Writing our Senators and Representatives about SBR's

[btq96r]

While I'm sure something like this has been done by other citizens or gun rights groups, it's been too long since I exercised my prerogative to write my Senators and Congressman.  The bottom line is I think the current definition of an SBR is outdated.  I plan to make an argument that so long as the weapon is over 26" under the current law, it shouldn't be considered under Title II/Class 3 regardless of barrel length.  Here is what I have drafted and plan to send to all three of my elected officials in the Congress.  Please let me know your thoughts, more eyes than mine are always good.

 

 

Dear

 

                My name is _________.  I reside in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and am writing you today with a request that you respectfully consider submitting legislation amending the National Firearms Act to account for the developments in firearms manufacture and use.  In particular, I am seeking your support regarding the part about short-barreled rifles (SBR). 

 

                The law, as it currently stands, defines an SBR as a Title II weapon as “any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position”.   I ask why the distinction of a 16” or less barrel matter does if the overall length is in excess of 26”.  There are many SBR’s in use that have a barrel under 16”, but would meet the requirement of an overall length of 26” -even with a collapsible butstock in the fully collapsed position- ensuring that the rifle is still of a significant enough size to prohibit easy concealment by those with criminal intent. 

 

                These restrictions, developed when the law was passed in 1934, fail to account for modern firearms design and use.  A rifle with a barrel with a length between 10”-16”, but over 26” of total length, has become popular with shooting enthusiasts and is recognized as an appropriate weapon for home defense.  So long as the overall length of the weapon remains at the established length of 26”, why should the length of the barrel- which only directly impacts the ballistics of a round fired- matter in the determination of a Title II weapon?

 

                Another consideration is the rise of SBR’s being used for police and military purposes.  I fully believe that our founding fathers would want the population to have the individual weapons currently used by any government agency available for civilian purchase. 

 

                Changing the definition of an SBR to remove these popular firearms as such would relieve citizens of an often burdensome requirement to register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  Currently the processing time for receiving the “tax stamp” can be in excess of six months.  And that is if a local chief law enforcement officer is required to sign off on the paperwork without a legitimate reason not to present.

 

                I therefore, humbly ask that you to consider introducing legislation to amend the National Firearms Act and change the definition of a Short Barreled Rifle, removing any weapon with an overall length of 26” as a Title II weapon regardless of barrel length.  Nothing would prohibit states who wish to enact their own laws prohibiting SBR’s from doing so, or continuing to do so once the Federal law regarding them is changed.  It would simply be an update to an 80 year old law that incorporates modern firearms design and use.

 

                Thank you for your time and consideration of my request, and your representation of the State of Tennessee in the United States Congress.  I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with your or any member of your staff and look forward to your response to my request.

 

                Respectfully yours,

 

 

 

                ________________

Edited April 12, 2014 by btq96r

[itchytriggerfinger]

Looks good. The only thing I would comment on is the length of time to get a tax stamp.  I think the days of a six month wait is over, and in reality you're looking at 12 months.

[btq96r]

Looks good. The only thing I would comment on is the length of time to get a tax stamp.  I think the days of a six month wait is over, and in reality you're looking at 12 months.

 

I used six months since that is what the ATF still has on their website's FAQ on  processing times.  It would be harder for them to argue their own customer service goals since it's their official position. 

[TrickyNicky]

I think it's very well written. Personally I would amend or remove the 4th and 5th paragraph, mainly the 4th.

While I agree with the sentiment, you do an otherwise fine job of bringing logical data to the table everywhere else, bringing feelings and beliefs can soften the argument IMO. I would also not bring up the hassle of filing the paperwork, again it softens the argument.

Understand that if you were writing to have the NFA completely nullified I might think differently, but your righting a logic based letter regarding one specific issue and the issue does seem to be a legal redundancy that should have been cleared up a long time ago.


Other than that, awesome. Maybe I'll write a little letter of my own.

[btq96r]

I think it's very well written. Personally I would amend or remove the 4th and 5th paragraph, mainly the 4th.

While I agree with the sentiment, you do an otherwise fine job of bringing logical data to the table everywhere else, bringing feelings and beliefs can soften the argument IMO. I would also not bring up the hassle of filing the paperwork, again it softens the argument.

Understand that if you were writing to have the NFA completely nullified I might think differently, but your righting a logic based letter regarding one specific issue and the issue does seem to be a legal redundancy that should have been cleared up a long time ago.


Other than that, awesome. Maybe I'll write a little letter of my own.

 

I deliberately tried to keep it limited in scope and write it with some level of emotional detachment.  The only way to handle legislation like the NFA and GCA is to take it one section at a time. 

 

I'll definitely consider taking out para. 4 & 5.  I fully believe in what I wrote, but concur that they might not be the best points to compliment my main argument.

[Oh Shoot]

Add a reference to and include some pix of firearms like this one, which are legal without tax stamp, and do exactly the same thing as an SBR, as example of how silly the law is. Visual aids might prove helpful, especially to idiot CongressCritters.

 

 

- OS

Edited April 12, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[sigmtnman]

Ohshoot, I know you mean well, but I'd suggest taking gunlobbyist's advice from the knife thread:

 

 

Guys I would like you to think about the "law of unintended consequences" when sending videos to legislators. It's one thing to send a comparison video to a knife friendly legislator, it is entirely another to send it to one who is not knife friendly. Sending a video of just how fast our flippers and assisted openers are could have the opposite effect we want. I have seen this in other states where our opponents take videos or photos designed to educate legislators to our side who then use that same video to call for bans on flippers and assisted openers. Please remember that many legislators do not think the way we do, or don't think at all! Please be very judicious and cautious when communicating with these guys. 

 

In reality the best thing you can do is ask them to support the bills by bill number, as opposed to trying to make a case with a video that could actually cause us harm. 

 

We are so grateful for your participation but please consider what I am saying before you send videos to legislators.

 

Todd Rathner

Knife Rights, Director of Legislative Affiars

 

 

We don't want pistol's to be made illegal while trying to legalize SBRs.

Edited April 12, 2014 by sigmtnman

[btq96r]

sigmtnman has the right of it on the visual aid concept, IMO.  I would rather show off an SBR with, say a 10.3" barrel, side by side with a rifle that has a 16" barrel, both with the buttstocks extended to show how small the difference is rather than use an AR pistol for the same purpose. 

 

I'm also not unconvinced that the ATF won't realize what they did by ruling a shoulder brace on an AR pistol does not make it an SBR.  Rescinding a legal opinion is easy enough if the powers that be tell the legal department to make it happen.  Leaving that as a separate issue seems to be the proper play here.

Edited April 12, 2014 by btq96r

[Oh Shoot]

Thought about it off an on since SignalMtn posted, and I've now come to a definite conclusion -- I don't know.

 

But y'all may well be right, possibly dissuade more than persuade, not to mention perhaps poking the bear too.

 

Suggestion officially retracted. ;)

 

- OS

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

NFA bans on SBRs and suppressors...what exactly is the government afraid of? And should WE be concerned that they are afraid?

[Oh Shoot]

NFA bans on SBRs and suppressors...what exactly is the government afraid of? And should WE be concerned that they are afraid?

 

All done in 1934 because of gangland violence during the Prohibition Era. Once again, many thanks to Chicago for leading the way.

 

- OS

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1137726" timestamp="1397324160"]All done in 1934 because of gangland violence during the Prohibition Era. Once again, many thanks to Chicago for leading the way. - OS[/quote] Also (and more importantly) it helped keep a bunch of revenuers employed who weren't needed to chase after bootleggers anymore.

[btq96r]

Okay...version 1.1 for review.  I deleted the non technical paragraphs and shuffled the wording of some of the others to make a more sequenced argument. 

 

 

Dear

 

                My name is _________.  I reside in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and am writing to respectfully request that you consider submitting legislation amending the National Firearms Act to account for developments in firearms manufacture and use.  Specifically, I am seeking your support to re-define what a short-barreled rifle (SBR) is.

 

                The law, as it currently stands, defines an SBR, a Title II weapon under the National Firearms Act, as “any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position”.  These restrictions, developed when the law was passed in 1934, fail to account for modern firearms design and use. 

 

                There are firearms of current design in use, classified as SBR’s, that while having a barrel under 16”, would meet the requirement of an overall length of 26”- even with a collapsible buttstock in the fully collapsed position.  These firearms have become popular with shooting enthusiasts and are recognized as an appropriate weapon for home defense.  As long the overall length of the weapon remains in excess of the established length of 26”- ensuring that the rifle is still of a significant enough size to prohibit easy concealment by those with criminal intent- why should the length of the barrel, which only directly impacts the ballistics of a round fired, matter in the determination of what comprises a Title II weapon?

 

                I therefore, humbly ask that you to consider introducing legislation to amend the National Firearms Act and change the definition of a Short Barreled Rifle, removing any weapon with an overall length of 26” or greater from being classified as a Title II weapon under the National Firearms Act.  Nothing in such a change would prohibit states who wish to enact or retain their own laws prohibiting firearms with barrels of less than 16” from doing so.  It would simply be an update to an 80 year old federal law to incorporate modern firearms design and use.

 

                I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with your or any member of your staff and look forward to your response to my request.  Thank you for your time in considering my request and your service in the United States Congress.

 

               

 

                Respectfully yours,

 

 

 

                ________________

Edited April 12, 2014 by btq96r

[Jamie Jackson]

btq;

 

Thanks for the nudge.

 

I used your letter as a template and wrote my Congressman.

 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

Even though I feel at greatest chance for meaningful change is at the local and State level, there are certainly Federal restrictions that simply need to be done away with...this is one of them.

[btq96r]

I used your letter as a template and wrote my Congressman.

 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

 

Glad the letter helped.  I have no issues with people using what I posted (I wouldn't put it in the open if I did), but I'm still not done tweaking it for my use. 

 

I had a doh! moment in the gym earlier when I realized, if you eliminate the distinction of barrel length in the law, the designation short-barreled rifle will need to be replaced with something else.  It's hard to sneak something under the radar politically when you have to change a term, so I'll have to help think of something that would fit but still denote some measure of control for the .gov to control weapons less than 26" overall.

[RichardR]

I'd like to see the whole NFA be repealed, it is just another example of unConstitutional prohibitionist piece of "victimless crimes" legislation, passed only because bedwetters had enough votes to pass it.

Granted criminals like Machinegun Kelly, Babyface Nelson, Bonney & Clyde, etc were murderous villians, but their bodycount(s) probably would not have changed one single bit just because another set of laws were added to "the books" making their murderous, criminal rampages even more illegal than they already were.

[btq96r]

I'd like to see the whole NFA be repealed, it is just another example of unConstitutional prohibitionist piece of "victimless crimes" legislation, passed only because bedwetters had enough votes to pass it.

Granted criminals like Machinegun Kelly, Babyface Nelson, Bonney & Clyde, etc were murderous villians, but their bodycount(s) probably would not have changed one single bit just because another set of laws were added to "the books" making their murderous, criminal rampages even more illegal than they already were.

 

America isn't the kind of place where you repeal legislation that's on the books.  The NFA as a whole package can't get taken down in one felt swoop.  The only example of a repealing a bad idea that government had was prohibition.  That one is a category of it's own because it involved Constitutional amendments and quite possibly the stupidest and most unenforceable idea of all time.  Legislation that is brought in under the commerce or necessary and proper clauses tends to stick around in perpetuity.  The only group that seems to be the exception to the rule are the banks. 

 

As for what's in the law now, you can only hope to tweak or mold it, not get rid of it completely.  I wish that all legislation had sunset provisions like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had a 10-year one.  That way it forces politicians to be directly accountable for laws and be on record as voting for or against it instead of just leaving them sit on the books and them telling us how they would vote if it ever came up when they know full well it won't..

 

Another thing to remember is that politicians- especially in Washington- are the same beast, with just minor differences.  Think about what was happening around the world back then.  The Soviet Union, Germany, Italy...all countries with a large population that were ravaged by economic disaster, leading them to fall into governance by socialist/fascist regimes.  America was dealing with similar social problems that could have resulted in a populist uprising just like those countries.  American politicians from both of the two big parties probably enacted the NFA to protect against an armed population wanting their ouster as much as the other reasons given (crime fighting, employ former prohibition enforcers).  I can very well believe the only people they wanted to see carrying a Tommy Gun were police officers and federal troops during those dangerous times.

 

I'm working on v1.3.  I settled on the new term Short-Length Rifle (SLR) to replace SBR since I hope to have the barrel length eliminated as a metric.  I also need to go through the U.S. Code to make sure I'm quoting correctly NFA or GCA text correctly.

Edited April 12, 2014 by btq96r

[Hershmeister]

Incrementalism is something politicians like as it keeps them from fully committing to a position. The left uses it the time - why not gun owners? Why not also ask that SBR definition be changes from 16" to 14.5" since that is the length of the modern US military's rifle. The military chose that length for a variety of reasons, all of which are equally applicable to the civilian gun owner. Any reasonable person would agree that it doesn't make a difference in terms of concealment, which is the alleged purpose of a law for sbr's. It would reduce the burden on the feds to process nfa applications and increase their processing time for the remaindet

[.357SIG]

Add a reference to and include some pix of firearms like this one, which are legal without tax stamp, and do exactly the same thing as an SBR, as example of how silly the law is. Visual aids might prove helpful, especially to idiot CongressCritters.

 

 

- OS

Would the forward pistol grip not make this an SBR and not a pistol?

[nightrunner]

Would the forward pistol grip not make this an SBR and not a pistol?

Its not a pistol. Its over 26" long and therefore a "firearm"

[.357SIG]

Its not a pistol. Its over 26" long and therefore a "firearm"

Thanks for the clarification. I knew OS was well informed on the subject and figured I was wrong?

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks for the clarification. I knew OS was well informed on the subject and figured I was wrong?

 

All about that heater at:

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/75662-evolution-of-my-firearm/

 

- OS

[.357SIG]

All about that heater at:

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/75662-evolution-of-my-firearm/

 

- OS

 

Did you have to show me that? Now I REALLY want one!

 

Thanks for the info