Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Trail Blazers Blog:

Among the more interesting data points – and there were a slew of them – to come out of Thursday’s Senate committee hearing on two high-profile gun bills was a recent survey conducted by the Texas Police Chiefs Association.

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, in his testimony, pointed to data that the vast majority Texas police chiefs surveyed opposed open carry of a handgun. He added that if open carry were to pass, a greater majority supported licensed open carry over unlicensed.

That information, at least the first part, didn’t apparently move the Senate committee. The panel voted 7-2 – with only Democrats voting against – to send to the full Senate the bills on so-called campus carry and licensed open carry of handguns.

But given that law enforcement continues to be central to the debate, we wanted to learn more about the survey. And James McLaughlin, executive director of the police chiefs association, on Friday passed along more detail on the six-question survey.

The group recently sent the survey to 800-plus police chiefs – covering municipalities, college campuses, independent school districts and others. Though Acevedo said around 285 responded, a hard copy of the survey results shows a response from 192 chiefs.

Here are the major data points from the survey, which can be seen after the jump:

– Nearly 75 percent opposed open carry in Texas.
– 90 percent said that if open carry passes, a license should be required.
– 94 percent said an openly carried handgun should have to be holstered.
– 71 percent said that holsters should have retention ratings, which help secure the gun.

While that certainly shows a consensus, it’s harder to make broader generalizations. McLaughlin said the responses came in blind, so there’s no way to know if these chiefs are mainly from big cities or small ones, East Texas or West Texas, and so on.

[ … ]

But he said the association does want to point out some of the challenges that law enforcement has already faced with those who openly carry long guns. And he said there are certain issues that, if open carry passes, the association would like to see dealt with.

Those include ideas mentioned on Thursday by Houston Assistant Police Chief Don McKinney: boosting the standards for training and holsters.

They didn’t all respond to the questionnaire but its a fair assumption that these police chiefs are representative of the whole bunch.

First of all note the man who brought all of this up to the committee – Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo.  Acevedo is the chief cop who pressed for “no refusal” blood draws.  That’s right, he believes that police have a right to strap your arm down and shove a needle in you to test for BAC.  But then also recall that he believes gun enthusiasts need to be vetted by law enforcement.

“Folks, let me tell you what keeps me up at night, it’s these guys. It’s these homegrown extremists that are lone wolves, that are mad at the world, that are angry. And that’s why it’s important for us as Americans to know our neighbors, know our families. Tell somebody. If you know somebody that’s acting with a lot of hatred towards a particular group especially if you know somebody who’s a gun enthusiast or they’re armed with this type of fire arms and they’re showing any type of propensity for hatred, doesn’t mean that we’re going to go and take them to jail, but we might want to vet these people. He may well be alive today had we had the opportunity to do that.”

Finally, the presumed “concerns” and issues LEOs have with open carry have all been thrown around before.  In fact, in Mississippi open carry was going to be the wild, wild West, and blood running in the streets.  Except it wasn’t.  Louisiana is an open carry state, but no one has been hurt from it.

My own home state of North Carolina is a traditional open carry state.  We still all go about our business as usual, women and children don’t run screaming in the streets, and men don’t run around crazy when they finally get to put their weapons outside their waistband instead of inside their waistband.  The sad thing about the open carry bill that has made its way to the Senate is that it is licensed open carry rather than constitutional carry.

The Texas LEOs see the devil around every corner, and bogeymen under the bed and in the closet.  They sound like frightened little girls.  Someone tell them that everything will be alright, and the sun will come up tomorrow.  And for heaven’s sake, Austin needs to get rid of Art Acevedo and send him back to the hole from which he crawled.

The Austin-American Statesman is carrying an opinion piece by John Lott on the open carry bills in Texas.  It is subscription, but Mr. Lott also mirrors the entire commentary on the web site Crime Prevention Research Center (where he is president).  Mr. Lott felt the latitude to undercut the Austin-American Statesman by publishing the entire piece on his site, but I will only provide excerpts.

With well over 700,000 concealed handgun permit holders in Texas, there is a good chance that someone next you in a grocery store or restaurant is carrying a concealed handgun. But some are only satisfied if others actually know that they are carrying.  They think that by openly carrying guns they can make others comfortable with guns. They want to make a statement.

Texas lawmakers are now wrestling with the questions of campus carry and open carry. They couldn’t face a clearer choice between enhancing safety or making political statements.

Open carry advocates carry rifles because they can’t legally openly carry handguns. While no problems have occurred, simply handling a rifle as opposed to keeping a handgun in a holster, raises the risk that something might go wrong.

Open carry advocates have not been the best at public relations and they have scared some people. Much has been made of supposed gun bans by Starbucks, Jack in the Box, Chipotle, Wendy’s, Applebee’s, Chili’s and Sonic’s supposedly banning guns. In fact, these companies merely “respectfully request” that customers not openly carry guns. Passing an open carry law where proponents carried handguns, instead of rifles, would be less threatening and thus likely make it less of a PR issue.

Still, there is a more basic problem with open carry – it isn’t as effective in protecting people.

Criminals and terrorists can strike anywhere and at any time, that gives them a huge strategic advantage. When an attacker sees someone openly carrying a gun, they can either attack that person or wait for a more opportune moment. Alternatively, they can select another target.

Concealed carry makes attacks riskier. A killer can’t attack an auditorium in Texas without facing near-certain resistance. And, of course, an attacker has no idea who might be packing heat.

[ … ]

Open carry isn’t bad, but concealed carry is better. There are more important changes to be made. At $140, Texas has one of the highest permit fees in the US. Lower fees would increase the number of people who can protect others. It would especially help those who are most likely to be victims of violent crime — poor blacks living in high-crime urban areas.

If safety is the goal, let’s eliminate gun-free zones or lower permit fees. Open carry may make a political statement, but is that really the top priority?

In order fully to answer this, I have to point folks back to an article I wrote entitled Suburban Battle Rattle.  I didn’t write this to be silly, trivial or even tendentious.  I did it in order to get feedback from readers about what they do and how they approach this subject.

Mike Vanderboegh linked it, and one reader in particular put me on edge by saying this.

I would not recommend an ankle rig unless it was for your “third gun”. For years I worked plain clothes assignments as a DA Investigator. I was in some of the worst areas of SoCal. My duty weapon was a Glock 19 in a very secure DeSantis rig on my right hip. In my left front pants pocket was a S&W model 37 with a bobbed hammer in a Galco pocket rig. Extra mags were on my belt and in the left pocket of my sport coat, I kept an impact device, edged device, and a few other lightweight goodies.

If you have to evac and area in a hurry, ankle rigs will not only slow you down, they can loosen and start spinning around your ankle. Been there, done that.

The best weapon I had was the one between my two ears. Situational awareness and OODA techniques kept me in one piece until I was eligible to retire. H/T to Mr. Mike: I did not poke any wolverines in their nether regions unless I had a good plan in place and a secure method of egress.

” …ankle rigs will not only slow you down, they can loosen and start spinning around your ankle. Been there, done that.”  I don’t so much disagree with him, as dismiss it as bluster if he doesn’t back it all up by political action and other necessary things to force changes to both law and cultural norms to allow open carry.  Let me explain a bit and then I’ll get back to John Lott.

I’ve had my ankle rig swing around on me too, and beyond that, if I needed it quickly I am hampered by the location of the weapon and its being covered by my trousers.  But it’s one thing to complain about ankle rigs while you’re a LEO who can open carry, and quite another to work to change the situation for those of us who cannot open carry all of the time.

Even though my own home state is a traditional open carry state, I cannot open carry all of the time because of cultural norms.  Sometimes I am left with concealed carry IWB or ankle rig.  I find IWB carry obnoxious for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: (1) sweat and body oils rust and corrode your weapon, (2) it’s uncomfortable, and (3) you must use a small handgun or print your clothing.

With swollen knuckles due to my arthritis, I cannot efficiently handle small frame subcompacts (I do just fine with larger frame weapons).  So I am left with a large frame weapon which weighs too much and prints at my side.  I may as well use a rigger’s belt and open carry, which I find significantly more comfortable than IWB carry.  I’m saying all of this to suggest that Lott’s assertion that open carry is done in order to make a political statement is both insulting and ignorant.  When I open carry, I don’t do it to make any kind of statement.

But beyond being insulting and ignorant, Lott’s procedure is the same as he has used before, and it is as objectionable as it has always been.  As I’ve stated before:

“What happens to society at the macroscopic level is immaterial.  My rights involve me and my family, and don’t depend on being able to demonstrate that the general health effects in society are not a corollary to or adversely affected by the free exercise of them.  It’s insidious and even dangerous to argue gun rights as a part of crime prevention based on statistics because it presupposes what the social planners do, i.e., that I’m part of the collective.”  I object to John Lott’s procedure, and have stated frequently that I do not believe in the second amendment.  I believe in God.  The Almighty grants me the rights to be armed, and when the Almighty has spoken, it is eternal law for all men everywhere and in all ages and epochs.  See also Holding Human Rights Hostage To Favorable Statistical Outcomes, and Kurt Hoffman on the same subject.

And that’s the main problem with John Lott and his procedure.  If you need to, read his commentary above again, very carefully.  He doesn’t come right out and say he is opposed to the legalization of open carry, but he spends his entire time trying to prove that it is inferior to concealed carry, and ends with the question, is it “really a top priority?”

He is trying to talk the Texas legislators into letting the bills perish in committee.  It isn’t good enough for him to enable the practice of God-given rights.  It isn’t good enough for him to couple with other gun rights activists to press forward to the enjoyment of more freedom.  No, for some inexplicable reason he must work to undermine the gun rights community and be divisive and schismatic.  Being quiet isn’t good enough.  He must engage in chest pounding, blathering on in front of people about how much he knows.  As to how much he supposedly knows, I do Monte Carlo particle transport calculations, worrying over things like the first, second and third moments of a problem, sampling statistics, variance reduction and meeting the central limit theorem.  John Lott doesn’t impress me (with his anecdotal accounts in the distribution “tails”) any more than the VPC or Brady gun controllers.

Ironically, while various anti-gun groups such as the VPC attempt to use arguments like this to prohibit the practice of God-given rights by a subterfuge of worthless “statistics” they don’t really understand, John Lott attempts to do the very same thing under the guise of being safe and ensuring the best response to potential attackers.  He is more like the anti-gun crowd than he would be willing to admit.  It isn’t enough that we must do battle with the collectivists to ensure the free exercise of our rights.  We must also do battle with self-proclaimed gun rights advocates like John Lott.  Working to legalize open carry in Texas doesn’t change cultural norms, but it’s a starting point.  Those of us who favor such legalization will have to step over the “gun rights” activists to make this happen.

NBC10.com:

A Pennsylvania state police corporal was arrested Tuesday on reckless endangerment charges in a firearms training accident that claimed the life of a state trooper.

Cpl. Richard Schroeter, 43, was conducting a training session Sept. 30 and pulled the trigger on his firearm while discussing the weapon’s mechanism, prosecutors said. The gun discharged, killing 26-year-old Trooper David Kedra.

Inquisitr.com:

Hoping to get attention by being placed under arrest, about 50 pro-gun advocates gathered at the Washington State Capitol building on Saturday morning. They were protesting the decision against allowing guns to be openly carried into the Legislature’s viewing gallery. However, the doors to the gallery were kept locked by the Washington State Patrol after the capitol was opened to the public at 11 a.m.

 As reported by Yahoo! News, the pro-gun protesters, which included two state legislators, marched down the hallway of the building and were prepared to knock on the gallery’s door and the door of Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington. There were no arrests and no reports of disturbances …

This is emblematic of the bad reporting on the event.  They wanted to send a message, tell the legislators where the line was, and that it had been crossed many times over.  They wanted to demonstrate that this isn’t over – far from it – and that they will not stand for more infringements.  To the contrary, the very ones they illustrated had better be reversed.  Mike Vanderboegh – shown above – gives us a better report.

Briefly told, we gathered on the portico of the building waiting for the rotunda doors to be unlocked, chatted as people gathered (I gave the prefatory talk that is captured in the video post earlier) and then we had the speeches. I thought that the legislator’s speeches were particularly good and WA state is very lucky to have such principled folks representing them. When the doors opened, we trooped in, armed, and went to the gallery doors, which as we had learned the night before were going to be locked. They were. In a spontaneous moment, and I know this to have been completely unscripted, people approached the door and knocked on it, some asking in loud voices to be let in. As they did so, one little girl emulated the adults and went to door and knocked, crying out “Let Freedom in!” I hope that the designated videographer got that moment, because if so it will likely go viral. The protestors, like Martin Luther and his Theses, affixed their petition for redress of grievances to the doors of the gallery and those of the Governor’s office in the Capitol building. We then marched to the mansion where a very nervous gate guard accepted another copy for the Governor. The gesture, and the optics, were striking.

There is more in Mike’s report.  How utterly cowardly.  They passed a law that they now do not now want to enforce, and so rather than doing the hard business of enforcing it or otherwise reversing it, they simply kicked the can down the road and obviated the need for a decision at the moment.  What a bunch of worms.

David Codrea weighs in.

Much is being made of Mike Vanderboegh calling an unsafe demonstrator a “moron” in a preliminary talk he gave before his main speech yesterday at the Washington State Capitol in Olympia. Contrary to some of the arguments being made, using that term for someone who ignored specific gun handling cautions is not equivalent to others who have invoked the word “extremist” …

[ … ]

We’ve moved into new territory, or more precisely, been moved into it whether we want to go or not. And the only thing those who disagree with such direct tactics can do about it is side with the antis, the same people who would call them extremists.

Another argument is the pile-on by anti-gun readers and “reasonable” gun owners in comments to press accounts.It should not be a surprise most of those condemn Saturday’s actions. Most gun owners probably will too, at least for now. The defiant ones don’t call themselves Three Percenters for nothing.

There were plenty of good people in 1771, those objecting to heavy-handed disregard of their rights, but still trying to work the system, who thought the similar-sized handful of impatient and angry people throwing tea into Boston Harbor were radical extremists who hurt the cause, and made them all look bad. But looking back, it’s doubtful public sentiment could have been galvanized without such “impatient” patriots setting the necessary tone though actions many disapproved of. And today’s protesters haven’t even approached that level of defiance and resistance — yet.

I don’t have a crystal ball, but I believe disparaging and dismissing what we saw yesterday will not serve those doing so well, especially since there is nothing you or I can do about dissuading further such demonstrations.

I have weighed in before on the issue of muzzle discipline among anyone whom I am around.  There is no need for me to do that again.  You point your gun at me and we’re going to tangle.  Regarding working the system to which David refers, I really don’t have a problem with that.  That’s why if any party out there can field a candidate who is worthy of my vote, I’ll go to the trouble to cast it for that man.  I will also engage in political action, send notes, make calls, and engage in protests as I deem appropriate.  Some of my open carry in North Carolina has to do with just that, since I could be arrested for “going armed to the terror of the public.”

What I have a problem with is compromise while “working the system.”  That, my friends, you do not have a right to.  When you speak for the gun community, you speak for a large, non-monolithic group of men and women, many of whom do not acquiesce to your compromises.  If you “work the system,” you can only work towards less restrictive laws and regulations, not more.  There is nothing about my God-given rights that is open to your consideration for negotiating capital.  Do you understand?

Here is Mike’s speech.

Politico:

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday positioned himself as a pragmatic, pro-compromise presidential candidate, dismissing 2016 rivals whom he said merely seek to be “critic-in-chief.”

Perry in recent weeks has sought to portray himself as a more moderate, thoughtful contender than he was during his 2012 campaign, when he entered the race as a firebrand conservative. In an appearance before the socially conservative group American Principles Project in Washington, Perry argued that Republicans should nominate someone with a message that goes beyond merely opposing the other side, an apparent swipe at fellow Texan Ted Cruz, a conservative hard-liner.

Guess one subject on which he has “moderated” his views?  That’s right.  Guns.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said Thursday he was skeptical of open carry gun laws, as conservatives in his home state are attempting to push such measures through the legislature …

In an interview with the The Texas Tribune and The Washington Post, Perry said he was “not necessarily all that fond of this open carry concept.” His concerns, however, seemed to be more practical than philosophical.

“I don’t want the bad guys to know if I’m carrying,” he said. “I don’t want to be the first person shot if something’s going down.”

A Perry spokesman didn’t immediately return a request for clarification on whether Perry would sign open carry legislation if he were still governor.

In his interview Thursday, Perry also said gun owners should be “appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained.”

“We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”

The most important revelation about Perry’s views isn’t his opposition to open carry, although he wouldn’t advocate that LEOs conceal rather than open carry (and thus his view here is hypocritical).  The most significant revelation pertains to his view of licensing carriers, noting that it is a “privilege.”

Privilege it isn’t, as God has not only granted the right of self defense, he has stipulated that men will be prepared to protect their families at all times if they want to honor His laws.  It is more than a privilege.  It is a duty before God.  In attempting to track towards the middle, Perry won’t gain a single vote in his corner, but this will come back to haunt him with gun owners.  Another one bites the dust.  His political career is dead.

The GOP is so corrupt and wasted that it can only think about fielding men like Perry (a gun control moderate), Christie (who made his fame in gun control in the great collectivist Northeast), Rand Paul (an open borders freak), and Jeb Bush (wrong on everything under the sun).

Baltimore Sun:

Where do criminals get guns? I’ll explore that question a lot this year because the supply of guns to people prohibited from having them remains a principal cause of Baltimore’s violent eruptions. When a convicted felon can allegedly walk out of his house with an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle and a 9 mm handgun and kill two men in a dispute over a parking space, we need to know: Who enabled him? Where’d he get the guns?

If he stole them, the case ends there.

But if he bought them, then those who supplied the weapons ought to be held accountable, too. The way I see it, they are accomplices to murder.

Oh goody.  That’s just what we need.  Another progressive “exploring” the issue of guns.  I can’t wait.

While Welch-Sutton is a federal case, the straw purchases they admitted to are exactly what the Maryland General Assembly had in mind when it toughened up the state’s firearms law in 2013. The law now requires people who want to buy a gun to submit to a background check, fingerprinting and four hours of gun-safety training.

Opponents of the measure called it an infringement on liberty.

But it’s no such thing. The intent is to discourage straw purchases, to keep old buddies from buying firearms for felons. It’s one piece of what should be a steady, comprehensive effort to reduce the size of the black market of guns that end up causing so much havoc and death. More to come.

Here’s what you won’t find Mr. Rodrick’s focus on: machetes.  Or Chicago gang violence with machetes and knives.  Like this.  Or hammer attacks and the need for a ban on assault hammers and background check before purchasing one.  Or finally, the need to disarm the police because attacking officers and perpetrating crime upon their person for the sole purpose of stealing their weapons has become a favorite tactic of criminals.

Because despite what Mr. Rodrick says about this not being infringements on your rights, it really is about that, and about the state having even more power than it does now.  All progressives want more state control, because it is in their nature.  It’s part of their DNA.  It’s their all encompassing world view.  The hippie movement was never about freedom, love and peace.  It was all about changing ideas and replacing those in power with their own people so they could control things.

CNBC:

The federal judge considering a proposed class-action settlement involving millions of allegedly defective Remington rifles is raising new questions about the accord, warning a plaintiff’s attorney in court that the agreement as it currently stands risks more people being injured by the guns.

Remington and the plaintiffs in two nationwide class-action cases have proposed replacing the triggers on nearly eight million guns, including the wildly popular Model 700 Series, which critics allege are prone to firing without the trigger being pulled.

Some two dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries have been linked to accidental firings of the guns. The 2010 documentary Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation explored allegations that for more than 60 years, the company covered up the alleged defect.

Remington has steadfastly denied the allegations and still maintains the guns are safe.

“There’s nothing wrong with the Remington 700 rifle,” said Remington outside counsel John Sherk at a preliminary hearing in a federal court in Kansas City to consider the proposed settlement. But he said “Remington is committed to this settlement” in order for the company to move past litigation that has gone on for decades.

This is what happens with students go to law school and become convinced that it’s okay to tell lies.  There is indeed something very wrong with the Remington 700.  As I’ve said before, don’t believe what I’m saying.  Go study the evidence for yourself, including the testing performed at Remington.

The reason this is a big deal goes beyond mere responsibility for your work products as good and honest workers.  This goes to the honesty of engineering, the fidelity of weapons design and the ability to entrust your life and the lives of loved ones to a manufacturer.  Remington is showing itself to be a very bad example to the gun community.  Forget the issue of legal settlements.  What happened to being good professional engineers who take ownership of their designs?

David Codrea:

… those associations in and of themselves don’t relate how Carter would be able to use the position of Secretary of Defense to impact gun owners.

Here’s one area that it might: In following up on reports of military installations destroying expended ammunition brass rather than making it available to the commercial reload market, this column uncovered a copy of a June 23, 2011 memorandum from Carter on “Department of Defense (DoD) Implementing Guidance for the Commercial Sale of Expended Small Arms Cartridge Cases (ESACC).”

The memorandum includes an “Implementing Guidance” attachment stating “DoD will dispose of ESACC as quickly and effectively as practical, and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and DoD guidance.” Of relevance, it also states “The DoD will not expend resources to determine whether ESACC are serviceable for non-military purposes.”

Ashton Carter is a progressive leader – not just shill – but leader.  Obama wouldn’t have appointed him if this were not the case.  You can lay bets on the notion that he will do everything in his power to ensure progressive policies are implemented.

Kurt Hofmann:

In other words, everyone who obediently registered their “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, as per the new law, had provided the state with a map telling the gun confiscation raiding parties just where to go … let’s focus on one particular provision–registration of every gun. Actually, that’s annual registration, which is to be accompanied every time with a test of “firearms handling capacity” and knowledge of gun laws.

It never stops folks.  When they talk about “common sense” gun laws, what they really mean is that if you will let them get a foot in the door, they’ll force their way inside and take over.  It’s what control freaks do.  It’s what they believe.  They cannot not try to control every aspect of your life.  It’s like a dog returning to its vomit.  And it’s just as grotesque.

David Codrea:

“A Kermit [Texas] parent said his fourth-grade student was suspended Friday for allegedly making a terroristic threat,” the Odessa American reported Friday. After seeing “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” nine-year-old Aiden Steward allegedly brought a ring to school and told a classmate it was magic and could make him disappear.

The boy’s father, Jason Steward, said Kermit Elementary School Principal Roxanne Greer informed him “threats to another child’s safety would not be tolerated — whether magical or not.” For her part, Greer declined to comment …

Yea, I’ll bet she declined to comment.  This woman is an imbecile.  Do you really need another reason to get your children dissociated from the communist indoctrination program?

Iraqi father guns down seven ISIS members.

kirotv.com:

Another company, Triggersmart, uses a radio ID tag that can be embedded in a ring.

But a poll done for the symposium reveals only 40 percent of current gun owners would switch to a smart gun — and 62 percent of gun owners reject any mandatory requirement to have them.

Dave Workman is a gun owner with the locally based 2nd Amendment Foundation.

“Let’s not even be talking about the technology until we are certain that it works,” Workman said.

King County Sheriff John Urquhart was on a panel, but wasn’t ready to commit to smart guns.

Urquhart says it will be years before the smart gun technology is ready. And then he’s not likely to mandate it for his officers.

Contrary to Dave’s edict, let’s talk yet again about smart gun technology.  I am a registered professional engineer, and I spend all day analyzing things and performing calculations.  Let’s not speak in broad generalities and murky platitudes (such as “good enough”).  That doesn’t work with me.  By education, training and experience, I reject such things out of hand.  Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns.  Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.

Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again.  Compare the state points.  Then do that again with a revolver.  Be honest.  Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.

Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review.  If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see.  If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice.  No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge.  I’ll win.  Case closed.  End of discussion.

Now to the real issue.  I won’t have a weapon that can be manipulated by anyone, or for which outside interference of any kind is possible.  As I said about Gottlieb’s position, “I’m not opposed to people spending their money the way they want.  If Gottlieb wants one, let him buy one.  Leave me out of it.  And don’t ever … ever … EVER … tell me what kind of gun I can have or must buy.”

Prior: Smart Guns tag

Ammoland:

The National Firearms act regulation of short barreled rifles and shotguns from 1934 should be eliminated.   It made little sense when the primary purpose for the regulation was thwarted when it passed, it has become increasingly irrelevant, and it makes no sense at all after the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The reason for the ban on short barrelled rifles and shotguns had very little to do with the criminal use of such items.   After all, criminals use handguns many, many, times more often.    Short barreled rifles and shotguns are, in fact, as modified and used by criminals, expediently manufactured pistols.

The National firearms act of 1934 originally lumped in handguns with full auto firearms.  It is clear that the Roosevelt administration wanted to subject pistols and revolvers to the same draconian regulations and taxes that machine guns were finally subjected to.   Congress simply would not go along.  It was a step too far for even the heavily Democrat Congress of 1934.

Once you understand that licensing of handguns to the point of prohibition was the major target of the legislation, the reason for including short barreled rifles and shotguns becomes clear.    What is the point of banning handguns if any person can buy a rifle or shotgun, a hacksaw, and make a functional pistol in fifteen minutes from that rifle or shotgun?

That’s the first explanation I’ve ever heard that makes any sense at all as to why the law exists.  If seen in a vacuum, it is completely irrational and unworkable.  If seen in context, it is part of a larger scheme to deprive us of God-given rights across the spectrum, not just with SBRs.  It’s just that they failed with the rest of the control.  Thus, this piece of legislation sits alone, in need of more heinous and draconian controls to make any sense.