Is 18" legal?

C

C0untZer0

Moderator
I always see 18.5" barrels but the FN SLP has an 18" barrel. I am wondering if thje SLP TActical is LE only I know SLP stands for Self Loading Police.
 
It is my understanding that 18" is the legal limit. However most makers will leave the extra 1/2" to be sure not to be too short. That is the advice I would also give if you are planning to cut one down yourself.
 
theblakester said:
I bought an 18" remington police barrel at Cabela's. It had better be legal!
Click to expand...
Why do you assume it's legal for non-police use if it's sold as a police barrel? :rolleyes:

Just messing with your head, Bill and big al are correct.
 
Take note that the measurement is done from the inside of the barrel from the bolt face. Easily checked with a tape measure inside the barrel.
 
The federal minimum is 18"; however Maryland has an 18 1/2" minimum. Your state may have a similar law. bigbaby
Click to expand...

Wow that's messed up.

I guess the same sort of thing is going on in NJ and CA, but I don't see how it could stand up in court. Not even from a 2nd Amendment stanpoint but just from an Interstate Commerce standpoint. You generally shouldn't be able to buy a product legally in one state - be it an automobile, or a drill press or whatever and have it be illegal in another state.
 
You generally shouldn't be able to buy a product legally in one state - be it an automobile, or a drill press or whatever and have it be illegal in another state.
Click to expand...
Uh, what? There's a long list of guns that you can buy in Nevada but can't bring into California.
 
Well I know plants & animals are exceptions to this, there are types of flora & fauna you can't bring into or take out of certain state. And obviously firearms are like that also.

But if the state of California tried to something like that with computers or power tools - the manufacturers would probably take them to court and I am guessing they win.

Firearms are different because like transportation cases like regulations on trucks, the states can show an interest in regulating safety matters.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was used in a gun case however - it was used to strike down a federally mandated national gun law.

In United States v. Lopez (1995), Congress enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) prohibiting the possession of firearms in school zones. Lopez brought a loaded handgun to school and was charged under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the commerce power only grants Congress the ability to regulate the use of the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and other activities having a substantial relation to or a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Act was held to unconstitutional for exceeding the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
 
There is also a minimum overall length, 26" I think. It would be possible to have a barrel of legal length, and still be in trouble with some pistol grip only shotguns.
 
JMR40:

You are correct on the 26" overall length minimum... Also, keep in mind that they measure the bbl using a 18" rod dropped down the barrel when it is mounted to the firearm... Thus, where the bolt face is relative to the barrel plays into the determination of length... Don't just measure the outside and guess where the chamber begins...
 
Door breechers or recoil comps?...

If you added a door breeching device or a ported recoil comp to a 18" stock 12ga barrel would that also meet the legal requirements if it became 19" or 20" with the add ons?
I have seen a few spec ops Mossberg & Remington shotguns with these features.

CF
 
Making the barrel longer is not a problem.
You can make a too-short barrel longer by adding a muzzle device, but it must be hard-soldered or welded in place.
 
The barrels start out at 18.5 because manufacturers realize them feds use their tape measures alot and with low budgets, are not replaced nor calibrated often enuff!

Lots of stretched out tapes in use by the feds... Just like stretched out lobster gauges in the hands of Fish and Game...;)

Brent
 
C0untZer0 said:
Wow that's messed up.

I guess the same sort of thing is going on in NJ and CA, but I don't see how it could stand up in court. Not even from a 2nd Amendment stanpoint but just from an Interstate Commerce standpoint. You generally shouldn't be able to buy a product legally in one state - be it an automobile, or a drill press or whatever and have it be illegal in another state.
Click to expand...

Actually, just the opposite should be true from a constitutional standpoint.

States should have the power to regulate any item produced and sold within their borders. The Feds should have no say until products are produced in one state and sold in another, "interstate commerce".

Several states have recently attempted to re-assert their constitutional rights by passing laws stating that the federal government has no say over items specifically made and sold within their borders.

Actually, the Feds should not be controlling individuals entities or people, essentially, at all. They were to regulate the states, which were to regulate the people, who were supposed to maintain control of the states.... Hasn't worked out well.
 
Originally Posted by C0untZer0
Wow that's messed up.

I guess the same sort of thing is going on in NJ and CA, but I don't see how it could stand up in court. Not even from a 2nd Amendment stanpoint but just from an Interstate Commerce standpoint. You generally shouldn't be able to buy a product legally in one state - be it an automobile, or a drill press or whatever and have it be illegal in another state.
Click to expand...

There are abundant examples of this: air pollution control equipment, new cars, medical devices, paint (lead-based paint was banned in states first), home insulation (e.g., asbestos was first banned by some states and then the federal gov't), heat/ac units (which mush meet local energy efficiency standards), building materials (which must meet local building codes), and on and on. The difference is that while these may not be legal to sell or use, simple possession is not illegal. Some states tried to ban possession of radar detectors but failed under court challenges because of this. How firearms can be Constitutionally less protected than paint is mind boggling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top