PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on attacking SBR/SBS/OAL restrictions


Andy Taylor
03-23-2011, 4:32 PM
I had a thought. If OAL restrictions are in place, which they are, is that not descriminatory against people who are to small to use a conventionally sized shotgun or rifle?
Yes I am talking about little people, or whatever the current PC terminology is.

B Strong
03-23-2011, 5:13 PM
I had a thought. If OAL restrictions are in place, which they are, is that not descriminatory against people who are to small to use a conventionally sized shotgun or rifle?
Yes I am talking about little people, or whatever the current PC terminology is.

ADA lawsuit?

My swag is that there would be a chance of success of an action against manufacturers for not building appropriately sized firearms (auto's aren't covered by the ADA, so maybe not) but no chance of an action against the NFA.

PsychGuy274
03-23-2011, 6:15 PM
This is an incredibly interesting question.

I'd like to see what some of the 'right people' have to say about this. :43:

Andy Taylor
03-23-2011, 6:55 PM
ADA lawsuit?

My swag is that there would be a chance of success of an action against manufacturers for not building appropriately sized firearms (auto's aren't covered by the ADA, so maybe not) but no chance of an action against the NFA.

Car makers do not have to build such a car, but making mods to accomodate a small, or disabled person, on an existing car are legal. Making such mods to a rifle or shotgun are not.

redneckshootist
03-23-2011, 7:09 PM
I heard that Bonnie Parker actually use to cut down the guns she carried because she was a little person, she was 4ft 11in and that was part of the reason for the OAL length ban

socalblue
03-23-2011, 8:07 PM
Youth shotgun or M4 w/16" bbl fit the bill fine. Not going to go anywhere. Somewhere down the line a 14A EP action against CA for denying the right to own NFA devices (with proper Federal permits) might have a chance.

Connor P Price
03-23-2011, 10:36 PM
One of my shooting buddies is a little person. While he uses a shorter length of pull than I might, he can operate any number of regular firearms. The OAL restriction does not appear to be a limitation at all. Its a fun thought experiment, but in practical application its not actually necessary to make firearms accessible.

RomanDad
03-23-2011, 10:45 PM
Car makers do not have to build such a car, but making mods to accomodate a small, or disabled person, on an existing car are legal. Making such mods to a rifle or shotgun are not.

I think this is the interesting issue.


The NFA was written in a day and age where discrimination of ALL SORTS was not only legal, but codified.

The ADA didnt come along until 50+ years later. The NFA has certainly never been challenged in that context.

RomanDad
03-23-2011, 10:50 PM
One of my shooting buddies is a little person. While he uses a shorter length of pull than I might, he can operate any number of regular firearms. The OAL restriction does not appear to be a limitation at all. Its a fun thought experiment, but in practical application its not actually necessary to make firearms accessible.


Let me rewrite that sentence:

One of my business partners is a paraplegic. While he uses a wheel chair to get around, he's very fit and can navigate steps and get in and out of his vehicle without special parking places or ramps. The lack of a handicap stall and handicap friendly mirrors in the men's room does not appear to be a limitation at all. Its a fun thought experiment, but in practical application, if I don't make the office ADA compliant, I'm in violation of the ADA and can be forced to fix the problem, or be put out of business I don't.

Falconis
03-24-2011, 12:45 AM
Car makers do not have to build such a car, but making mods to accomodate a small, or disabled person, on an existing car are legal. Making such mods to a rifle or shotgun are not.

Problem is cars aren't banned nor are a lot of limitations on them for lack of a better term. A rifle or shotgun has to fit within certain dimensions or it's ruled illegal in California under most situations.

Although CVC's state what most vehicles require, they don't outright ban the modifications necesassary to accomadate disabled people. They'll allow pedal and steering wheel mods, this and that, so forth and so on. The second you make a rifle under the 30 inch (?) length, blamo, it's a felony.

It would be an interesting case study to see if the current firearms requirements for overall and barrel length would stand up to current scrutiny for the ADA.

But after reading the above post about the posters "little friend" (sorry I don't even know what the correct terminology is anymore), I kinda see the argument going down the toilet.

B Strong
03-24-2011, 7:47 AM
Interesting as an ADA lawsuit might be, it's a no-goer imo.

rolo
03-24-2011, 8:25 AM
But after reading the above post about the posters "little friend" (sorry I don't even know what the correct terminology is anymore), I kinda see the argument going down the toilet.

That's the great thing about the ADA, it doesn't matter if one or even most disabled people can do something, it only takes one person being discriminated against (especially by the government) to effect a change.

CHS
03-24-2011, 9:03 AM
A rifle or shotgun has to fit within certain dimensions or it's ruled illegal in California all fifty states under most situations.

The second you make a Semi-automatic, centerfire rifle under the 30 inch (?) length, blamo, it's a felony.


Fixed it for you.

CHS
03-24-2011, 9:06 AM
I think a lawsuit challenging some of the dimensional restrictions will really come down to the "arbitrary and capricious" language in Heller.

A "military" argument might be made, at which point we can win because the Colt M4 has a 14.5" barrel rather than a 16".

Plus, it's arbitrary and capricious that a Title 1 firearm without a buttstock can have as short or long a barrel as you want as long as the OAL is 26" or more, or it's a "handgun". But as soon as you add a buttstock you run into legal issues.

Why is a handgun with a 2" barrel legal and fine and you can stick it in your pocket in most states with a simple permit, but as soon as you install a buttstock it becomes a federal felony?

Crom
03-24-2011, 9:08 AM
Andy,

There will be a day when those laws are challenged but it wont be anytime soon. And I don't think it will be easy. We need to build precedent first. We probably need to win a few more supreme court cases. In the queue right now are about 8-9 right to carry cases coursing their way through the federal courts. The supreme court will probably take one of the cases and decide at most probably one or two questions.

Maybe next we'll probably have a case seeking to have a high court protect our rifles--especially our black/AK rifles. The California AWCA would be a great target to take down with such a lawsuit, I don't think it would be too difficult to do.

What I don't know is how common SBR / SBS were in history. Also, there has already been one supreme court case involving an SBS U.S. v. Miller, 1939 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html).

What I do know from reading some legal briefs is that the 2A typically protects arms that were common use at the time and for lawful purposes.


SOURCE (http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/Nordyke/saf.pdf)
B. Arms Prohibitions: The Common-Use Test

A similar categorical, non-balancing approach resolved the handgun
ban’s constitutionality. First, “arms” as used in the Second Amendment
are “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his
hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” Heller, 128 S. Ct.
at 2791 (citations omitted). Second, “the sorts of weapons protected
[by 2 the Second Amendment are] those ‘in common use at the time.’” Heller,
128 S. Ct. at 2817 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179
(1939)). “[T]he Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not
typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller,
128 S. Ct. at 2815-16.

“[A]ll firearms 2 constituted ‘arms.’” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2791
(citation omitted).

Using this two-step approach—first, is the object an “arm,” second,
would it be expected in common use by law-abiding people—the
handgun ban was easily resolved:

It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people
have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense
weapon . . . Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular
weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a
complete prohibition on their use is invalid.

Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2818. Again, the question was resolved with a
categorical common-use test, not with a standard of review.

bwiese
03-24-2011, 9:09 AM
There are some holes in NFA status being triggered by mere dimensional restrictions on guns.

It's puzzling, though, that many people would think this is an initial high-value target when we have some much else to do initially - especially here in CA!!

Let's fix AW, CCW & acquisition issues first before we move onward....

nicki
03-24-2011, 2:09 PM
The original NFA intended to tax handguns out of existence as well which explains why the SBR/SBS/OAL were included in the NFA as a way to prevent people from taking "common arms" and converting them into "concealable arms".

When the bill hit Congress, handguns were dropped because I guess they were too common.

The "Roosevelt Administration" probably would have went for all guns if they could have gotten away with it.

I strongly agree with Bill Weise that we need to hold off on any NFA suits till we start building new 2nd amendment case law on our side.

The truth is we need ONE more Supreme Court justice on our side who gets it.

Who knows, if another vacancy on the SCOTUS comes up, maybe Obama may nominate Chief Justice Stanley Kozinski from the 9th circuit . That would trully show he respects the 2nd amendment.

NFA cases will be hard ones in that we don't have public opinion on our side, and like it or not, public opinion does sway the court.

We are at least 5 years away from doing any NFA cases and that is if things go right.

Nicki

Falconis
03-25-2011, 4:44 PM
Fixed it for you.

thank you my good man :)

Falconis
03-25-2011, 4:48 PM
The original NFA intended to tax handguns out of existence as well which explains why the SBR/SBS/OAL were included in the NFA as a way to prevent people from taking "common arms" and converting them into "concealable arms".

When the bill hit Congress, handguns were dropped because I guess they were too common.

The "Roosevelt Administration" probably would have went for all guns if they could have gotten away with it.

I strongly agree with Bill Weise that we need to hold off on any NFA suits till we start building new 2nd amendment case law on our side.

The truth is we need ONE more Supreme Court justice on our side who gets it.

Who knows, if another vacancy on the SCOTUS comes up, maybe Obama may nominate Chief Justice Stanley Kozinski from the 9th circuit . That would trully show he respects the 2nd amendment.

NFA cases will be hard ones in that we don't have public opinion on our side, and like it or not, public opinion does sway the court.

We are at least 5 years away from doing any NFA cases and that is if things go right.
Nicki

Anyone want to start a betting pool on this one? :D

I doubt Obama will do anything for 2A rights except give lip service. His appointment of the new ATF guy is proof of that. I still say our best bet is to vote conservative everywhere we can for the next 4 presidential elections and hope both sotomeyer and kagan someone how end up being impeached. Hey a guy can dream right. I don't know what the current make up of SCOTUS is off the top of my head or the ages of the justices, but beyond that one has to think of all the lower federal judges that get appointed during the next year and a a half.