{"id":68154,"date":"2021-05-20T18:48:29","date_gmt":"2021-05-20T23:48:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=68154"},"modified":"2021-05-20T18:48:29","modified_gmt":"2021-05-20T23:48:29","slug":"68154","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=68154","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Now is the Time to Make the Case: Remove SBRs from the NFA<\/a><\/p>\n

As the Biden administration\u00a0gears up to pass fresh guidance<\/a>\u00a0on pistol stabilizing braces, I humbly suggest that this is precisely the time to get working on legislation to remove SBRs \u2014 short barreled rifles \u2014 from the purview of the 1934 National Firearms Act.<\/p>\n

Arguments and assertions from the DOJ \/ ATF \/ Biden administration related to pistol braces only strengthen the case that SBRs shouldn\u2019t be subject to special scrutiny as compared to rifles with 16-inch or longer barrels.<\/p>\n

In my comprehensive\u00a0\u201cHow Does ATF\u2019s Vague Pistol Brace Guidance Contradict Itself?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0article, I went section-by-section through the draft guidance document (which, to be sure, is going to be the model for whatever comes out of the Biden White House if it isn\u2019t simply used verbatim) and played angel\u2019s advocate, arguing why each and every section was and is wrong, vague, inconsistent, misleading, anti-factual, self-contradictory, and\/or just plain dishonest.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
The Biden administration is in the final stages of drafting a regulation on firearm accessories that can be used to make pistols more like rifles . . .<\/em><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

. . . The firearm accessory can make pistols more accurate and deadlier. It effectively transforms a pistol into a short-barreled rifle . . .<\/em><\/p>\n

Does your head also spin when you see the exact same people who have always banned or attempted to ban \u201cassault weapon\u201d features on the basis that they allow for \u201cspraying fire\u201d and \u201cfiring from the hip,\u201d and have banned \u201cSaturday Night Specials<\/a>\u201d in part due to their inherent inaccuracy now railing against pistol stabilizing braces for having exactly the opposite effect?<\/p>\n

I\u2019m sorry, but can y\u2019all please decide if accuracy is a good thing or a bad thing? I\u2019ll give you a hint: it\u2019s good.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

From Senator Dianne Feinstein\u2019s official\u00a0.gov website<\/a>, on a page about her proposed Assault Weapon Ban of 2013:<\/p>\n

A pistol grip makes it easier for a shooter to rapidly pull the trigger, facilitates firing from the hip and allows a shooter to quickly move the weapon from side to side to spray a wider range.<\/em><\/p>\n

The pistols that the Biden administration wants to keep braceless are, you know,\u00a0pistols<\/em>\u00a0and are equipped with, yes,\u00a0pistol grips<\/em>. Those same, scary pistol grips that Feinstein asserts facilitate firing from the hip and allow quickly moving the weapon from side to side.<\/p>\n

What I\u2019m hearing is that if, as the Biden administration and DOJ would have us believe, a pistol brace turns these pistols into rifles, which are fired from the shoulder, then they alleviate a major concern found in every passed and attempted federal and state regulation on \u201cassault weapons\u201d since 1994. Plus their additional 10-or-so inches added to the rear of the pistol creates a physical impediment to quickly moving the weapon from side to side.<\/p>\n

Score one for pistol braces, then. I expect we\u2019ll see AWB proponents advocating for braces, then? Intellectually consistent types as they are.<\/p>\n

From the\u00a0Giffords Law Center page<\/a>\u00a0on firearm \u201cDesign Safety Standards,\u201d the gun control group explains why \u201cjunk guns,\u201d AKA \u201cSaturday Night Specials,\u201d are so bad:<\/p>\n

. . . Experts criticized the low quality of these guns, which were poorly constructed, inaccurate, unreliable, and widely considered inappropriate for either personal protection or sporting purposes. The State of California responded to this public safety threat in 1999 by adopting safety standards for handguns . . .<\/em><\/p>\n

Yes, that\u2019s correct, in their pitch for \u201cgun safety,\u201d the Giffords Law Center believes that accuracy is critical for a firearm to have legitimate personal protection or sporting purposes. They laud the eight states with regulations related to handgun design and safety standards, most of which have either required testing and\/or a list of handguns approved for sale in that state.<\/p>\n

For instance, Maryland\u2019s roster of approved handguns takes into consideration ballistic accuracy as one of the factors for determining whether the gun is sufficiently safe and has legitimate utility for sporting, self protection, or law enforcement use.<\/p>\n

To be clear, these states\u00a0want<\/em>\u00a0accuracy, and the Giffords Law Center\u00a0wants<\/em>\u00a0the .gov to require it. After all, accuracy\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0safety. Accuracy is a precursor to providing discriminate application of force, as opposed to the \u201cspray and pray\u201d style indiscriminate fire that is (or was?) the bogeyman of the anti-gun crowd.<\/p>\n

The Truth is that firing a handgun proficiently and accurately is difficult. Especially a large one. A pistol stabilizing brace, through the stability provided by its additional point of contact, does, as the Biden admin suggests, make a pistol more accurate. This is a beneficial, safe, and moral thing, and even these very same people have made this perfectly clear over the last few decades.<\/p>\n

Whether used as designed \u2014 braced against one\u2019s forearm \u2014 or used to somehow make the pistol \u201cmore like a rifle\u201d as the DOJ is selling, accuracy is safety and to suggest otherwise is, to put it gently, disingenuous.<\/p>\n

You know what provides even more stability than a pistol stabilizing brace? A shoulder stock. If accuracy is good (it is) and safe (it is) and \u201cspraying fire from the hip\u201d is bad (sure, fine), then SBRs are better and safer and should be treated like any standard [title 1] firearm.<\/p>\n

But, alas, they are not. The SBR, the short barreled rifle, is subject to a $200 tax, a long (nine or more months) approval process, a full-on federal registration, and restrictive ownership and transportation laws. The SBR is treated as a uniquely dangerous weapon. And an SBR is precisely what Biden\u2019s DOJ says a brace-equipped pistol effectively can be due to its ability to be fired more accurately than without the brace.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately for the gun control crowd, any sort of data suggesting that pistol brace-equipped pistols\u00a0or<\/em>\u00a0SBRs are in any way uniquely dangerous simply doesn\u2019t exist. In fact, very much the opposite! We have solid data that these guns are uniquely\u00a0unlikely<\/em>\u00a0to be used in crime.<\/p>\n

With\u00a0at least<\/em>\u00a0six million pistol brace-equipped pistols in private hands, there have been two (2) known criminal acts committed with such a firearm over the last eight or more years. If you\u2019re aware of more please link it in the comments. TTAG has, to the best of my knowledge, seen two incidents. Out of, again, at minimum six million braced pistols in peoples\u2019 hands in the U.S.<\/p>\n

We have even better, more, official .gov data that show SBRs are not likely to be used for criminal purposes. State and federal crime data for decades has show that rifles\u00a0of all types<\/em>\u00a0are used in approximately\u00a0three percent of murders<\/a>\u00a0and that about\u00a01.3% of armed criminals<\/a>\u00a0are armed with any sort of rifle.<\/p>\n

Short barreled rifles, being a tiny little fraction of the larger rifles category (yet legally owned by\u00a0well over 400,000 Americans<\/a>\u00a0and only a hacksaw away from creation and use by any criminal), are patently\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0likely to be used for criminal purposes and the data very clearly bear this out.<\/p>\n

For those who like to point to other countries as enlightened examples of what the U.S. should do or consider, allow me to note that we are the only country I know of in the world \u2014 despite the vast majority of other \u201cWestern\u201d countries having stricter gun control laws \u2014 to regulate rifles based on barrel length. The 1934 NFA law that created these restrictions is antiquated, irrelevant, and proven to be unnecessary.<\/p>\n

Instead of further restricting braced pistols or adding braced pistols to the NFA, we should remove SBRs from it. It\u2019s possible, too. In December of 2019,\u00a0H.R. 5289<\/a>, which would have done just that, was introduced in the House. That bill was referred to multiple committees, and received 25 co-sponsors.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s keep pushing.\u00a0This<\/em>\u00a0is the permanent solution to ATF\u2019s continued rogue actions to undermine the firearm industry, gun ownership, and the Second Amendment writ large.<\/p>\n

Even if a remove-SBRs-from-the-NFA bill isn\u2019t viable until after the 2022 elections,\u00a0now<\/em>\u00a0is the time to hone our arguments, draft our bill, and drum up support. If 2022 goes our way, we need to have this bill already chambered and ready to fire.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Now is the Time to Make the Case: Remove SBRs from the NFA As the Biden administration\u00a0gears up to pass fresh guidance\u00a0on pistol stabilizing braces, I humbly suggest that this is precisely the time to get working on legislation to remove SBRs \u2014 short barreled rifles \u2014 from the purview of the 1934 National Firearms … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,5,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-68154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gun-schtuff","category-politics","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=68154"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":68155,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68154\/revisions\/68155"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=68154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=68154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=68154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}