Is 18" legal?

Inthecountry; it was a big deal to me. It cost me a barrel. I had an old SXS 28" shot gun and it had a bevel(not sure if that is the right word) in the barrel so instead of having it fixed at Browning's gunsmith I sawed it off, but by the time I was finished it was 181/4 inches(just below the bevel) so legal in most states, but illegal in mine. I guess I should have just sprung for the smith opps. Anyone know where or if I can get a new barrel, for an old SXS made in spain for richmond arms? It was made around 1970. I have the serial if that will help? Don't have the model number it was on the barrel I tossed opps, I couldn't find anything about it when I goggeled it.
 
Last edited:
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...

My understanding is that the interstate commerce law means that a third state can't interfere with the trade between a first and second state by preventing the passage of the goods through the third state.

A few years ago nearby, there was a case where a city was choking off the sales of a fireworks stand because customers had to cross an area that was in the city limits to get to the out of city limits fireworks stand. The courts ruled in faver of the fireworks stand.
The school zone law as written made it technically illegal to take your hunting rifle to your ranch if there was a school zone in the way.
Similarly, a dry county can't stop beer trucks from passing through on their way to a wet county.
 
peetzakilla said:
C0untZer0 said:
…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.
Click to expand...
There's an example where the state has maintained control and with wide spread consequences: the California emission standards for motor vehicles. The latest thing that has directly impacted me is lawn mowers. I needed a new one this year and got a surprise. Check out a new lawn mower these days, it will probably have a large label on the carton stating if it's CA legal or not.
 
There's an example where the state has maintained control and with wide spread consequences: the California emission standards for motor vehicles. The latest thing that has directly impacted me is lawn mowers. I needed a new one this year and got a surprise. Check out a new lawn mower these days, it will probably have a large label on the carton stating if it's CA legal or not. Zippy13
Click to expand...

Right - I guess for me, I don't know which is worse and which government can be trusted less, the state government or the federal governmnet. There are cases for both making bad decisions.

I guess it would be better to have the states have power, because if the Federal government passes something like a handgun ban, then it's nation-wide. If only a state does it, like New Jersey (just for example), you can theoretically eventually move to a different state. It's not as easy to move to a different country, and of course there are lots of examples of European countries that have passed draconian anti-gun legislation to the detriment of their citizens.

In this context, a person could make a perfectly legal purchase of a shotgun in one state and find himself in serious trouble in Maryland.
 
My understanding is that the interstate commerce law means that a third state can't interfere with the trade between a first and second state by preventing the passage of the goods through the third state.
Click to expand...
It's been more than ten years since I studied the Commerce Clause, but that isn't quite correct. The Commerce Clause empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.
 
I recall reading in The American Rifleman, many years ago, about a soldier who was moving his household for a permanent change of station. He'd been stopped on the highway in an eastern state. A routine check had discovered a rifle that was legal where he'd been and where he was going, but prohibited in that state. He was up on felony charges, it had never occurred to him that a federally legal rifle packed with his household goods could be a problem. California is isolated in a corner of the US and can be easily avoided, not so with some of the other states.
 
The Commerce Clause empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. ​
And things associated with interstate commerce. It's a giant loop-hole through which federal tentacles encroach into state matters.
 
If i have an 18 inch cylinder bore barrel, but wanted to add a breecher choke tube, could a gun smith do that, since the barrel isn't already threaded?
 
Yes. The smith can thread your barrel to accept chokes and, as you say, a breecher is just another choke tube, unless you have a barrel with a brecher permanently affixed to the barrel as do some Mossberg models.
 
as in it doesnt count towards the length of the barrel? Is there a way for him to permanently put in the breecher choke so that it became part of the barrel for legal reasons?... not a big deal b/c i checked the length from inside tip of the barrel w/ a rod down to the bolt at the end of the closed chamber and it was 18 1/2.
 
Bill DeShivs said:
Under federal law, if a shotgun barrel measures 18" it is legal. Adding length won't make it "more legal."
Click to expand...

It's not "more legal" but it's a lot harder for an overzealous BATF agent to say "I don't know... Looks like 17.9" on my measure..."
 
Very few people periodically calibrate their tape measure against a standard. I've seen different tape measures vary as much as 3/16" over 10' - that's why I use the same tape for an entire project. I know which side of 18" +/- 1/16" I'd rather be on.
 
theblakester said:
Is there a way for him to permanently put in the breecher choke so that it became part of the barrel for legal reasons?... not a big deal b/c i checked the length from inside tip of the barrel w/ a rod down to the bolt at the end of the closed chamber and it was 18 1/2.
Click to expand...
There's a similar situation with rifles. M1-carbines and post-ban ARs come to mind. With the carbines, some GI versions had barrels that were too short. The solution was to permanently affix a flash suppressor with silver solder.

With the ARs, the legal issue isn't the length, but the threaded barrel. To get around that issue, pin the suppressor to the barrel and then grind the pin flush so it can't be easily removed.

Because the typical shotgun has a much thinner barrel than a rifle, pinning the breecher isn't a viable option. If you're planning to permanently affix a breecher, then why spend the money to have the barrel internally threaded? You might want to look into something with slip-over-and-solder configuration, like the old cutts or poly-choke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top