are two types of firearms that are strictly controlled by the federal government. A short barreled rifle has a barrel less than 16 long or is less than 26 overall. A short barreled shotgun has a barrel less than 18 or less than 26 overall. The ATF requires that a $200 tax be paid and ATF approval obtained prior to making or buying them unless you have a license to do so. Obtaining the tax stamp is a routine matter and never denied as long as the forms are filled out correctly.
Washington State does not ban SBS/SBR, but there are additional restrictions. Only the police, military, licensed dealers and those of us who registered them prior to July 1, 1994 are allowed to possess them. Bill 2099 eliminates the date requirement and allows anyone who registers their SBS or SBR to possess in Washington. Bill 2099 merely brings state law in line with federal law as it is impossible for anyone to legally own an SBS or SBR unless it is registered.
Most WA legislators are not anti-gun, but most of them will not care enough about any gun bill unless their constituents tell them to care. The Chairmen of the Judiciary committees of the House and Senate will not give bill 2099 a hearing unless they think it will pass and enough Senators or Representatives tell him it is a priority. If there is not a large amount of support for the bill, then it will die in committee like the silencer bill did for several years.
When writing to a legislator that knows little about firearms, you may need to explain that SBS and SBR are just as useful as any other rifle or shotgun. There is no good reason for the state to ban their possession by the majority of people who are allowed to own firearms. Back in 1994 a Washington State version of the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was being pushed. It was a long 97 page bill that allocated money for education and law enforcement. Like the federal AWB, it intended to ban various semi-automatic firearms. But it also placed additional restrictions on SBS and SBR. While the bill (2319) claimed that firearm violence was a serious problem, it did not single out SBS/SBR as the problem. Their only mention in the bill was to say that they were legal at the federal level.
There were many people that opposed the AWB portion of bill 2319 by showing up to the committee hearings. While the AWB portion of bill 2319 was removed, the SBR//SBR ban stayed in. I wrote to the nine Senators that voted for the ban to ask why they felt SBS/SBR should be banned for future ownership, but only got a reply from my Senator (Sheldon); he said he could not recall any reason for banning them and that he would support bill 2099.
Ranb
Washington State does not ban SBS/SBR, but there are additional restrictions. Only the police, military, licensed dealers and those of us who registered them prior to July 1, 1994 are allowed to possess them. Bill 2099 eliminates the date requirement and allows anyone who registers their SBS or SBR to possess in Washington. Bill 2099 merely brings state law in line with federal law as it is impossible for anyone to legally own an SBS or SBR unless it is registered.
Most WA legislators are not anti-gun, but most of them will not care enough about any gun bill unless their constituents tell them to care. The Chairmen of the Judiciary committees of the House and Senate will not give bill 2099 a hearing unless they think it will pass and enough Senators or Representatives tell him it is a priority. If there is not a large amount of support for the bill, then it will die in committee like the silencer bill did for several years.
When writing to a legislator that knows little about firearms, you may need to explain that SBS and SBR are just as useful as any other rifle or shotgun. There is no good reason for the state to ban their possession by the majority of people who are allowed to own firearms. Back in 1994 a Washington State version of the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was being pushed. It was a long 97 page bill that allocated money for education and law enforcement. Like the federal AWB, it intended to ban various semi-automatic firearms. But it also placed additional restrictions on SBS and SBR. While the bill (2319) claimed that firearm violence was a serious problem, it did not single out SBS/SBR as the problem. Their only mention in the bill was to say that they were legal at the federal level.
There were many people that opposed the AWB portion of bill 2319 by showing up to the committee hearings. While the AWB portion of bill 2319 was removed, the SBR//SBR ban stayed in. I wrote to the nine Senators that voted for the ban to ask why they felt SBS/SBR should be banned for future ownership, but only got a reply from my Senator (Sheldon); he said he could not recall any reason for banning them and that he would support bill 2099.
Ranb