AR15 SBR build

[LRRPF52]

A funny thing about SBRs in the NFA is that the NFA never meant to regulate short-barreled rifles or shotguns the way it ended up doing so.

The original legislation was going to place all handguns under the same restrictions and regulations as a machine-gun, requiring the $200 NFA stamp. The stamp was a loophole they created so it technically wouldn’t be considered an outright ban on the specified weapons, but the intent was to have the same effect by requiring a crushing penalty fee that very few people could afford in 1934, in the middle of the Great Depression.

In order to prevent people from circumventing the law by cutting down their shotguns and rifles to bypass the pistol ban, they wrote the offensive SBS and SBR legislation. It had nothing to do with short barreled rifles being a common firearm in use at the time. The pistol ban provisions of the unconstitutional law (that clearly violates the Bill of Rights) was scratched, but the SBS and SBR descriptions remained as clumsy artifacts, along with AOWs.

Originally, the SBS and SBR descriptions specified a barrel length of 18” for both shotguns and rifles. This was amended in 1960 for some reason. Why? I’ve been unable to find answers to that.

Some documents mention rimfire rifles, and then centerfire being exempted from the 18” measurement to 16” in 1960, but the reason why is very elusive.

One recent claim I just saw was that because of "all the M-1 Carbine bring-backs from WWII and Korea", it was amended, but that doesn’t make any sense since the M-1 Carbine has an 18” barrel.

So on top of a series of arbitrary and labyrinthine anti-Constitutional NFA laws, we have historical precedence for the NFA to be amended.

The authors of the NFA never intended to regulate SBRs, but to nail down their pistol ban that never happened, by making modifications to rifles and shotguns that would bring them down more to pistol sizes. The SBR and SBS laws were written to regulate something they thought people would do with their firearms after the NFA was passed. In essence, there are 2 very strong cases for negating and/or amending the NFA to throw SBRs and SBSs entirely out.

The case for suppressors being removed is even stronger since nobody seems to know why they were even included at all. There is a lot of guessing, but actual specified reasons as to why suppressors were included has escaped firearms scholars, attorneys, and historians for the better part of the last century.

I personally would like to see legislation with teeth that demands repayment/restitution to everyone that has ever paid the offensive SBR/SBS/Silencer NFA Tax, with interest and fees for all the stupid hoops we’ve had to jump through to exercise rights.

[montana]

A funny thing about SBRs in the NFA is that the NFA never meant to regulate short-barreled rifles or shotguns the way it ended up doing so.

The original legislation was going to place all handguns under the same restrictions and regulations as a machine-gun, requiring the $200 NFA stamp. The stamp was a loophole they created so it technically wouldn’t be considered an outright ban on the specified weapons, but the intent was to have the same effect by requiring a crushing penalty fee that very few people could afford in 1934, in the middle of the Great Depression.

In order to prevent people from circumventing the law by cutting down their shotguns and rifles to bypass the pistol ban, they wrote the offensive SBS and SBR legislation. It had nothing to do with short barreled rifles being a common firearm in use at the time. The pistol ban provisions of the unconstitutional law (that clearly violates the Bill of Rights) was scratched, but the SBS and SBR descriptions remained as clumsy artifacts, along with AOWs.

Originally, the SBS and SBR descriptions specified a barrel length of 18” for both shotguns and rifles. This was amended in 1960 for some reason. Why? I’ve been unable to find answers to that.

Some documents mention rimfire rifles, and then centerfire being exempted from the 18” measurement to 16” in 1960, but the reason why is very elusive.

One recent claim I just saw was that because of "all the M-1 Carbine bring-backs from WWII and Korea", it was amended, but that doesn’t make any sense since the M-1 Carbine has an 18” barrel.

So on top of a series of arbitrary and labyrinthine anti-Constitutional NFA laws, we have historical precedence for the NFA to be amended.

The authors of the NFA never intended to regulate SBRs, but to nail down their pistol ban that never happened, by making modifications to rifles and shotguns that would bring them down more to pistol sizes. The SBR and SBS laws were written to regulate something they thought people would do with their firearms after the NFA was passed. In essence, there are 2 very strong cases for negating and/or amending the NFA to throw SBRs and SBSs entirely out.

The case for suppressors being removed is even stronger since nobody seems to know why they were even included at all. There is a lot of guessing, but actual specified reasons as to why suppressors were included has escaped firearms scholars, attorneys, and historians for the better part of the last century.

I personally would like to see legislation with teeth that demands repayment/restitution to everyone that has ever paid the offensive SBR/SBS/Silencer NFA Tax, with interest and fees for all the stupid hoops we’ve had to jump through to exercise rights.

Nice synopsis, now it makes sense.

[StoneHendge]

LRRPF52, I would avoid using any arguments that relate to a law's age or it's context in time regardless of their validity. That's one of the major arguments used by those who not only want to get rid of the Second Amendment, but tear up the entire Constitution.

[biodsl]

LRRPF52, I would avoid using any arguments that relate to a law's age or it's context in time regardless of their validity. That's one of the major arguments used by those who not only want to get rid of the Second Amendment, but tear up the entire Constitution.

A couple of years back, one of my Facebook 'friends' made the argument that the 2nd Amendment was fine when written because mass shootings aren't really possible with muskets. With today's weapons the right to gun ownership needed to be reconsidered. I made the argument back that Freedom of Speech was fine when the only people that could hear your message were those within the sound of your voice on the street corner. Now that you can reach millions on the internet, the 1st Amendment might be too dangerous.

I didn't know Google, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube would take me seriously.

[LRRPF52]

LRRPF52, I would avoid using any arguments that relate to a law's age or it's context in time regardless of their validity. That's one of the major arguments used by those who not only want to get rid of the Second Amendment, but tear up the entire Constitution.

I’m not making a legal argument for someone who wants to ignore the unconstitutional NFA, just pointing out the history of it.

Legislators and attorneys would have to make that argument to modify or repeal the NFA.

[Konocti's Wigwam]

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer (IANAL) and I do not offer legal advice. You must take responsibility for your own firearms.

A funny thing about SBRs in the NFA

I’d also like alternatives to getting an SBR permit

The NFA and SBRs is a long-misunderstood law, which morphed into the GCA in 1968. I am not even allowed to own NFA items in California, pity the residents.

California has long held 2 step reasoning against the residents, this holds true for both safety and environment.

LRRPF52's full post is a pretty good explanation, but I wanted to lay this out with some pics so we can see and hopefully understand the law. And by all means,
let's have a discussion on this as it affects more people that just me.

This is a Grendel pistol. It has a 12" barrel, cheek weld on buffer tube and in this case a pistol grip and muzzle brake.
This is a legal configuration in California as long as you do not shoulder the weapon. This law is most likely about to
change, but it hasn't happened yet. This could be considered an SBR, such as the ATF, but according to their laws it
does not. This was NOT intended to shoulder. I shoot it off a bipod/tripod and cheek weld.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20207[/ATTACH]


These are AR firearms, the top is a 12" barrel pistol, very similar as the Grendel above, and the bottom is an AR rifle
in with a non-adjustable rear stock, but has a 16" barrel.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20209[/ATTACH]

And this is a 300 blackout pistol with a 7.5" barrel and a cheek weld.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20210[/ATTACH]

I have a question for anyone is it legal to have 5.56 for home defense

Absolutely. However, you must realize the consequences of doing so, you're basically firing projectiles through a home that are going close to 3x the speed of a handgun/subsonic round.

The way I categorize this is that,

1) I want to respect my family or others in my house.
2) I want to be safe and certainly respectful towards my neighbors should I need to fire.
3) I want to use the best tool for the job at hand.

This starts to narrow down my firearms. I should be clear that I don't like the 5.56, it just doesn't have enough powder to blow its own nose.
It is however fatal in many situations and would be at point blank, just that 300 blackout would fit into the same action and can shoot subsonic.
If we take noise out of the equation entirely, 300 blackout in subsonic is one of the best for home defense. The reason is that an AR pistol is
much more manageable in a home situation. Subsonic rounds give the best odds of a projectile not being able to penetrate a wall, where a
supersonic round can easily blow through walls and 2x4s.

Here are 2 AR firearms configured differently.

The top one has a 16" barrel, featureless stock, and should be considered a typical rifle.

Seen below is a featureless rifle on top and a non-pistol grip on the bottom.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20208[/ATTACH]

Once again, IANAL, and offer no legal advice here. I happen to use all of these firearms to hunt with.

KW