That’s what the Germans wanted them declared inhumane in WWI.
https://owlcation.com/humanities/World-War-1-History-Germany-Declares-Shotgun-Inhumane
THIS is not a shotgun??
If it isn’t, then what is it?
Manually operated rifles can be shortened and have been. There are no issue with gas ports to complicate things. The Mare’s Leg originated on a TV show. Fans who wanted one had, for many years, to go through a tedious legal process to cut down a rifle. Now, there are easily available guns that, since they were manufactured in that form, are considered handguns. The Obrez has its origins in Russia, but I have seen a few here in the US. The costs of the legal fees and gunsmithing exceeds the cost of the rifle, but people want what they want. It was explained to me in conversation with a BATFE agent, who may or may not have been talking out his ass, that the prohibition on cut-down rifles and shotguns has its roots in the government wanting to keep handguns out of the hands of “the wrong people.” At the time the NFA was passed, according to him, the plan was to make handguns illegal for common folk. The laws against cutting down long guns were to prevent the rabble from converting long guns into handguns (of a sort).
So what’s the difference between a pistol and a short barreled rifle? Just the stock? Why would it be illegal to shorten a rifle, but perfectly fine to manufacture a pistol that is exactly the same as that shortened rifle?
Because BATFE says. No other reason. This all hinges around the weapon’s action. BATFE has the policies “once a rifle, always a rifle” and “once a machine gun, always a machine gun.” You’d have to ask them why that is their inflexible policy.
00 buck and slugs aren’t small, and kids in schools don’t typically have body armor.
Somebody with one of these could absolutely wreck a school.
The definitions of a rifle or pistol are codified. For a pistol:
Because gun makers get clever with loopholes and make weapons that have the same function as a restricted weapon by changing cosmetic features.
Then lawmakers have to try to play wack-a-mole to prevent the function that was intended to be restricted from being unrestricted, while being called gun grabbers for trying to close the loophole.
The law restricts the consumer, not the manufacturer. Manufacturers make and sell short barreled rifles and shotguns to LE, the military, and other approved owners. Maybe the whole thing would make more sense if you could give a compelling reason why short barreled rifles should be restricted from the general poplulace in the first place.
I have no idea if you are actually trying to contradict what I said. Your tone says yes, your words, however, don’t.
The law restricts what the consumer can buy, so it restricts what the manufacturer can sell to the consumer, right? So, my point that the manufacturer takes advantage of loopholes that it creates in order to get the same function that was restricted by changing cosmetic features is unchallenged by your post.
As to why SBRs are restricted, it is because they are easily concealed like a handgun, but have the range of a rifle. Similar to the question in the OP, where SBS is restricted because of it’s concealment capabilities.
There is more than one kind of consumer. US civilian sales are only part of the story and for manufacturers like Colt and FN who chase government contracts and foreign sales, not even the most important part. There is also more than one kind of manufacturer. Have you ever seen a SBR in the flesh? I don’t think you have. Either that or you have never seen a handgun. SBRs aren’t easily concealed “like a handgun.” Try again: Give me a compelling reason why they should be restricted, then maybe the discussion can turn to how much.
I don’t get what your point is. So? We are talking about guns that are available to US consumers.
Yes, fired them a few times too. Have much better accuracy than a handgun. I am lucky if I can group all my shots in the outer ring at 25’ with a handgun. The times that I used an SBR I managed to keep all my shots near the center ring at 50’, not quite bullseye, but close enough.
I’ve never used a Sig-Brace, though, so I don’t know how much that would do, but HuricanDikta was the one that said it pretty much turned a handgun into an SBR.
It’s been a while, and my primary contact with my gun acquaintances died last year, so I don’t know if I’ll be going to the range again anytime soon again, but I’ll see if I can ask around.
I was not comparing them in size, just in utility. And sure, a handgun is easier to hide, but an AR-15 is pretty much impossible. Are you saying that you cannot fit an SBR under your trench coat?
Also, I’m not entirely sure, but I think I actually mean to say, “like a sawed off shotgun” there, rather than a handgun, as that was the point of this thread in the first place, but I get interrupted by employees and customers usually a dozen or more times per post, so lose my train of thought.
Regarding the question of why there’s a distinction between [compact and powerful weapons] and [bulky and powerful weapons], I can only view the question as disingenuous. Compact weapons are easier to carry and easier to hide.
Laws maintaining this distinction are meant to ensure that powerful weapons remain difficult to carry and difficult to hide. No mystery involved.
(However, laws on contentious issues often become confusing and contradictory - when legislators are forced to modify good laws in unexpected ways, or when legislators misuse or abuse the legislative process, or when some or all of them don’t even understand the issues.)
You probably aren’t aware of this, but there are such things as AR-15 pistols, which “are easily concealed like a handgun, but have the range of a rifle” but are NOT restricted like SBRs.
The fact is that federal gun laws regarding SBRs are non-sensical. There’s no rational reason I should have to jump through the ATF’s extra hoops for an SBR’ed AR, but can walk into a store and buy an AR pistol and put a SIG Brace on it, without the ATF headaches. It’s idiotic.
The laws do a shit job of it. There’s no power difference between AR-15 pistols and an SBR AR-15, but the laws treat them radically different.
You’re right, of course. Legislators’ hands are tied, or perhaps their palms are greased. Or in some cases they just don’t know what they’re doing.
Honestly I think it was a bit arbitrary, because it’s also illegal to attach a shoulder stock to a pistol.
basically as far as the .gov is concerned post-1934, if it was made as a rifle it must forever remain a rifle, and if it was made a handgun it must forever remain a handgun.
There was a lawsuit on this topic back in the '90’s and the ATF lost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Co.
My understanding is that if you remove the stock first, and then put on a shorter barrel, you’ve legally converted your rifle to a pistol, and if you put the longer barrel on your pistol first, and then add a shoulder stock, you’ve legally converted it to a rifle. If you do those operations in the wrong order you’ve illegally “made” an SBR (something that has become quite trendy lately).
You are correct. You can buy a device that was designed to fit in a loophole that gets around the point of the law.
You may say that that makes laws useless. I think that means that laws need to be updated.
But, you can attach a sig brace.
… and the laws that need updating are the subject of intense lobbying, inflated rhetoric, and public arguments, so it’s more difficult than usual to make the right things happen.