PDA

View Full Version : Constitutionality of Firearms Categories


GettoPhilosopher
06-09-2011, 9:45 PM
The thread about the Franklin Armory pistol becoming a "firearm" but not an "AOW" when equipped with a foregrip got me thinking. I know this is a long way off, and I know it's fairly abstract....but do any of the legal eagles here have an opinion on whether firearms categories *themselves* will ever be found unconstitutional?

I mean, we talk about the NFA and how repealing it is tantamount to asking for anal on the first date (god I love that quote), but even deeper than the NFA is the concept that there are discrete categories of weapons. A "pistol" is a blah blah blah, whereas a "shotgun" is a blah blah blah, and a "rifle" is a blah blah blah". In an odd sense, it still is similar to the definition of "Assault Weapon"; a fairly arbitrary categorization of various weapons.

Constitutionally, why can't a handgun be chambered in .410 or 20 gauge shotshell? Why can't a handgun have a stock or vertical grip? Constitutionally, how can you allow me a pistol with a 4 barrel, an AR pistol with up to an 11" barrel, but not an AR with a 14" barrel and a stock? What real justification is there for saying "the right to bear arms must be expressed within these narrow definitions"?

It's completely arbitrary. The Franklin Armory AR pistol is a short barreled rifle in all but name. So how can the Gov justify allowing theirs, but banning the exact same configuration + stock? It's just like our assault weapons ban, arbitrary categories that are so hard to define that there are many firearms falling in the cracks. The AWCA can't stop OLLs, fixed builds, featureless builds, etc. Conceal carrying an unloaded handgun without a permit is a crime, but conceal carrying an unloaded long rifle isn't, because a rifle isn't considered "able to be concealed upon the person". The .50 BMG ban doesn't apply to Ma Deuce M2HBs, because they don't have a stock. You can't have a SBS in CA, but you can have a Saiga 12 AOW....I could go on and on.


So what say you guys? Do you think there's hope that--at some point in the future--the RKBA will be freed of arbitrary categorization? Arms are arms, period. Firearms are firearms, period.

Quiet
06-09-2011, 9:51 PM
Federal laws:
Title 1 firearms = "handgun", "rifle", "shotgun", "other"
Title 2 firearms = AOW, DD, MG, NS, SBR, SBS

CA laws:
"handgun", "rifle", "shotgun", AOW, DD, MG, NS, SBR, SBS


Under Federal laws, the Franklin Armory XO26 is a Title 1 "other".
Under CA laws, the Franklin Armory XO26 is a "handgun".

safewaysecurity
06-09-2011, 9:55 PM
A short barrelled rifle shouldn't require a tax stamp... I mean it's a shortened rifle and if the argument is because it's concealable then why are handguns easier to obtain. It's not really logical. All it does is ruin the fun for krink lovers. lol.

GettoPhilosopher
06-09-2011, 10:01 PM
A short barrelled rifle shouldn't require a tax stamp... I mean it's a shortened rifle and if the argument is because it's concealable then why are handguns easier to obtain. It's not really logical. All it does is ruin the fun for krink lovers. lol.

That's my point. I can have a small concealable weapon with a rifled bore if it's a "handgun", but I cannot have a small concealable weapon with a rifled bore if it's a "rifle"....even if the "Handgun" and "Rifle" fire the exact same cartridge from the exact same receiver. See the difference between an AR pistol and a 16" AR, or between a Kriss Super V "pistol" and "rifle". If I can have a handgun chambered in 5.56 NATO, and a rifle chambered in 9mm, the "but long guns are more powerful, and thus should stay larger" argument is dead.


Federal laws:
Title 1 firearms = "handgun", "rifle", "shotgun", "other"
Title 2 firearms = AOW, DD, MG, NS, SBR, SBS

CA laws:
"handgun", "rifle", "shotgun", AOW, DD, MG, NS, SBR, SBS


Under Federal laws, the Franklin Armory XO26 is a Title 1 "other".
Under CA laws, the Franklin Armory XO26 is a "handgun".

...I wasn't confused about the FA XO26's status. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of a system that requires us to contort ourselves to conform to arbitrary classifications like "handgun" vs. "rifle" vs. "shotgun" vs. "other" vs. "AOW" vs. "DD" vs. "MG" vs. "SBR" vs. "SBS". I see no difference between that and having to contort our rifle configurations to fit CA's arbitrary idea of what's an "acceptable rifle" vs. an "assault weapon".

AJAX22
06-09-2011, 10:06 PM
Read the original debates on the 34 NFA in congress....

Originally handguns WERE going to be regulated and taxed just like SBS/SBR's they pulled the handgun regulation later on.

Ironically some douchebag actually asked to have SBR's added.... still not sure what that had to do with deer hunting (what he talked about) but whatever...

they also said that an outright prohibition on the creation or posession of machineguns by the federal government was outside of its powers and unconstitutional...

I want a time machine so I can ***** slap all the douchenozles in history

CHS
06-09-2011, 10:42 PM
One of my buddies over in England was complaining that his government REQUIRES a buttstock added to any pistols with a 7" barrel or longer.

Just to show the opposite side of the absurd argument.

But yes, I don't think "categories" can really stand, constitutionally. If you're on the receiving end of a 5.56 or a 12ga round, it doesn't matter what the barrel length was or whether or not the gun had a buttstock.

The Mossberg cruiser illustrates this sillyness perfectly:

1.) Mossberg cruiser in factory form is not a shotgun, and you must be 21yo to purchase.
2.) You may add a buttstock to a cruiser and then sell it to an 18yo.
3.) At 18yo you may buy a Mossberg shotgun and remove the buttstock, creating a cruiser.
4.) You may sell the above shotgun to another 18yo.

Clear as mud! :)

cineski
06-10-2011, 9:29 AM
There is no weapon that should require a tax stamp. That was a big step in America going back to a colony.

command_liner
06-10-2011, 10:11 AM
Weapons classification has no basis in the constitution. The current definitions are
arbitrary and capricious.

Read the Constitution, particularly that bit about Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
When Congress grants such a letter, a private person can use any weapons to
do the work of Congress. Historically this mean ships armed with the weapons
of the day, including crew-served weapons of destruction. In order for private
people to have such weapons, such weapons must be legal to own.

No part of the Constitution support the ideas of "sporting purpose" or '.51
caliber rifles are dangerous', or similar claptrap.

wash
06-10-2011, 10:41 AM
NFA classifications are not a battle worth fighting yet.

I think import restrictions and the sporting purposes crap might be something we can fight and win but there might be other more important battles for us to fight first.

We also have a thriving gun parts industry in the U.S. so import restrictions as stupid as they are and as nice as cheap parts kits and EBRs from overseas seems, it's not critical.

I think we will eventually get tax stamps on a shall issue basis and hopefully allow addition to the machine-gun registry for normal citizens so that prices return to reflect their actual value rather than just their scarcity.

Ubermcoupe
06-10-2011, 12:05 PM
Yes the classification criteria is obsurd.

...I think we will eventually get tax stamps on a shall issue basis and hopefully allow addition to the machine-gun registry for normal citizens ...

I hope for a similar day, however I doubt it will be anytime soon. I am not one of those whom has given up on everyting, especially with the great stides that have been made in the last several years (even this past week) but I cannot imagine a life in CA with all the legislation that must be challenged to allow for the "privleges" that are in "free" states. :(

Calguns continues to give me hope, which is why I stick around! :thumbsup:

Vipersx911
06-10-2011, 6:27 PM
NFA classifications are not a battle worth fighting yet.

I think import restrictions and the sporting purposes crap might be something we can fight and win but there might be other more important battles for us to fight first.

We also have a thriving gun parts industry in the U.S. so import restrictions as stupid as they are and as nice as cheap parts kits and EBRs from overseas seems, it's not critical.

I think we will eventually get tax stamps on a shall issue basis and hopefully allow addition to the machine-gun registry for normal citizens so that prices return to reflect their actual value rather than just their scarcity.

I agree with this statement, however annoying 922r is. The weapon constitutionality however is something that really doesnt make any sense to me either. The interesting point is also that the mossberg 500 is clearly a shotgun, however without the stock its classification does change. Everyone knows its a shotgun, everyone uses it for shotgun purposes, however on a 4473 it is considered other... Why this is the case doesnt make sense, you can read the exact wording on it, and it still doesnt make sense.