Skip to content

A few federal gun laws worth revising

I’ve been doing a bit of thinking about gun rights and gun laws in the past few weeks. I blame Michael Bane for getting it started with his thoughts about silencers, and it only escalated as I thought more about the Founders, and what I’ve interpreted of their intent if the Second Amendment. Below are some federal firearms laws, and how I’d like them amended.

Machine guns (NFA 1934, Hughes Amendment of FOPA 1986)
There is absolutely no reason people should be prosecuted and put in jail because a worn or malfunctioning firearm fires more than one shot per trigger pull… and yet people have gone to jail for this. Gun owners should be protected from abusive government agencies, and these cases are absurd examples of both bad law enforcement and bad judicial precedent. Write an exemption for what is clearly an abuse the people who wrote this law most likely never intended .

I’d also recommend the entirely punitive Hughes Amendment be stricken. As automatic weapons clearly meet the definition of the firearms of military/militia use, it is utterly absurd to ban the civilian ownership of arms the Founders clearly intended us to have.

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs) (NFA 1934)
Extremely practical and useful for any number of purposes because of their compact size, SBRs are particularly useful for close quarters combat, whether that be a military, law enforcement, or home defense. I’d like to see them removed from  NFA classification entirely, and sold over-the-counter as you would any other rifle.

As Mr. Bane and others have noted, the initial purpose of banning silencers was to prevent poaching during the Great Depression. Poaching isn’t the problem it once, was, but urban sprawl is. By removing suppressors from NFA, shooting ranges will be a bit quieter, which should also result in better communication, better safety, and of course, less hearing damage.

I’m sure you have your ideas on what federal gun laws could use some revising. Feel free to share them in the comments.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • Reddit
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Add to favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati

Posted in Rights.

Tagged with , .

4 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Cargosquid says

    Um…all of them? "shall not be infringed" shall be the whole of the law.

    Yeah, I know. But its nice to dream….

  2. aczarnowski says

    I've always liked the idea of a federal firearms rule that states:

    "No representative of government shall have access to any property denied citizens in the representative's jurisdiction."

    LEOs want short barrels and burst? No problem, as long as plumber joe can have them too. FBI sweeps into Waco with M2s and a Bradley? Yeah, no. That should be a pretty long lever against the idiocy.

  3. Lyle says

    None of them will need amended if they're repealed. See; that fixes them all, and with no need to hire a gaggle of lawyers and assistants to write new provisions. Any C average student in jr. high school could write the fix;
    "All federal gun laws are hereby repealed, and the BATFE is hereby disbanded."
    See? It'll be easy. Then we can get on with our lives.

  4. Stephen Jensen says

    Add SBS to the list with SBR. I see no point in limiting the length of a barrel on a firearm at all. Period.

    For example, lets take a look at a pistol. The Glock 19, which I own, love, and frequently use. This firearm has a barrel length of 4.02" and a grip length of about 3-3.5". I've fired 2,362 rounds over the course of 2 years, 3 months, 21 days.

    Why is this relevant?

    The length of the barrel on my Glock 19 is ~14" shorter than that of a minimum length legal shotgun barrel and ~12" shorter than the minimum length legal rifle barrel (ie no tax-stamp).

    Add to this that with my Glock 19 I have less to work with as far as controlling the weapon. One point of contact with the Glock vs four points of contact with a shotgun or rifle.

    Despite being a technically more dangerous weapon, I have had no dangerous encounters where I put my life or life of another person at risk (nor risk to bodily harm) because I consistently practice proper firearm handling techniques (please see four rules).

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.