"They wanted to make this so most people could not afford it" is the exact reason I'm against most gun restrictions. Powerful and wealthy people having all of the firepower doesn't sound too constitutional to me.
$200 is expensive now, but it would be the equivalent of $6,000 then. The NFA was designed to keep all but the very rich from having the fun guns. Today it still generally prevents low and middle income individuals from getting them.
It’s so awful when you’re looking at realistically purchasing something full auto. The prices are insane as a normal working stiff and I shouldn’t have to pay a $200 extortion fee to get my rights from my government. Not to mention registering something with the government the 2nd amendment was created to help me defend myself from in the event they became tyrannical.
@@johnhenry3536 My point was that $200 in 1934 was cost prohibitive for all but the wealthy. Simply because the $200 stamp was not inflation adjusted over the years doesn't remove law's taint that was de-facto ban.
_"Asking permission to exercise a Right turns that Right into a privilege."_ *~Principle based off of Murdock v. Pennsylvania :: 319 U.S. 105 (1943)* Stay classy my friends.
@@82delta i am jealous of his hair. Mine used to be dark like that 40 years ago. Now they can see me from the international space station every time i take my hat off.
@@JW--dc8ri Part of our compensation should include the offending party paying all stamp taxes as restitution to the victims, adjusted for inflation. The rate of adjustment should be from the offending date (1934), to the present for every stamp tax demanded for people to exercise inalienable rights.
I was a Midway USA guy first , then Brownells. I use to think of Brownells as more specific parts. But I came to impasse with Midway USA when they caved to pressure especially with 80% kits and related items. It really burned my ass , when midway says they are supporters of the NRA and donate money from each purchase because of the customer. Now maybe I don’t know all the details , but that pissed me off. Now I am a Brownells customer first. Thank you Caleb my brother paratrooper!
Sorry using the wife's account... Same here. I remember my father had a thick numrich catalog in the garage back in the day. Brownells has been able to keep up with the evolving online community. We didn't used to really give it a second thought about gun laws, you just followed the law. Now, we kind of get that when you give anti-gunners an inch they take a mile. No more infringements.
The same can be said of full autos today. The law has made it all but impossible for the average person to own a full auto thanks to the Hughes amendment. If you happen to be made of money, and you can afford to pony up 35 to 50 grand+ for a legally transferable machine gun, you can own one...thanks Reagan.
@@nomad155 the founder of modern republicans was actually called southern dixiecrats who migrated from the democrat party. The Dixiecrats were among the first to force jime crowe anti gun laws which would say crazy things like no 4th amendment for black citizens and that private citizens were legally allowed to trespass inside their homes.
Yeppers, original intent of the NFA was for handguns to be "well-regulated" (says all infected by Aunty Anti's malarkey), 'cause of concealability I guess.
Because it has never made it to the supreme court since congress passed the law in 1934. The Feds will not allow a case to make it that far. The last one that tried was in 1938 and he died of suddenly just before his case was to be heard. Nothing since then has made it.
The reason for the fee was because they knew banning was unconstitutional, but they decided taxing the right was okay. Suppressors we’re included because they thought poachers were using them. I had hoped the election would have gone better and we could lobby our legislators to repeal the NFA.
Neither political party actually supports gun rights. May I remind you that the "bump stock ban" was a Trump/Republican initiative? We need to elect INDIVIDUALS that support the Second Amendment, regardless of political affiliation, and hold them accountable when they stab us in the back.
Yunis Isaac Mejia sentence 21 months in federal prison does not sound too free to me. It's a stupid comment rinse and recycle a million times by internet tough guys and keyboard warriors.
@@koala83r72 lmao that is pretty free. No being a slave 72 hours a week to barely pay the bills. Federal Prison is like a vacation, at least compared to state prisons.
Just a note here: a pinned and welded flash hidder muzzle device to an otherwise 14.5 barrel, that makes it at least 16 inches long, is NOT an SBR, i.e. SIG 516 Gen2 upper (pinned and welded by manufacturer)
Well said, Caleb. For now, we must live with the NFA. Knowing how best to serve our wants and needs within NFA restrictions is very good information to have.
But no information (as per usual) of the REASON the SBR/SBS Provision was added to begin with and how that premise/reason was removed to pass it leaving the short barrel long gun provisions by windfall making absolutely no sense. Give you a hint they were trying to defacto ban all concealable weapons…… and it was so people couldn’t just make those small concealable weapons (that we carry everyday in every state today) out of long guns to get around it…. Don’t worry cause no one with a following wants to educate, they’re gona add those small concealable weapons back to the NFA “in the original intent” like they’ve recently said because everyone wants to cling to the status quo instead of educating themselves and others and roll this stuff back.
Short Barreled Rifles were never part of the original draft legislation proposed by then Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings. It wasn’t until the incessant queries by Congressman Harold Knutson about worries of rifles being affected, did they even discuss rifles. No mention of rifles was in the original draft, but short barreled shotguns were specifically called out for restriction. Knutson claims to have been concerned about hunters back home, and wanted to make sure there were provisions to prevent hunting rifles from being regulated. AG Cummings kept assuring him there was no intent to address rifles. Knutson thought that making rifles and shotguns limited to, not 16” for shotguns as proposed by the AG, but 18” for extra credit would it be reasonable to keep the legislation from harming hunters. The final draft almost made it through without any provisions for rifles, but Knutson piped-in again to remind them of his 18” proposal for both, resulting in rifles and shotguns being restricted to 18” for the final bill. They also discussed the obvious unconstitutionality of the bill, but threw a wild attempt at getting it passed by claiming it was a tax instead of an outright ban. AG Cummings knew he was unlikely to get the NFA passed, but took a shot anyway. His main goal was to ban pistols through a $5 taxation and registration process, which was stricken from the bill after expert testimony from the NRA President at the time. The rifle barrel length restriction was inexplicably amended to 16", while leaving shotguns at 18” in the 1960s. NFA historians have been trying to discover why for many years through archival research, but I am not aware of any verifiable explanations to-date. During the 1934 hearings, any reasons for restricting suppressors were never discussed. We still don’t know why they were including in AG Cummings’ assault on the Bill of Rights. If these matters were taken before the Supreme Court, they could easily be dispensed with as 100% unconstitutional, since you can’t legally tax rights. The arbitrary restrictions on barrel lengths, types of weapons, and suppressors were never supported with factual data, and all were offensive to the Bill of Rights.
My quick tip is a law repundent the Constitution is void, which mean the NFA, GCA, Hughes and Brady should already be off the books and no longer enforced. Even more so now that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is on par with other Amendments like the First. So if it is right, than it cannot be taxed like religion, and voting, which is why we need to press even harder to get these laws repealed or found to be unconstitutional. (The sooner the better, since I have been about getting this done for well over 30 years.)
I had read that part of it being implemented was to try and curve the gangsters and their firearm violence. All it did was to make them acquire them illegally.
Don't forget that the gangsters of the era were stereotyped as all being Italian, Irish, and Jewish. Two of those groups were also guilty of being Catholic as well as still being considered immigrants. 1934 was also the peak era of the "clan-with-a-K" being openly involved with politics. Gun laws have never been about safety or crime prevention.
SBR is stupid for 2 reasons. 1st no such thing and is perfectly legal in Canada. 2nd you think they would prefer you had a stock than no stock because of conceal ability for say a 8 inch AR 15
Well there were no ARs in the 30s so a short barrel on a rifle that did not have a buffer tube could be made very short at the loss of accuracy. Hack the stock off and the barrel to just a couple of inches and you could hide the thing in a folded newspaper. Why they picked 16" for rifles and 18" for shot guns and not like 10" or some other number for both I cant say. So they are going off of old definitions before the AR was a thing. With the buffer tube it makes things interesting for an AR with the NFA as a pistol just cant have a stock or any attachments that would imply it is meant to be fired with more then one hand (of course no one fires a pistol with just one hand unless they have to either) There are plenty of other rifles that could be made as a pistol that would not have a buffer and would be even easier to conceal then an AR with just a buffer tube. But yes the NFA is stupid and should have also gone away when prohibition was removed. But, one was an amendment and the other was just a law that violated an amendment and was only ever actually challenged once until recently. (most cases never make it high enough in court to challenge the NFA out right)
Please forgive me as I am new to the AR platform. Nobody is still saying why it is being put in this category. Everybody just repeats the same thing, but what is the big deal of the short barrel? Is it for concealment reasons or is it better shooting or is it considered a modification I mean I don’t understand. Everybody just keeps repeating the same thing as far as a $200 tax stamp and the NFA but why did the NFA singled out what is considered a short barrel rifle other than just the way you hold it Again please forgive me as again I said I’m new to the AR platform and it just doesn’t compete with me. Why how many does it make it more deadly? Does it make it? I don’t understand.
They are actually less deadly as the bullet velocity goes down with shorter barrel lengths and are less accurate. I think the origins originally came from concealability, such as hiding a sawn-off shotgun in a trench coat or something. I don't think it was so much that these shorter length barrels made them more dangerous/deadly, but that it was an earlier attempt at an "assault weapons ban," making it too expensive to own these things since they could not legally just ban them all.
There is an extremely good video explaining your questions made by Forgotten Weapons channel. If you search for "Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US?" you'll find it right away. It'll explain everything very well.
who knows, maybe they'll realize that law abiding citizens HATE their bullshit... and those criminals they THINK they're fighting, don't give a damn what rules they have in place.
Glad you made this video. I try to get more people familiar with NFA items and even try to persuade them to start their own collection. Sadly to many don't want to jump through the hoops or have the Feds "register" a firearm to them.
The new Republican party will repeal the NFA. I will write the legislation myself. This unconstitutional garbage has had it's day and the ATF is going away as well. WHEN I get elected, they better start looking for new jobs.
For an SBR or suppressor, all of the hefty new regulations you have to follow make them not worth it and if they’re just going to arbitrarily make “pistols” illegal then I guess I’ll just never shoot them again.
forgot to mention rifle overall length less than 26 inches. measured from a fixed or removeable muzzle device all the way back to the stock and if it is a collapsible stock, you have to extend it to the furthest setting.
I'd like to see a comparison of 9mm through an 8" barrel vs a 16" barrel. Extra Credit: using the same firearm with a barrel takedown (ie: CryHavoc QRB).
The main thing to note about pistol caliber velocity in longer barrels is that it can help or hurt performance. Hollow points are designed to expand at certain velocities and can get unpredictable expansion when going past that velocity. That being said, when it comes to pistol calibers the longer barrel isn’t always the answer when trying to get the best performance from a variety of loads.
I'm becoming a tax stamp enthusiast at 5 right now.1 SBR currently so as to have what I want and not be in a Federal prison if it's used for the intended lawful purpose. Form1 eForms are currently running 90 days with form 4 being 180+ on eForms.
@@gifthorse3675 So you either pay no taxes and are just an eater or too ignorant to understand this is the system since 1934 long before that alphabet agency came to be.
I'm a Brit and can only admire this stuff on RU-vid in my lunch break ;) Is an SBR an "issue" requring special treatment because of potentially greater concealability? Thanks! [Later edit] After watching another video it seems that an AR pistol with a pistol brace is fine, so the issue seems not to be concealability. So back to zero in trying to understand why there is the requirement of a 200-dollar tax stamp and ATF permission for an SBR.
fair question. unfortunately there is no answer. the descriptions and definitions within the law are arbitrary. For example, a shotgun must have an 18 inch barrel whereas a rifle must have a 16 inch barrel. Affixing a butt stock makes a pistol into a rifle, however you are free to own a pistol in an elephant hunting caliber or a rifle in a pistol caliber, so it is neither about concealability nor lethality. It is a horrid, incongruous law made up by imbeciles who were unable to prosecute gangsters in the 1930s, so they created a law specifically targeting the favored weapons of gangsters in 1934. Now they could pull a gangster over for speeding or a busted tail light and hem him up on federal weapons charges by incidentally finding common guns of the time in the car.
What are you talking about?! $200 is ALOT of money! Ignore him ATF! ( Like you said, King Joe [Oops!... George] doesn't need the money and he certainly doesn't need to know! ) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!
SBR and SBS laws are some of the dumbest. They should be gone. I should be able to get long guns with 10 in barrel, pistols with stock, suppressor from the shelves, and machine guns without any damn tax stamp, stupid paperwork, and a year of waiting.
is it worth to SBR a pistol with brace, if pistol brace will be listed as a NFA? Have a Zenith Firearms Z-5RS SB that i haven't shot in years. Would it be better just to remove the brace.
The NFA needs to be abolished, they don't stop crime and they make no sense in the current modern world. I have NEVER understood how a shorter barrel or a collapsible stock makes a rifle more dangerous....
Any thoughts on the ATF trying to change the "rules" on arm braces for AR style rifles so that they're essentially classified as shoulder stocks and thus must be registered as NFA items?
What kind of question is that? Did you happen to miss the first minute and a half of video where he said the NFA is “unfortunate” and “would not exist if it was the United States of Caleb”....
This reclassification nonsense regarding pistol braces is not settled as of yet. All sides are posturing and I believe we will hear more before Christmas.
AR pistols are in common use and thus protected by the 2A. The MA vs Caetano decision is more than enough to win pistol brace litigations. The Bruen vs NYSRPA decision is even bigger. The Bruen decision is going to help more in other litigations.
And technically you are not supposed to register a single lower so you can put different uppers of different calibers on it either as the caliber is supposed to be marked on the receiver if it is not easily seen on the barrel, and you have to register the caliber when you apply for the stamp. Multi Cal is not a valid caliber. So while you could register a single lower and put a 300blk upper on that registered 5.56 lower if someone checks you on it ever then you would get in trouble.
