Eliminating tax/wait on short barrel rifle/shot gun

S

Stats Shooter

New member
Why not eliminate the stupid ban on rifles/shotguns less than 18" (SBR's)
It was another one of those laws during the depression era banning a weapon (sawed off shotguns) that depression era gangsters and moonshine runners used concealing them in trench coats.

Today we have all kinds of work around for this, i.e. AR style "pistols" the ak style "pistols" etc. The mares leg .44 mag.
The law has outlived its usefulness as the "pistols" listed above are not really pistols, and modern hand guns hold plenty of ammo and are very accurate. ....plus I would like to take 6" off my 870 police magnum home defense shotgun
 
Last edited:
Mississippi Why not eliminate the stupid ban on rifles/shotguns less than 18" (SBR's)
Click to expand...
What ban? I own two SBR's and two SBS's.



It was another one of those laws during the depression era banning a weapon (sawed off shotguns) that depression era gangsters and moonshine runners used concealing them in trench coats.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Again, there is NO BAN.



Today we have all kinds of work around for this, i.e. AR style "pistols" the ak style "pistols" etc. The mares leg .44 mag.
The law has outlived its usefulness as the "pistols" listed above are not really pistols, and modern hand guns hold plenty of ammo and are very accurate. ....
Click to expand...
They aren't a "work around". They just don't meet the definition of SBR in Federal law....but do meet the definition of "handgun" or "pistol".



plus I would like to take 6" off my 870 police magnum home defense shotgun
Click to expand...
Form 1, $200 tax, 8 month wait. Knock yourself out.;)
 
While it's not a "ban" the effect of the tax makes it seem so. I could charge you a "tax" of $200 for a kitchen fork. You'd find it for all practical purposes to be a ban.
 
It was a ban, at the time it was implemented a $200 tax was equivalent to a $4986 tax in today's dollars adjusted for inflation....and that was during the depression!!!

It is the same thing with suppressors, or even full auto rifles for that matter except that a full auto must either be made before '84 or you need a class 3 license.

So the whole"not banned" post by Tom misses my point . Which is that all the hoops you have to jump through to own a short barrel shotgun for home defense is antiquated and stupid. Does anyone think a criminal would hesitate to saw off a shotgun or rifle if they thought they needed one?
All it does is make a law abiding citizen pay a $200 tax a jump through a bunch of hoops.
 
Mississippi said:
rifles/shotguns less than 18" (SBR's)
Click to expand...
An SBR has a barrel shorter than 16". Short barrel shotguns have barrels shorter than 18".

Mississippi said:
It was a ban, at the time it was implemented a $200 tax was equivalent to a $4986 tax in today's dollars adjusted for inflation....and that was during the depression!!!
Click to expand...
Again, it was not a ban. Yes, the cost was prohibitively expensive for many people, but it still wasn't a ban. And calling it a ban now is even more ridiculous. My wife and I don't make much money yet I've still managed to accumulate 7 tax stamps over the last several years. That's not a ban.

Mississippi said:
full auto must either be made before '84
Click to expand...
It was May, 1986.

Mississippi said:
or you need a class 3 license.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a "Class 3 License". The term "Class 3" refers to the Special Occupational Tax that an FFL pays to become a dealer in Title II NFA firearms (silencers, SBRs, machine guns, etc.). For an individual to get one of these firearms, he simply needs to register it with the ATF, pay the transfer tax, and receive a tax stamp. There are no licenses or permits involved, at least not on the federal level.

Mississippi said:
So the whole"not banned" post by Tom misses my point . Which is that all the hoops you have to jump through to own a short barrel shotgun for home defense is antiquated and stupid. Does anyone think a criminal would hesitate to saw off a shotgun or rifle if they thought they needed one?
All it does is make a law abiding citizen pay a $200 tax a jump through a bunch of hoops.
Click to expand...
Nobody is missing your point, we're simply pointing out that these firearms (other than post-86 machine guns) aren't banned. I own four silencers and an SBR and I'm far from rich. So claiming they're banned is simply wrong.

Look, nobody disagrees with you that the NFA is a bad thing. We simply don't like people spreading bad information about it.
 
Last edited:
Fine, point conceded that it isn't a "ban".

But the barriers to ownership are unnecessary. Also, your point that it isn't a ban makes the law more ridiculous since, as you pointed out, they are within reach of those who want one (or more). And the barrier, even when the law was enacted and $200 was a large sum of money, only prevented law abiding citizens from modifying a rifle or shotgun.
 
The reason the mentioned weapons are taxed, rather than banned, is because the second amendment prevents a ban. The government knew they could not ban-so they taxed instead.
 
1994 seems like they did ban outright guns with certain cosmetic features and the 2A did not stop it.
Click to expand...

It was the Clinton era, so whether it was a ban, or not, probably depends on what your definition of "is" is....:rolleyes:

Future commercial sale of guns with certain combinations of features were prohibited, yes. Same with "hi-cap" magazines. But none of the existing guns already owned were confiscated (by the 94 Fed law), all the existing guns could still be sold by owners and bought by others, unless STATE laws prohibited it.

And some did, and still do...

Originally Posted by Mississippi
full auto must either be made before '84
Click to expand...

It was May, 1986.
Click to expand...

May (19th) 1986 was the date they closed the civilian registry to new additions.

And, saying the guns must be made before 86 isn't the entire story. Yes, the guns had to have been made before the effective date of the law, but ALSO they had to have been REGISTERED with the government before the effective date of the law.

SO, if you find granddad's WWII Tommygun or BAR, or MP 40 that he brought back from the war and just stashed, you CANNOT register it now and own it legally. A museum that pulls a crashed WWII fighter or bomber out of a lake, cannot register and keep the machine guns. That law simply does not allow for it.

The Second amendment prevents banning entire classes of arms (such as handguns, for example), however, beyond that it becomes a matter of what gun banner try to get away with, and what, eventually, the courts decide they can.

Several times the courts, including the high court have ruled in ways that seem to defy logic. But, until another court overrules them, it is the law of the land.

Here's a tip, if you are actually trying to do an effective rant, it helps to get your facts straight, and not just repeat the incorrect phrases flung about in bull sessions.
 
The point of this thread seems to be a rant about the current requirements of registering Title II firearms under the NFA. While I certainly don't disagree with the OP's displeasure, it seems rather pointless. It is what it is, and we're going to have to deal with it unless the NFA is repealed. Many of us are working in many different ways towards that goal, but complaining about the current state of our laws doesn't seem terribly productive without including a discussion about ways to overturn those laws.

But this part of the OP's original statement stands out to me:

Mississippi said:
I would like to take 6" off my 870 police magnum home defense shotgun
Click to expand...
Then do it. Get two fingerprint cards, two passport photos, $200, and file a Form 1. Then engrave your name and location on your shotgun receiver. Once your tax stamp arrives in the mail, cut your barrel down and enjoy your new short-barrel shotgun.

Yes, it's not the most convenient process in the world, but it's really not that difficult. Your first post in this thread makes it sound like you're not currently able to legally shorten the barrel on your shotgun, but that's simply not true.
 
The point of this thread wasn't a rant....Also, while the language I used was not hyper specific, and I missed a date by two years, the points remain valid. The point of this thread was to discuss removing the $200 fee and paperwork from SBR's and SBS's.

I had hoped, rather than a bunch of comments on how it "isn't a ban" or the full auto legislation was in '86 instead of '84, that the merits of such legislation, or its repeal would be discussed. But instead, I got the stickler responses who wanted to discuss the trees and not the forest.

I will contend that it was sloppy to begin a thread without having all the facts perfectly straight, however I find smug correction comments to show poor manners.....to hear that on a firearms forum is a shame as that is the preferred tactic of the leftwing media.
 
Pistol Grip Shotgun

I the gun in question was delivered as a pistol grip only shotgun shortening the barrel is cheaper and less restrictive. IIRC.
 
Mississippi said:
I had hoped, rather than a bunch of comments on how it "isn't a ban" or the full auto legislation was in '86 instead of '84, that the merits of such legislation, or its repeal would be discussed. But instead, I got the stickler responses who wanted to discuss the trees and not the forest.

I will contend that it was sloppy to begin a thread without having all the facts perfectly straight, however I find smug correction comments to show poor manners.....to hear that on a firearms forum is a shame as that is the preferred tactic of the leftwing media.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Your posts were full of incorrect information. We corrected that information. Now it appears you're upset about those corrections so you're making childish political jabs. Please, grow up.

The whole point of this forum is to convey accurate information about firearms. When someone comes on here and starts saying ridiculous things about short barrel rifles being banned and talking about "class 3 licenses", you'd better bet he's going to be corrected.
 
It isn't being corrected. I am glad that you guys pointed out my mistakes, spewing misinformation isn't good and as I said that was sloppy. So I apologize for that. I won't make that mistake again.

It is simply the way several just pounced on it as if I had insulted your wife or something.
 
I agree the "corrections" could have been made in a more civil manner.

That being said...It would be great if the tax was removed from supressors and SBRs.
 
P5 Guy said:
If the gun in question was delivered as a pistol grip only shotgun shortening the barrel is cheaper and less restrictive. IIRC.
Click to expand...
Correct. A pistol-grip shotgun that came from the factory without a stock isn't legally a shotgun, it's an "other" on question 18 of the 4473 and then listed as "firearm with a pistol grip" in box 29. Firearms like this don't have barrel length restrictions, they simply have an overall length restriction of 26". So as long as your pistol-grip shotgun has an overall length of 26", you can have a barrel shorter than 18". On most shotguns, this means you can install a 14" barrel and a birds-head pistol grip and you'll meet the overall length requirement.

Just make sure you're not using a shotgun that came from the factory with a stock, because those always need to have at least an 18" barrel installed, even with a pistol grip.

Here's some good info on this subject, along with relevent ATF letters:

http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top