Bill Would Roll Back Prohibition-Era Gun Rules

The legislation aims to undo the "egregiously unconstitutional registration, taxation, and regulation of short-barreled rifles."

Rep. Roger Marshall (R–Kan.) thinks short-barreled rifles are overregulated, and he's looking to change that.

On Tuesday, Marshall introduced the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2019. This would change provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) that put extra restrictions on the ownership of short-barreled rifles—that is, rifles* with a barrel shorter than 16" in length or that have a total length of less than 26".

The NFA requires owners of short-barreled rifles to register them with the federal government; they must also pay a one-time $200 excise tax per gun. If Marshall's bill becomes law, these extra requirements would disappear; short-barreled rifles* would be regulated under the same rules as semiautomatic rifles.

The legislation would also order the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to destroy all current short-barreled rifle registration records within 365 days of the law's enactment. Information about those who already own these weapons would thus be erased from the federal database.

The NFA is the oldest federal gun law on the books, signed in 1934 by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, primarily in response to Prohibition-era gangster violence. The law included these restrictions on short-barreled rifles because they were thought to be criminals' weapons of choice, due to their concealability and their popularity among gang members.

Today, Marshall notes, short-barreled rifles are "commonly used for hunting, personal defense, and competitive shooting." As of May of this year, 417,167 short-barreled rifles were listed on the National Firearms Registration and Transfers Record (the federal registry of NFA-restricted weapons in private hands).

Gun lobbying groups have praised Marshall's bill for, as Gun Owners of America (GOA) puts it, attempting to undo the "egregiously unconstitutional registration, taxation, and regulation of short-barreled rifles." GOA is joined by the National Rifle Association, which supported the NFA back in 1934 but now backs Marshall's bill.

*CORRECTION: This article previously referred to the short-barreled rifles the bill would impact as semiautomatic. The bill would impact all rifles with barrels shorter than 16" or a total length of 26", not just semiautomatic rifles with these characteristics. 

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

The NFA is the oldest federal gun law on the books, signed in 1934 by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, primarily in response to Prohibition-era gangster violence.

WHICH IT SOLVED.

[BlueStarDragon]

I hope that comment was sarcasms.

[Fist of Etiquette]

You hope that gun violence wasn't solved? You sick bastard.

[docduracoat]

The correction is wrong.
The rules on SBR’s only apply to semi auto guns.
Full auto guns can be any length.
The are regulated differently under the NFA.

[KyleButt]

The correction is correct.

It applies to short barreled bolt, lever, and break action rifles, not just semiautomatics.

It should be fairly clear without stating that short barreled fully automatic rifles are still covered under the NFA.

[newshutz]

The people responsible for the correction have been sacked.

[darkflame]

Truly, the Chicago South Side is a monument to peace and lawfulness.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

You REALLY need to read more history. Because gangland violence never dropped to pre-prohibition levels. And what drop occurred happened with the repeal of the Volstead act.

[Zeb]

You really need to pay more attention to Fist's commenting patterns.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Fair comment. In my defense, I will point out that the Gun Control fetishists are fully capable of being at least that stupid and reality-challenged.

[Fist of Etiquette]

If the grabber debate style ain't broke...

[Rossami]

Yeah..., no.

By the way, if that was sarcasm, you're not very good at it.

[Jerry B.]

You have to know and consider the source.

[tim koss]

down at the tax-assessor today 2nd amendment group was trying to register voters. Before I revealed myself I ask the the girl if she was avoiding approaching Hispanics. She gave me a knowing nod.

I then I told her about the 2 wives I know who have been shot and killed by their husbands.

she told me to have a nice day.

[mad.casual]

OK, I was on the fence morally about the cop feeling up a corpse but talking about 2 dead wives with a girl before you reveal yourself to her is pretty fucked up.

[R Mac]

So how far from schools do you have to live? Also, you KNEW them.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Shitthatdidnthappen.txt

[Frank Thorn]

WHICH IT SOLVED"

It did not solve it. And the cost to liberty was way to high.

[Jason A]

Dude, you need to add a /sarcasm tag. You making the natives restless...

[pAradimethyl]

Really? Because there has been no gang violence in this country since 1934??? Don't read the news much do you? Or police reports, or FBI reports. Solved my ***.

[Byron]

Can you all really be this bad at reading blatant sarcasm? yikes...

[Fist of Etiquette]

Or maybe they're fighting sarcasm with sarcasm. Respect.

[Naaman Brown]

There's Poe's Law:
"... without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied ..."

Then there's Edgar Allan Poe's law:
""He that is born to be a man," says Wieland in his Peregrinus Proteus, "neither should nor can be anything nobler, greater, or better than a man." The fact is, that in efforts to soar above our nature, we invariably fall below it. Your reformist demigods are merely devils turned inside out."

Prohibitionists are usually so extreme (and ignorant of actual human nature) that it is almost impossible to create an exaggerated Ban the Whatever to Reform Mankind position that some self righteous crusader has not already taken.

The true path to perfection was laid out by another philosopher:
"... men have to find their own way, to make their own mistakes. There can't be any gift of perfection from outside ourselves. And when men seek such perfection... they find only death... fire... loss... disillusionment... the end of everything that's gone forward. Men have always sought an end to the toil and misery, but it can't be given, it has to be achieved. There is hope, but it has to come from inside, from Man himself." --Peter Graves in It Conquered the World (Roger Corman film, 1956)

Ignorately imposed perfection is counterproductive with unintended consequences.

[R Mac]

HeRp dErP there’s still gang violence dummy!

[Public Citizen]

Incorrect.
What "solved" the gang violence problem was the Repeal Of The Volstead Act, ending Prohibition and the lucrative trade in bootleg liquor in all it's forms. The use of firearms to "settle" turf disputes was only a symptom of the underlying problem, the desperate attempt to achieve and hold territory for the distribution of illegal alcohol.
It took the gangs a number of years to re-organize and develop other forms of racketeering with sufficient profitability to lead to turf wars, and nothing until the "drug epidemic" has seen the internecine warfare and violence that was "business as usual" during the heyday of prohibition.

[Reverend Draco]

It used to be "Baptists and Bootleggers."

Today, it's, "Cop and Cartels."

Funny how alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment. . . but the War on (Non-Corporate) Drugs didn't? Someone failed civics.

[Sonny Bono's Ghost]

Um, the repeal of prohibition solved that problem, NOT the NFA.

[JaysonP]

No, the problem was mitigated by the 21st Amendment, but not solved.

Gangster violence is still responsible for half of all murders.

[Tionico]

no the NFA did NOT "solve" the issue of gangster shootouts freqently occurring. They just used these things anyway, they already had them, why not? And as they got confiscated, broke, etc they just switched to other weapons. Some probably even paid the stupid tax on them and kept using them as they had been.

with today's array of non-NFA weapons like semiautomatic handguns in tens of millions of households, bull pup rifles, the newer AR type PISTOLS rapidly gaining in populatiry, AR type rifles dancing right on the edge of the restrictions on SBR's in the NFA.... it really does not make a signficant difference.. which is why the restriction needs to go away. It really IS stupid.. what diffreence does mandating an additional quarter inch in barrel length to make it "legal" make anyway? If I can deploy and use a 22 inch rifle lawfully, I can deploy and use a 22.5 and/or a 21.5 inch rifle as well. They are practically the same tool,
Friend of mine has a .357 Magnum revolver. HE can put six rounds into a four inch diameter ring at two hundred yards. Another friend has a .44 Magnum revolver with a NINE and a half inch barrel. He can do that as well. Both of those rounds have more stopping power than the 5.56/.223 round the AR type rifle uses. Neither of those revolvers are, under the laws, any different than a tiny .22 calibre semi auto pistol of any barrel length.

SEE how stupid this law is to start with? About time it gets torn down off its politically correct pedestal.

[Naaman Brown]

Prohibition era gangster violence was ended by repeal of Prohibition.

And later replaced by war on drugs gangster violence caused, not by guns, but by another prohibition regime.

[Chris Knox]

"The NFA is the oldest federal gun law on the books, signed in 1934 by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, primarily in response to Prohibition-era gangster violence."

Prohibition-era crime was the excuse, but the real impetus was fear of insurrection led by grumpy WWI vets. Look up the bonus march.

[bill strossman]

Apparently you forget that the Stevens Bicycle Rifle, a single shot .22, was classified as a "machine fun" and Marble's "Game Getter" a piece with two barrels, one rifle and one shotgun capable of one shot through each barrel Was also classified as a "machine gun." BATF still has a mantra that a "machine gun" is "anything they say it is." Don't forget that BATF also proposed defining a "machine gun" as "anything not designed as a machine gun but capable of being converted" whether converted or not. That would have enabled the Federales to fabricate evidence and offer in court. It would have enabled BATF eo "convert" muzzle loaders into "machine guns" using entirely fabricated evidence.

[Dillinger]

there's still a Republican in Kansas?

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

About damn time someone started trying to advance gun rights instead of just hoping to maintain the status quo. The NFA is garbage and the entire thing should be repealed, but this is a good first step.

[Sonny Bono's Ghost]

Agreed.

[Bereft-the-Left]

The NFA makes no logical sense and puts steep penalties on complete victimless crimes.

For example, a pistol attached to a buttstock? 10 years in prison & $10,000 fine.
Holding a pistol to your shoulder - legal.
Increase accuracy of your 16.5" barrel by reducing it to 14" and re-crowning? 10 years in prison & $10,000 fine.

Grotesque dark ages crap. Yet supported by democrats.

[Cthulunotmyfriend]

A perfect example of just another tax by the government to “fix things”. Criminals don’t pay it, so it is just another tax to make the government money at the expense of the middle class. Rich people can afford it, and poor people just break the law since they can’t afford it.
I am not a gun guy, don’t own any guns, but support the second Ammendment, because like the Protestant Husband in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life, I am glad I have choices! This law didn’t curb violence. The decriminalization of alcohol is what took the wind out of the sails of the gangsters at that time. Ironic how the government creates a problem by passing a law, and then passes another law to “fix” the problem they have.

[mpercy]

Lather, rinse, repeat...

The pattern is: government policy and poor regulation cause a crisis. The government publicly and violently searches for culprits, aided by the MSM, and names the wrong parties--usually in the private sector. The government then rolls out a massive new law and its regulatory children to "fix" the problem as they defined it. The new law doesn't solve the real problem, costs a lot, and has massive unintended consequences, including setting the stage for the next crisis, which will be bigger and more damaging.

Memory of the past crisis fades and everybody reluctantly adjusts to the massive new regulatory overhead. A new crisis occurs. The government publicly and violently searches for the culprits, aided by the MSM--looking exclusively in the private sector...and so it goes.

[Naaman Brown]

In the 1950s comic books were seducing the innocents of America into juvenile delinquency, but Congress stepped in with the Kefauver Commission Hearings that led to the banishment of comic books about crime and horror from the newstands, curing the problem forever.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Ironic how the government creates a problem by passing a law, and then passes another law to “fix” the problem they have (created).

There once was a lady who swallowed a fly. She didn't know what to do..thought she would die. Nursery rhymes use to teach people things.

[John]

My grandfather bought a fully automatic Thompson submachine gun by mail order back in the 1920s. One of the best scenes in the Netflix movie The Highwaymen (which is excellent) is when Kevin Costner goes to a local gun store and buys a BAR. Before the federal firearms act you could buy BARs over the counter.

I want the whole damned act repealed. This is a start but only that, a start.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

The entire thing is getting invalidated by modern technology.

For instance, the SBR thing is already kind of a moot issue. You can buy an AK or AR pistol, attach a "brace" the back of it (definitely not a stock, that would be illegal) and you essentially have an SBR with no tax stamp. The ATF has already stated this is kosher.

There are also things like the Echo trigger available, and while that is not fully automatic fire, the rate of fire gets pretty damned close in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Again, ATF has said this is fine.

Still need a stamp for a suppressor, which is insane since that's really just a courtesy thing for people who happen to be near where you're shooting. Countries with far stricter gun laws than ours have far less suppressor control because they don't want you to annoy everyone nearby when you go shooting outdoors.

Repeal the whole thing so gun owners don't have to play stupid games to work around a law that never should've been implemented in the first place.

[John]

The Echo triggers are better than full automatic. As fun as it is to just blast off a bunch of rounds, doing so really isn't very effective unless you are in a trench on the Somme. The military found that out with the M16A1. It was fully automatic and soldiers just burned through clips and barrels without hitting much. The M16A2 has a three round burst setting but not a fully automatic setting, which is much more effective.

Even though I think it is partially psychological, there is something about having to pull the trigger each time you fire that makes someone more effective with a weapon in most instances rather than just blasting away.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

I've heard shooting instructors from various military branches say that the 3 round burst is a waste of 2 perfectly good rounds. 5.56 doesn't really kick that hard, but there's still some recoil that will affect the 2nd and 3rd round getting fired.

Automatic fire is great for suppressing fire, if you actually intend to hit something reliably you need a semi-auto. As you note, forcing the shooter to think about every shot before shooting it results in better accuracy.

[Rossami]

When shooting on a static target range, I would largely agree. The three-round burst is not substantially better than a single well-aimed shot. However, the burst is better for moving targets and for combat psychology.

Snipers learn how to lead a moving target but most line soldiers don't. Without that training, a single shot at a moving target will usually miss behind them. A burst aimed just ahead of your target increases the likelihood that your target will move into your line of fire.

Lots of studies across multiple wars, countries and demographics show that in actual combat, most soldiers freeze. Something like 90% would never fire their weapons. Automatic weapons fire changes that. Hearing the guy next to you firing on auto somehow breaks you out of your freeze and you start shooting, too. That's why in WW2, we started putting a BAR in every squad rather than keeping them in special heavy-weapons units.

Of course, you can take that too far. By Vietnam, we essentially gave everyone a fully-automatic weapon. Less freezing but a massive waste of ammunition. The three-round burst is an attempt to strike a balance. Enough volume of fire to prevent freezing without wasting quite so much ammo.

[CryHavok]

As a guy who has shot people, a lot; I can tell you that semi auto on a carbine/rifle is the most effective in every situation except “break-contact” peels.

Machine guns are used in 6-9 round-ish bursts as area suppression. They have hundreds and hundreds of linked rounds are are a “crew-served” weapon.

We have auto on our M4 for break contact and basically nothing else. The rest is semi auto. You can rip 5 shots in 1 second in semi auto, therefore full auto is just a waste of ammo. Your 30 round mag is dry before you can index a third target. With semi I can index 30 targets.

[John]

In my limited experience with shots fired in anger, I found the M4 to be a fabulous. It was reliable, about as easy to shoot as any rifle could be and very easy to handle in even the closest quarters like a vehicle.

Unless you were in a situation in open ground without any crew serve weapon support, I don't know why you would want or need an M16 rather than an M4. The presence of a crew serve weapon is going to render whatever extra range and accuracy you get from an M16 superfluous. The SAW of the .50 Cal is going to kill the target long before your M16 does.

[CryHavok]

If one is terminal ballistics. If you have the right ammo, the m4 is bad ass. If you are using green tip or new m855 your m4 has horrible terminal ballistics.

We used Sierra Match King in our M4’s. We used the 14.7” barrel. We would get sufficient terminal ballistics out to near 700 meters. Ideal 500m or closer though. Depending on variables; the SMK would go sub sonic around 550m-ish.

The problem with green tip and new 855 it doesn’t get two full twists in a 14.7 barrel so it fails to properly spin stabilize

My favorite was all the SF and Seals that would run the 10.5” barrel with green tip and wonder why they couldn’t hit anything. That round in that barrel hits trans and sub sonic significantly shorter. Again, depending on variables but 150 meters.

Any non-supersonic round that hits from a low weight round like green tip does not have good effects on target (this is not a 5.56mm bash post).

It’s about matching the ammo to the barrel and seeing if the terminal ballistics are what you are looking for.

Also, short barrel scars with LR rounds was hilarious.

Shooting people with “shorty” barrels usually takes several rounds, even well placed.

Usually with SMK and 14.7 or longer barrel one or two rounds would be plenty.

I have seen 5.56 at 250m with SMK take an arm nearly off, just hanging by pieces of tricept

[De Oppresso Liber]

Are you still in? I thought the new 855 was supposedly going to have better terminal effect. Like the old maroon tip rounds cag were using.

[ace_m82]

The 855 uses a 62 grain bullet with a steel tip. It's designed to penetrate very well (for a 223 bullet). It will go through things relatively well. It will not, in most cases, do much damage to humans as it often goes right through them (not pleasant, I'm sure, but still). At some angles/ranges it tumbles when it his flesh, but that's still not a massive amount of damage.

"Hollow point" match bullets will not penetrate nearly as far, as they are designed to fragment and lose their energy quickly. They transmit much more energy to flesh.

If I'm shooting a 2 legged varmint without armor, I'd always take the match bullet. If they are covered by armor, I'd take the 855. If I've got a match bullet, and they have armor, I have to place my shot around their armor.

In a military context, the 855 is an "all around" bullet and useful (though not ideal) in all conditions. Match bullets are specialty bullets.

[ace_m82]

"The problem with green tip and new 855 it doesn’t get two full twists in a 14.7 barrel so it fails to properly spin stabilize"

Have to disagree with your logic here (but not your results, obviously). My 1 in 8" twist barrel in my 9.25" AR "handgun" put the 855 into 2.5 MOA reliably. My 1 in 8" twist barrel in my 18" DMR did the same.

[mad.casual]

Lots of studies across multiple wars, countries and demographics show that in actual combat, most soldiers freeze. Something like 90% would never fire their weapons.

This is a myth. Not everybody returns fire immediately when being fired upon because in dense cover and on the field of battle it takes time to realize you actually are being fired upon and from what direction. The specific purpose of the element of surprise is to make sure 100% of your enemies are neutralized before they complete such an assessment and not every situation is optimally survived or won by copious/excessive return fire. The estimates, including the 90% number, are vague and in part anecdotal but closer analyses of the number of soldiers who weren't shot and outright fail to return fire is something closer to 20%. Which is still high, and full-auto fire can have an effect of depressing the number, but the original number being close to 90% is a widely proliferated and respected myth akin to jogging for health and fitness and avoiding saturated fats to stay thin.

Also, there is a conception that it may be taken out of context as well. In an era of war, disease, and hardship, calling men cowards who don't shoot may motivate them to fight harder and looking back from an era of peace and prosperity it may be seen as legitimately labeling them as cowards or portending a loss of aggressive nature.

[ace_m82]

In the Marine Corps (circa 2004), they had us put our M16A2 on burst and fire 15 rounds or so, just to see what it was like. Then they told us to never put it on burst ever again.

Now, using blanks a few years later, I realized that 3 shot burst can be 2 shot burst if you have a quick finger.

I see zero reason for any burst. Full auto makes a little sense in certain contexts (room clearing?). Semi is always useful.

Also, my fellow Marines thought my M16A2 was full auto when I shot it, as i could pull that trigger really, really fast. Video games DO have their uses...

[De Oppresso Liber]

Listen to the last 3 episodes of the Jocko podcast. An old SOG team leader telling war stories. I always wonder how those guys used full auto so effectively. I watched a training real from the Vietnam era on "quick kill" technique. It looks like a bad 80's movie: car15 under the armpit, swivel your hips at the target and unload on full auto. I tried it with a full auto m4, which should be more controllable than the old car15, but I couldn't hit shit like that. I can rock full auto with an m4 from the prone out to 100m or so, but standing with the weapon stock under your arm...I don't get it.

[John]

Practice. The biggest thing about having a weapon in combat is first you don't want to shoot yourself or one of your own guys. That is the aspect of it that movies never capture. At least when I was taught how to shoot by the Army, the first thing was spending a lot of time raising and lowering your weapon while engaging and disengaging the safety. The idea was to make doing that second nature so that you didn't just wander around with your finger on the trigger and the safety off. And it does become second nature after a while.

The people I know who have been in no shit gun fights, which I never was in at least not a serious one anyway, where they had to move tell me you can fire from your hip quite accurately with some practice. Yeah, you won't be reaching out and touching people at 300 meters but at 50 meters and under it can be done.

[John]

And if you have ever had even an hour of real tactical weapons training, cops will from then on scare the living shit out of you. Cops get none of that training and break every rule and are generally a huge danger to everyone around them.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I've never had real tactical weapons training but I recall a gun club I was in that had a couple of local cops as members. Oy, they couldn't hit a cow in the ass with a snow shovel.

[CryHavok]

I have to agree. Some of the least capable shooters in the world are police Officer.

[BigChiefWahoo]

The NFA provisions relating to short barreled rifles are completly whimsical and illogical.

NFA created a completely arbitrary distinction between rifles and pistols. A rifle, to be legal must have a barrel at least 16 inches in length and have an overall length of at least 27 inches. Cut down a rifle below those figures, and you're in violation of the Act. BUT, you can manufacture a functionally identical weapon from scratch, and it will be legal as a handgun. However a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16", but with a buttstock (a short barreled rifle) is still illegal. Is society any safer for this? Repeal the short barrelled rifle provisions of NFA at the very least. All of it if possible.

[ImanAzol]

26" OAL.

They should have used an AR pistol for their teaser image, since ATF admits the AR-15 doesn't meet the legal definition of a firearm.

[ImanAzol]

I have both real full autos and binaries, and years of military experience as a range instructor.

The binary is VERY controllable and an excellent choice for support fire.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

Good to know, I may eventually end up building an AK with one.

Trouble is finding a decent AK anymore, glad I bought my Saiga when I did, in hindsight I should've bought half a dozen more of them. Presumably the Bulgarian Arsenals are still getting imported, just gotta wait for someone to get some in stock.

[Kevin Smith]

The ATF keeps going back and forth on whether holding a brace against your shoulder makes it a stock (and threfore the firearm an SBR)

I think we are currently in a "shouldering a brace makes it an SBR" phase

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

Hmm, last I heard as long as the brace retained the ability to be used as a brace, and length of pull was <13.5" (a number the ATF pulled straight out of their ass and has no basis in law) you could shoulder it. You also can't attach the brace with the intention of shouldering it, but if you happen to shoulder it occasionally on accident it's OK. I guess the ATF are in the mind-reading business now.

The whole thing is absurd and won't stand up to scrutiny if someone actually had standing to challenge it in court. It'll be "illegal" right up until they actually try to prosecute someone for it.

[Clevis]

This seems odd to me. There are pistols with 12” barrels and I’m pretty sure there are Thompson Contenders with 14” barrels.

So, are they quibbling over two to four inches of barrel length?

And what man who wants a shorter barrel
and owns a hacksaw needs this law?

[Reason Reader 6079]

> I want the whole damned act repealed. This is a start but only that, a start.

There was a time when Republicans dominated the House, Senate, and Presidency and could (SHOULD!) have passed this legislation.

Now that they know it won't pass, they introduce it.

I'm tired of the elite playing games with my rights for made-up political points.

[John]

Hell no. They will never pass it. Honestly, even though the majority of the country is pro 2nd Amendment, anti gun propaganda is so ingrained in this society I doubt you could get more than 20% of the country to support repealing it.

[Ron]

so True its all theater

[loveconstitution1789]

To be fair, there are some Republicans who wanted to repeal ObamaCare and repeal gun laws like these.

The RINOs controlled the GOP when Trump took over in 2016. Paul Ryan and his ilk could not even pass large numbers of repeal bills.

The Obamacare repeal would have passed Congress if it werent for McCain.

[RestoreWesternHegemony]

Bingo. Fuck these people.

[Ron]

So wheres your Grandfathers gun now?

[John]

One of my deadbeat uncles got it. Being a grand kid in a family of 8 children put me pretty far down the priority list. But man I would love to have gotten that thing.

[Ron]

Darn, I always wanted a Thompson still may buy a non auto.
I don't have any full auto stories but I'm proud to have both my grandparents lever action rifles. And planning to pass one on to the fourth

[De Oppresso Liber]

Open bolt semi auto is not very fun to shoot, imo. Would still look cool with all the wood furniture, though.

[Kevin Smith]

The modern replicas are closed-bolt. In fact all open-bolt semiautos are considered machine guns due to the ease of conversion to full auto, so they would still be subject to all the regulation

[De Oppresso Liber]

Double lame then.

[LarryA]

The full-auto Thompson used a closed-bold blowback action.
The later M-3 "Grease Gun" did fire from an open bolt.

[Apollonius]

Uh . . .no.

The Thompson SMGs all fire from open bolt. The semi-autos are closed-bolt.

[Naaman Brown]

Bonnie and Clyde stole BARs from National Guard Armories.
John Dillinger stole Thompsons from Illinois police stations.
Ma Barker & Sons bought stolen Army machine guns from fences.
Machine Gun Kelly's wife bought a Thompson from a hardware store.

The more effective solution (well 3 out of 4) would have been to ban machine guns from from the Army, National Guard and police.

Like most government solutions, the 1934 NFA was a symbolic gesture to mollify public (or news media) concerns.

[Jerryskids]

Bill Would Roll Back Prohibition-Era Gun Rules

Bill who? Is he running for office? I'd like to support this Bill guy, but I need to know where he stands on a lot of other issues. It's not Bill Clinton or Bill de Blasio is it?

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

If nothing else this will be a fine source of amusement as we see what sort of hysterical arguments anti-gunners make in response.

[BigT]

The Founders didn’t have automatic weapons!!

[Tionico]

corect they did not have full auto. But there WERE a small number of models that were semi-automatic... one could fire up to forty rounds of ball, one at a time, each with a single press of the trigger, at a rate of one round every two seconds or faster. That's all forty rounds in less than a minute and a half, when the normal rate of fire on a musket for the British soldiers was about one round every minute and a half Not bad for 1775, eh?

So much for THAT myth. Further, the Colonials had honed their rufle skills to the point where, when sorely pressed, they could fire at a rate of about three rounds per minute.

[SIV]

Took a long time of a lot of hard pumping to repressurize those dago BB guns.

[darkflame]

BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH KIDSsS!!!1! REEEEEEEE!

I imagine it would be something like that

[Hank Phillips]

Henry Virkula of Minnesota was murdered from behind by customs agents in June 1929 with his wife and kids (and not a drop of light beer) in the car watching him die. The customs agent dry killer was indicted and freed in a fake trial a year later. For a while there was actual _talk_ of demilitarizing dry agents by not letting them ambush motorists with riot guns. Dry agents used to let ku-klux preachers with guns help murder folks until they killed two war veteran July 4 1929 in Oklahoma. The victims were farmers on the porch, murdered--oops wrong address!

[Tionico]

Yeah THEY need the opportunity to own these too...... AND learn how to use them well,

[Dillinger]

government allowing people to own short-barreled rifles is a slippery slope to people owning hand-held tactical nuclear devices.

[ImanAzol]

You're correct, but there's probably a downside as well.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

Considering most of the laws are based solely on how a gun looks, I think that's the angle for it. SBRs look terrifying so they should be illegal.

Of course the fact that shortening a barrel typically means reduced velocity (and therefor less energy transmitted to the target) and less accuracy won't matter. They look scarier than longer barrelled guns and that's what counts.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Politics is all about perception. Does it look like you're "doing something" etc. The possibility some actual fact gets through, much less served, is entirely serendipitous.

[BigT]

Does it look like you’re “doing something” etc.

Explains most of government - look busy. Who cares if you are helping.

[Naaman Brown]

Worse - who cares if they are hurting, as long as they claim to be helping and demonizing their critics for seeing through the charade?

[Tionico]

learn how to match the rounds you are firing to the weapon in which you will be firing them. Handgun loads are very different than rifle loads, and not just the shape. Different powder, loads, projectile..... matched to the barrel through which it will be fired.

[SIV]

I just want a 92 or 94 "trapper" levergun in a magnum revolver caliber. Well that and a service pistol with a wire shoulder stock, vertical foregrip and extended mag.

[Hank Phillips]

Prohibition-era guns, like grandpappy's 1911 Colt, were kept by demobilized soldiers and resisted the Methodist White Terror's Volstead Act. Agent casualties per 1000 arrests went from 0 to 9 by the depth of the 1922 asset-forfeiture Depression. Agorist markets cut that violence by half until heroin seriously replaced beer in 1924. The 1922 agent casualties rate doubled by the time Capone's boys were in the dock for tax evasion and they quit reporting the numbers after 1930.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

The absurdity of this law:

So I have two AR platform rifles.

One is an "M 4gery" carbine, 16" barrel, collapsible 6 position stock. Perfectly legal, no registration required.

The other is an AR "pistol" with a 10" barrel and an arm "brace" instead of a stock. Also perfectly legal, no registration required.

I switch the uppers on the two, and voila, Class I felony. Neither is more deadly nor more effective than the other. But I now have instead of a "pistol" a "short barreled rifle" by virtue of the fact that the barrel is less than 16" and is on a lower with a normal stock.

[ImanAzol]

Even if you did it by accident.

[mad.casual]

What if he switched everything besides the uppers?

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

I think you still run into issues since the lowers themselves get classified as either a rifle or pistol. You can legally convert a pistol into a rifle, but not the other way around. Rifle into pistol and off to gulag with you. A rifle with a "brace" on the back instead of a stock probably puts you in that category.

Doesn't make a lick of sense, but then again none of the NFA does.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

If they registered [as with Class III weapons] where required; not so where I live, and I have several lowers that I can build into either a rifle or a pistol; problem is if you break the rules and match a short barrel configuration with a full size stock. I think this is somewhat similar to putting an insufficient number of US made parts on an AK; it is non compliant and therefore subject to violation and possibly prosecution. .

[Naaman Brown]

(A) If an AR lower is sold and built as a more restricted Title I handgun, you can converted it to a less restricted Title I rifle AND convert it back to its original handgun configuration legally. Just don't have short barrel and shoulder stock assembled at the same time.
(B) If a lower is sold and built as a rifle, basically you are legally stuck with it as a rifle, unless you go through the NFA Form 1 to Title II it.
There are all kinds of shadings in there, but basically (A) is more flexible, unless you really want a short barrelled rifle with a shoulder stock.

[mad.casual]

I think you still run into issues since the lowers themselves get classified as either a rifle or pistol.

I was joking, if putting receiver A on rifle B is illegal, assembling rifle B around receiver A is also illegal.

[loveconstitution1789]

GOOD!

See, there is a difference between Republicans, RINOs, and Democrats.

All gun control is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Zeb]

Why, I have to ask, are you so keen on defending the good name of the Republican party? To the bizarre extent that you call the mainstream of the party "RINOs".

[loveconstitution1789]

Funny that you would take a comment where I am pointing out the differences between 3 major political groups as support for any one of them.

[TheLibertyTruthTeller]

SHAMEFUL BULLSHIT

All gun control is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's a fucking lie .. and you've seen the proof at least a dozen times.

Shorter excerpts on this page.
https://reason.com/2019/12/06/bill-would-roll-back-prohibition-era-gun-rules/#comment-8039923

You remain TOTALLY dishonest of what "infringed" means, as you troll your nonsense..

Scalia from Heller AGAIN

Page One (my emphasis, AGAIN)

1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

ONE MORE TIME: The limitation on protected weapons does NOT infringe on the right, merely defines what the right protects.

Same page, AGAIN

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ….

Clear enough? The paragraph continues … AGAIN

...Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

"At the time" means at ratification. Guntards say it means "currently." -- bat-shit crazy, in the context. And bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons” kicks their asses anyhow.

****HOW DARE YOU idicule RINO's, when YOU defend SUCKING THE GUMMINT TEAT .... as a MOOCH ... calling YOUR OWN FATHER "selfish as shit" for defending his Social Security ... WHICH HE PAID FOR ... while you're ENTITLED to loot YOUR kids and grandkids that YOU NEVER PAID FOR.

[Reverend Draco]

All the Second Amendment means is, "Government - sit down, shut up, mind your own business. Thank you."

Actually, that's what all rights mean. . . but that's for another time.

No person has the right to decide, for another person, their self-defense options unless they are deciding for a person whom they hold title to.
As the 13th Amendment put the brakes on holding title. . .

[BigT]

Nurse, need more morphine for this one!

[Tionico]

you believe Miller was properly adjudicated? Crazy man.

The term "arms' as used in that pesky Second Article of Ammendment means weapons of military usefulness. So WHY can't we all walk, run, drive, on down to our local gunstore and buy a full auto M4 or BAR, then? Because our right to ARMS has been unconstitutinally INFRINGED, thath's why.

[Bereft-the-Left]

ONE MORE TIME: The limitation on protected weapons does NOT infringe on the right, merely defines what the right protects.

Yeah, except that's bullshit. The constitution doesn't give rights. It lists some rights that are natural.

Further, I can instantly refute your statement. If laws are passed limiting the militia's arms to spitwads, so we can all enjoy our right to keep and bear spitwads only. Is the 2A infringed?

Of course it is you retarded fool.

[mtrueman]

"All gun control is an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia..."

Control and regulation mean essentially the same thing.

[TheLibertyTruthTeller]

And he's SHAMEFULLY full of shit.
https://reason.com/2019/12/06/bill-would-roll-back-prohibition-era-gun-rules/#comment-8040000

[Reverend Draco]

Didn't used to.

Same way we got anchor babies - people's educations have gotten so bad that they can no longer understand English.

[mtrueman]

"Didn’t used to."

I don't see how you can regulate a militia without controlling the guns.

[BigT]

March in lines. Voila, regular!

[mtrueman]

"March in lines."

I shouldn't need a constitutional amendment to tell me that.

[Tionico]

fire accurately., quickly, and effectively.

Look at what happened at the North Bridge at Concord, mid morning 19 April 1775. The British units told off to hold and guard the bridge fired one volley at the approaching Acton Militia, marching under Isaac Davis. They fired without orders (NOT well-regulated at all, it would appear....) and only hit three men.. one killed instantly, ine died soon after, one lightly grazed, not out of action. Again NOT well regulared, as their fire was VERT ineffective. There were about 175 men in that deployment. That is a "hit rate" of point zero one seven. NOT well regulated. Far worse than our present day FBI with "hit rates" of below 20% of all rounds fired in a shootout with armed bad guys.
So the Brits were NOT well regulated on several counts.

In sharp contrast, the 80 or so men under Isaac Davis, who had trained and drilled with them twice a week for months, when they fired their return volleys into the Regulars, they took one third of the officers and one quarter of the foot soldiers outof action.... they fired in unison, reloaded in under half a minute, fired again. Their well aimed fire, in rapid succession, caused the three companies of soliders, part of the greatest, best equipped, most feared military force on the planet to break and run, helter skelter, in panic, disarray, uncontrollable by officers' orders, suc that it took Col Smith, their expedition commander, more than an hour to regain control to a degree where he could begin their march back to Boston. Smith's men were NOT well regulated, Davis' men WERE well regulated.

How many laws, rules, decrees,regulations, edicts, were involved here? None.

NOW you know the difference between "well regulated" and 'not well regulated". It is the well regulated militia that WILL maintain "the security of a free state". Smith's sorry excuse for a bunch of soliders will NOT go very far to maintaining "the security of a free state".

[mtrueman]

"How many laws, rules, decrees,regulations, edicts, were involved here? None. "

These sharp shooting soldiers are under orders, like in any military outfit. They were expected to do as they were told and could face punishment if they disobeyed.

[Apollonius]

"I shouldn’t need a constitutional amendment to tell me that."

You don't. The preamble to the Second Amendment explains one of the reasons for the right. Not the SOLE reason, and not a limitation of any sort.

[mtrueman]

" Not the SOLE reason,"

It's the only reason deemed necessary to mention. Do you have other reasons in mind?

[Tionico]

don;t confuse the word "regulated" as in functioning as needed or intended, as a clock/watch that is well regulated and thus keeps accurate time, and the word "regulation" meaning rule, restriction, law......... by "well regulated" militia, the Framers intended that the ordinary folk in an area, who ARE the militia for that area, would meet and train on a regular basis, showing up with the weapons they owned and had for years, to train together as a unit or team, to become well-regulated as a fighting force so as to perform the function of naintaining "the security of a free state". It would be accurate to state that the intent was to learn and practice excellent "gun control" such that their tools would become useful for the purpose they had. A rifle leaning up against the wall is useless.... until some PERSON took it into their hands and USED it. Well, that PERSON needs to learn OW to use it to best advantage to adequatley serve the purpose for which the rifle was intended... to see to "the security of a free state".THAT is gun control, THAT is well regulated.

Government rules purporting to decide which tools you and I might "lawfully" possess, keep, buy, sell, use, and the when, where, how, and whether of it all, is NOT in keeping with that Second Article of Ammendment.

[mtrueman]

"Government rules purporting to decide which tools you and I might “lawfully” possess, keep, buy, sell, use, and the when, where, how, and whether of it all, is NOT in keeping with that Second Article of Ammendment."

It's important for a militia to standardize its weaponry, wear uniforms, obey military hierarchy etc. That's all part of being a well regulated militia as opposed to an armed mob. The government wants and needs a well regulated militia, not an armed mob.

[Bereft-the-Left]

Shay's rebellion was an armed mob, and Jefferson called their actions "honorably conducted."

[Bereft-the-Left]

In the same letter, Jefferson then went further, essentially implying that freedom is worth more than your life. And said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

[mtrueman]

Jefferson was a Jacobin. He wasn't averse to a bracing bit of violence. Freedom was OK as long as it didn't interfere with his right to rape his slaves.

[Bereft-the-Left]

Control and regulation mean essentially the same thing.

In today's time they do. When it was written they didn't. "regulation" essentially meant "well maintained."

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

If you allow democrats to regulate guns but not the right to keep and bear - you'll end up with the entire scope of a legally owned firearm equvalent to a spitwad and everyone will go around enjoying their right to keep and bear spitwads only.

[mtrueman]

A well ordered militia, or a well maintained militia, however you want to put it, obeys the orders of its superiors. If the officers want their underlings to go about with spitwads, as is the case in Pensacola and Pearl Harbor, that's what they will go about with. Anyone who disobeys these orders and packs a pistol is liable to be shot, regardless of what the amendment says.

[Kevin Smith]

My understanding is that the NFA was originally going to include handguns as well, and in light of that the SBR restrictions make a bit more sense, but with handguns removed the SBR sections are pointless

[Unicorn Abattoir]

The NFA provisions should not be repealed because short-barreled muskets were not in "common use" in 1789.

MISINTERPRETED USSC DECISIONS!
SOMETHING + SOMETHING = NOTHING!
CYBERBULLYING
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

[Apollonius]

Actually, they were. Do a search for "Blunderbus."

[TheLibertyTruthTeller]

Close but no balloon. Since US v Miller (1939) 2a protects the <i<modern version of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia service.

Here, the short barrel may be secondary. It's a semi-automatic, which has not been protected for 80 years. That's why the NRA was powerless against the 1994 assault weapons ban, for 10 long years. until it expired.

The 1939 limit on protected weapons was reaffirmed by Scalia, in Heller. He also used a touch of ridicule on the hysteria that only muskets are protected.

Heller Ruling, SCOTUS web site/a>

Page 8: "... Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search...

Scalia also upheld the 1939 ruling on what weapons are protected (my emphasis)

Page 55.

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Quite clear ... but these two parts are lied about the most, with both rage and intensity ... in boldface.

[Fat Mike's Drug Habit]

Those "sophisticated arms" are "highly unusual in society" because we have to do loads of paperwork and pay a $200 tax to have one. Without those NFA restrictions, SBRs and suppressors would be far more common in society than they are now. To the extent that they're uncommon it's because the government forced them to be uncommon.

Someone should also let the Afghans know that small arms are ineffective against modern military forces. Next time a world superpower comes knocking I'm sure they'll just give up.

[Tionico]

consider how common noise suppressors are in Europe, England, New Zealand... where their arms are greatly restricted in other ways, the suppressors are not. In fact in those places where they are not restricted, they are VERY common. Proves your point. Where gummit restricts, a thing is generally not "in common use". Remove that set of restrictioins, common use becomes, well, common.
No rocket science, that.

[Naaman Brown]

<i< ?
*snicker* Calm down. You type like Hihn.

Sigh. A lot of restrictive 19th and 20th century state gun laws were predicated on United States v. Cruikshank, 1876, United States Supreme Court.
The same court partially reversed Cruikshank six months later.
Leonard Levy later wrote in 1987, "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their Civil Rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan." In 1966, (United States v. Price; United States v. Guest) the Court vitiated Cruikshank after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[Apollonius]

Go earlier.

One of the reasons that the USSC (in Dred Scott) found that blacks could not be citizens is that one of the rights that they would enjoy was that of "carrying arms wherever they went."

Today, the Progressives continue that doctrine by writing laws which keep a disproportionate number of minorities from owning firearms.

[Sonny Bono's Ghost]

Its a start, but what about silencers & SBSs? No reason to leave those out - hell, why not repeal the whole NFA? Its just a likely to pass and would make you a god-damned hero.

[LV]

There is no valid reason for the NFA or any other unconstitutional law, regardless of the mental masturbation done by politicians to try to pretend the 2A doesn't mean what it says.

[LarryA]

This bill will pass the House right after national reciprocity does. I'm not holding my breath.

[Naaman Brown]

Reciprocity should be up to the states. My home state recognizes all valid handgun permits issued by other states, with or without a formal reciprocity agreement. I have no confidence that the Federal Government will protect my gun rights more than my home state. The feds are far more likely to kill me over my guns. The feds defended the 1970 Ken Ballew Raid. My state has never done a Waco or Ruby Ridge in the name of gun control.

United States of America is a federation of states and there should be a line between state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. You should be able to avoid stupid or malicious state laws by voting with your feet: making everything federal jurisdiction removes that option.

New Yorkers want to federalize the NY Sullivan Act of 1911 and the NYC assault weapon ban. NYC owners of military rifles were conned into registering their military rifles, then registered owners were sent letters that their guns were contraband and they could (a) surrender them to NYPD, (b) have a gunsmith deactivate them, or (c) transfer them to an FFL outside NYC.

Give the Charlie Schumers an inch, they'll federalize NY style gun restrictions and repeal your state's constitution guarantees of RKBA. Compromise with the gun prohibitionists is always them take gun rights away and us surrender or else. I have listened to their rhetoric that a federal repeal (or "correction") of the federal 2A will render my state's Art I Sect 26 guarantee of the citizen's right to keep and bear arms a moot point overridden by federal supremacy.

[mpercy]

"Reciprocity should be up to the states. "

Could say the same thing about driver's licenses and marriage licenses.

[Naaman Brown]

SBRs should be regulated as much or as little as handguns (concealable firearms).

It is my understanding that "sawed-offs" were federally regulated to allow the uniform state handgun model laws to work by making it a federal offense to evade concealable weapon laws by sawing off a rifle or shotgun to concealable size. (Moonshiner Miller's weapon at issue in US v Miller 1939.) If a firearm is legally made and sold as as a concealable weapon, subject to concealable weapon laws, then it should be subject only to handgun regulations since it is not an attempt to evade handgun laws.

[TangoDelta]

Probably precisely why things like the Mossberg Shockwave, at >26" overall are classed as non-NFA firearms.

[docduracoat]

Your correction is wrong
The law regarding SBR ( short barreled rifles) does indeed only apply to semi automatic guns.
Full auto guns can be any length.
They are covered under the NFA by different regulations.

[LarryA]

The correction is correct, in that the SBR regulations also apply to lever action, bolt action, break action, falling block, pump action and other such rifles, in addition to semi-autos.

As do the short-barrel shotgun rules, only the shotgun barrels must be 18".

[RestoreWesternHegemony]

Big fucking deal. Where were these bills (and carry reciprocity) when the Republicans had the House? It’s easy to propose laws that appeal to conservatives (like repealing ACA) when you know it won’t pass. Fuck the GOP charlatans

[JSinAZ]

Well, there was a bill pending before Congress in ‘17 to deregulate suppressors, among other things. Then a Democrat tried to kill a bunch of Republicans playing team sports...

[RestoreWesternHegemony]

So what? Scalise himself didn't change his mind. There was no excuse for the GOP to do nothing on guns from 2016-2018 (and from 2000-2006, when they also had all three branches). It's likely, given demographic changes, that they'll never have complete control again.

[The Rich Logis Show]

Mark McMacky

The technology of a firearm is wholly irrelevant. The Second Amendment imposes zero restrictions on the type of arms Americans could own; hence why there has never been a constitutionally compelling argument against mass-produced and readily and legally available automatic rifles and pistols. (For the dipshits who scream, “but what about bazookas and rocket launchers?,” those are not arms.)

Automatic rifles and pistols were IN COMMON USE when the Bill of Rights was ratified over 83,000 days ago.

That the technology and innovation of firearms—both semi-automatic and automatic—have significantly improved since 1791 affirms that regulatory restrictions are more unconstitutional today than in 1791.

The Second Amendment has less to do with arms, and much more to do with prohibiting government interference in Americans’ free exercise of keeping and bearing arms.

More than ever, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right; rather than encourage the free exercise of the right, most Democrats, and some Tessio Republicans, continue to seek restrictions on the free exercise.

President Trump, to his credit, has moved away from his initial support of red flag laws, which potentially infringe upon and abridge our First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed, non-negotiable rights. The President would be wise to seize upon this opportunity to further abolish infringements upon our Second Amendment rights.

[The Rich Logis Show]

The technology of a firearm is wholly irrelevant. The Second Amendment imposes zero restrictions on the type of arms Americans could own; hence why there has never been a constitutionally compelling argument against mass-produced and readily and legally available automatic rifles and pistols. (For the dipshits who scream, “but what about bazookas and rocket launchers?,” those are not arms.)

Automatic rifles and pistols were IN COMMON USE when the Bill of Rights was ratified over 83,000 days ago.

That the technology and innovation of firearms—both semi-automatic and automatic—have significantly improved since 1791 affirms that regulatory restrictions are more unconstitutional today than in 1791.

The Second Amendment has less to do with arms, and much more to do with prohibiting government interference in Americans’ free exercise of keeping and bearing arms.

More than ever, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right; rather than encourage the free exercise of the right, most Democrats, and some Tessio Republicans, continue to seek restrictions on the free exercise.

President Trump, to his credit, has moved away from his initial support of red flag laws, which potentially infringe upon and abridge our First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed, non-negotiable rights. The President would be wise to seize upon this opportunity to further abolish infringements upon our Second Amendment rights.

[sarcasmic]

“The Constitution is a limitation of the government, not on private individuals--that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government--that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens' protection against the government.

Instead of being a protector of man's rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim--so that we are fast approaching the stage of ultimate inversion; the stage where the government is "free" to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may only act by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of humanity, the stage of rule by brute force.”

― Ayn Rand

[TangoDelta]

Originally the NFA stated less than 18" barrel length with no overall length restriction. It was later amended to set the minimums at 16" for barrel and 26" overall.

I'll add that 26" is actually pretty darn short since it would put the muzzle only about 12" forward of the trigger on my rifle which is about two inches shy of the fore-end schnabel.

That said, I wouldn't mind getting an FN PS90 with the original 10.5" barrel.

[Anshika Verma]

we should also care for disease symptoms
otherwise there will be big problem also..