Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Cleaning up the mess (SBR, SBS, AOW Part 3)

For reference, Part 1a (“Rifles, Shotguns, and Handguns, Oh My”), Part 1b (“Grown-up Toys"), Part 2 (“Where’s the crime? (SBR, SBS, AOW Part 2))”, and Part 3 (“Two Handguns, One Lawsuit (SBR, SBS, AOW Part 3)”).

The Packetman commented in the last post:

You've done anb excellent job of pointing out how ridiculous the ATF's interpretation of the laws are (not to mention the idiocy of the laws themselves).

These are the issues, IMHO, that the NRA should be attacking legislatively; the law is stupid, it makes no sense, it's open to mis-interpretation, and it needs to change or be done away with.

I would have worded that another way; that the laws are idiotic, and that ATF’s interpretation is (overly) harsh. The ATF is stuck with the unenviable job of converting a law passed by people who didn’t know better that was slapdash “repaired” to allow handguns to not be taxed as Any Other Weapon into workable regulation. That they have done so in a harsh and draconian manner is a black mark against them; but the laws themselves are the root cause of the idiocy. They are also unconstitutionally vague, as well as infringing on the right of self-defense recognized and guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

In a more perfect world, the 112th Congress would up and repeal the NFA ‘34, NFA ‘68, and the Hughes Amendment element of FOPA ‘86. We don’t live in that world. The 112th Congress is going to be full-time busy fixing up the idiocies of the 110th and 111th. And the number of people impacted by this is minimal compared to other excesses of previous Congresses and the ATF. I guess I could see this Congress doing a fix that basically deletes the Short-Barreled-Rifle clause and modifies Any Other Weapon to exempt weapons with rifled barrels. I don’t see Short-Barreled-Shotguns getting removed legislatively because of FUD about sawed-off shotguns(!!!!!). Nor do I see any Congress wiping out the difference between Rifles and Handguns, because of the 18-vs-21 issue. (Something else for the courts, incidentally). Nonetheless, this is something the NRA ought to be pushing,

2 comments:

  1. Passing any new laws will only lead us to more regulation. until we can repeal the current laws, and then change the ridiculous "sporting" clause and mentality, its an uphill battle, and I doubt until that sporting word is taken out, the NRA will not touch such a hot button item.

    Unfortunately, with our system as it is, congress-critters will only do what gets them reelected, not what is right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, the law I had in mind would strike the SBR and AOW clauses from the current law and basically leave the definitions as Shotgun, Short-Barreled Shotgun, and Other (rifle/handgun). It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be much better than where we are now.

    And the NRA isn't exactly shying away from controversy these days - Aren't they pushing (and calling it) Constitutional Carry in Wisconson?

    ReplyDelete

Please keep it civil