Why is it ok (in the US) to have a concealed handgun but sawed off shotguns and SBRs are so regulated because of fear for concealment? Seems kind of retarded.
Why is it ok (in the US) to have a concealed handgun but sawed off shotguns and SBRs are so regulated because of fear for concealment?
The same kind of fear mongering that drives the "high-capacity magazine" bans is what drove the sawed-off shotgun and SBR bans in 1934. It does not have to logically consistent with people who think like this, but rather just that it feels correct enough for them to think it ok
Handguns were in the original NFA draft
This. We'll see how much longer sbrs last.
Not to be a doomer but I don't expect we'll see the NFA modified in our favor anytime soon. Only real chance we got is if a brace related court case causes SBRs to get removed as well, but all I'm expecting is braced pistols will not be considered SBRs and that's it.
Who knows what lies ahead though, maybe things will work out in our favor.
The nightmare doesn't end when we "uncorrupt" the laws, the nightmare ends when the corrupt laws simply don't matter anymore.
That's the way I see it as well, the only way we'll see change is if people stop caring about it. It's just a question as to what that'll take, what will be the breaking point for the average gun owner to stop complying?
death by thousand cuts
enjoy your legal remaining single shot lr22 rifle in 2090
When the NFA was written handguns kind of sucked ass. You can go forward damn near a century and still see this, the federal trials that led to .40S&W existing happened because 9mm wouldn't reliably penetrate automobile glass. Things have changed but law is notoriously static.
Because the law banning SBRs and SBSs was supposed to be all about banning handguns actually, and the SBR and SBS bans were just to prevent people turning those guns into something concealable when handguns were banned.
Then they got rid of the part about banning handguns, and in true American government fashion we're stuck with a retarded law nearly a hundred years later still anyway.
You're looking for consistency and that's silly.
They'll ban anything, no matter how small, how strange, how limited, or how comparable to other things, any territory they gain is a win for them on their quest to ban it all. If they could ban guns from being painted orange they'd do it, they'd fight for it tooth and nail if they thought they'd win.
>Seems kind of retarded
That's the joke
Consistency was never the aim.
garden gnomes
Someone with a concealed rifle has a lot more firepower than someone with a concealed handgun, and rifles go through vests.
no
Dickhead politicians were watching 30s gangster movies as documentaries
Just like now but add 50 or so years
Back when that was done mafias were doing mafia shit and it had a purpose, still bullshit. They wanted to ban handguns that way too but it was too far of a reach.
Thing is once gun control is on the books it has historically been VERY unlikely to get removed no matter how asinine it seems or blatantly unconstitutional it is even with a trip to the courts. The other problem is there will always be assholes trying to pass more infringements and assholes who just flat don't give a shit what the courts say and ignore them with zero repercussions.
garden gnomes
Because the people who write the laws don't know shit about what they are talking about.
nice barrel shroud