Shouldn't they have to prove why we shouldn't rather than us proving why we should?

[rocsteady]

In thinking about this pistol brace ban (that's trying desperately to crap all over the brief bit of freedom we've experienced in NJ in owning something with a barrel shorter than 16") it got me thinking to look at the OAL difference between a 16" barrel AR v the Troy with its 12.5". In the particular case I'm using, with both "stocks" as collapsed as possible, the difference between "legal" and potential felony is all of 3" with the Troy OAL of 30" v a Colt LE6920FBP1 with an OAL of 33".

With that three inches in mind, is there someplace in the NFA that says why a 30" firearm is illegal and a 33" one is not, other than just stating what seems to be an arbitrary number? Even taking barrel length on face value, is there something in law/rule/print that says why less than 16" is wrong and over 16" is right? In actual practice, moving around in vehicles or doing CQB, that couple inches can be noticeable and helpful from a tactical standpoint but this doesn't translate to making a criminal more or less criminal in any tangible, measurable way; does it?

I would think, from a legal standpoint, that in order for this rule/law to be able to stand up in court, the ATF would have to show why it exists with something like maybe some facts or even a fact? Possibly some statistics proving that that three inches has made a measurable difference in crimes being committed or not.

I know a decade or so ago, a rifle of any kind was used in less than 3% of all violent crimes, with ARs in particular being even less. I would imagine with the amount of crimes being committed today in cities like Chicago, DC, and Philadelphia with handguns, even with the occasional over-hyped killings with rifles (kept in the news cycle only if done by the "correct" demographic and victimizing the "correct" demographic), that percentage is probably not much different. Narrow it further to AR platforms or even to barrel length and any sort of measurable metric that the ATF could hope to use would probably show a number of crimes committed with an SBR to be such a tiny percentage as to be insignificant by comparison.

So back to my original question, shouldn't there, legally, need to be an actual reason stated for these firearms to be "illegal" somewhere that could be proved, disproved, argued against?

[Diamondback]

Wholeheartedly agreed; the Founders thought similarly IIRC.

Anytime someone demands I prove a negative, my immediate response is "okay, just as long as you prove something for me first. Prove YOU'RE not a wife beater and child molester." I go straight to that because ANYONE who plays prove-a-negative is acting in bad faith, poison to a well-informed debate and frankly SHOULD be seen on par to other forms of Walking Garbage like chomos.

[Disciple]

Forgotten Weapons on the history of "SBR"

[SteyrAUG]

Forgotten Weapons on the history of "SBR"

Thank you. Saved me some typing.

[rocsteady]

Thank you. Saved me some typing.

So there really isn't anything, am I getting it right from the video, it was pretty much just a sidelight that SBRs got on the naughty list?

[yoni]

The problem in the USA regarding ALL firearms laws is Congress is full of stupid people, that pass stupid laws.

I also believe the NRA was neck deep in crafting the NFA.

SBR/S and suppressors would be taken off the NFA, if Congress was full of smart people. I would go as far as to say that machine guns should come off also. If today I was in a gun fight with an untrained person with a full auto weapon, I know that I am going to go home because they will spray every where and most bullets will not even come close to me. Problem is down range. So I would be happy if they just repealed the cap on the full auto that are available to citizens to buy.