Can you explain the logic behind the SBR situation?

[Guest mosinon]

Okay, I get why cutting a rifle down might be bad. Well kinda. I mean I don't really get it but I can see how it might be scary to some.

What I am confused about is how a deadly pistol can go from pistol to SBR by adding a stock.

I started wondering because of this thread: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-classifieds/29803-wts-wtt-sig-556-pistol-unfired.html

So, let us assume that going from rifle to pistol is the purest evil. Basically anyone who would do that likely spent the morning killing puppies and eating kittens. What is the problem with going from pistol to rifle (adding a stock?)

There is likely a good reason. But to my (admittedly weak) thinking going from rifle to pistol=bad (I guess) but going from pistol to rifle=nice.Or something. Rifles seem less deadly in the eyes of the law or something.

No matter, if you can enlighten me to the logic I'd appreciate it. I'm certain I am missing something.

[USMCJG]

Okay, I get why cutting a rifle down might be bad. Well kinda. I mean I don't really get it but I can see how it might be scary to some.

What I am confused about is how a deadly pistol can go from pistol to SBR by adding a stock.

I started wondering because of this thread: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-classifieds/29803-wts-wtt-sig-556-pistol-unfired.html

So, let us assume that going from rifle to pistol is the purest evil. Basically anyone who would do that likely spent the morning killing puppies and eating kittens. What is the problem with going from pistol to rifle (adding a stock?)

There is likely a good reason. But to my (admittedly weak) thinking going from rifle to pistol=bad (I guess) but going from pistol to rifle=nice.Or something. Rifles seem less deadly in the eyes of the law or something.

No matter, if you can enlighten me to the logic I'd appreciate it. I'm certain I am missing something.

I don't understand it either. Pistol to rifle or rifle to pistol, neither makes any sense to me really.

[Jasongar8]

The 16 inch rule has been in affect since 1934 (rimfire) and in 1960 the NFA was amended to include centerfire rifles. As far as the logic behind it, who knows what they were thinking?

[Oh Shoot]

It's all Eliot Ness' fault.

- OS

[DWARREN123]

It's an idiots idea!

[Guest coldblackwind]

Shorter barrel=easier to conceal, stock=more accuracy. The idea is that you take something like say an ar-15 (easy example) put a pistol upper on a rifle lower, now you have something you can conceal easily, and are able to fire more accurately. I don't agree with this mind, but I see what they were thinking when they came up with it.

[DaveTN]

There is no logic; it’s about money.

The government gets a bunch of tax money for doing nothing. Then there is a big industry built on the idea that many will pay ridiculous amounts of money to obtain items simply because they are illegal for the average citizen to own.

The government doesn’t want you in prison: they just want you to pay your taxes.

[KahrMan]

I agree with Dave on this one. If they were really worried about something being easier to conceal and more accurate then they would just outright ban it. Instead of banning them they just make you pay more to own one. Seems like it is just about the money.

[Guest H0TSH0T]

i just think that they don't want anyone to be carrying a snub-nosed 50cal, as for every thing else, this is to small or needs to be this big, derives from penis envy, seriously if it were about the money they could just print more....

[Mark@Sea]

The "logic" behind it was this: Originally the NFA included pistols (Yep, they wanted to treat them the same as full autos), and Congress wanted to make it difficult/illegal to simply cut a rifle down to a pistol length barrel. The "pistols" part was tossed out in the drafting stage, as Congress didn't want to deal with the tar and feathers thing. The language making it illegal to cut down a rifle to a pistol-length barrel remained, however.