Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US?

utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/
/ forgottenweapons
www.floatplane.com/channel/For...
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenweapons.com
The simple truth is that short rifles and short shotguns were never a problem, and continue to not be a problem today. The 1934 National Firearms Act originally wanted to restrict handgun ownership, and the clauses relating to SBRs and SBSs were simply to close the loophole of a person cutting down a rifle or shotgun to get around a handgun prohibition. That handgun (effective) prohibition was removed before the legislation was passed, but the SBR/SBS parts were left in. And thus for 89 years we have has the ridiculous legal situation in which a handgun is fine, a long gun is fine, but something in between is prohibitively regulated.
One major change to the NFA came in 1968, when the minimum legal barrel length for rifles was dropped form 18 inches to 16 inches. Why? Because the government had already sold a quarter million M1 Carbines - with illegally-short barrels - to private citizens, thus rendering them all felons. Instead of trying to enforce a clearly irrational law, Congress reduced the barrel length stipulation.
With this issue once again coming to a head over pistol braces, it is time to finally solve the problem and end this nonsense. Short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns (and AOWs) should be removed from the NFA entirely. Their regulation is a waste of law enforcement's time and a massive bureaucratic burden on individual citizens, who are faced with felony convictions and 10 year prison sentences for utterly harmless actions.
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
6281 N. Oracle 36270
Tucson, AZ 85740

[@Zundfolge]

I've still never understood how a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison for not paying a $200 tax is not "cruel and unusual" or "excessive".

[@crwilliams4597]

That is a good point to make.

[@AJadedLizard]

All for a right the Constitution specifically, and explicitly, says "shall not be infringed." Imagine if someone proposed throwing priests or reporters in jail for not paying their 1st Amendment tax. Well...we'll probably get there eventually the way this is going now.

[@shinobi-no-bueno]

@@AJadedLizard shit I'd settle for throwing priests in jail for child rape at least

[@Roamingeast]

or how a tax on exercising a right is even still legal.

[@browning_hi_pwr]

We may think it's cruel and unusual but they don't seem to think so

[@swordsman1_messer]

You know this policy is seriously flawed when you get a guy who’s entire career is based upon firearm development history and research to make a video about the entire situation.

[@doctoruttley]

Yep 💯

[@michaelray4033]

Everybody gangster until the historians come out against you.

[@nobody8717]

With the Breuer case, Ian is probably more qualified to speak to the historical use in the US than any lawyer.

[@James_Bee]

@nobody8717 Any lawyer? Matt at Fudd Busters would disagree.

[@SCH292]

THE AFT is that one annoying kid back in the playground who changes the RULES every time when playing TAG! YOU'RE IT! "Stop running so fast!" "You can't leave the sandbox!". "You can sprint when I'm about to tag you!". "Stop climbing up the monkey bars!". "You have to stop when I'm about to tag you!".

[@saxmusicmail]

There is no better explanation of this entire SBR/SBS fiasco than this given by Ian. This video should be required viewing by Congress, and I am surprised it hasn't been presented in the committees concerned with this issue.

[@HTacianas]

It would be a terrible idea to show this to Congress - the first minute and a half would teach them that setting a prohibitively high tax on guns rather than banning them outright to get around the 2nd amendment already has a legal precedent...

[@tonybadaboni]

@@HTacianasthats a good idea though, if guns where expensive and ammunition was expensive then criminals would be less likely to shoot unnecessarily. Unlike citizens who although like going out to shoot or hunting would incentivize using ammunition for an emergency not an intimidation tactic or to be cool.

[@Howjadoo22]

​@@tonybadabonino, that's not a good idea, it's a horrible infringement on basic human rights.

[@shanekeene947]

​@@tonybadaboni...? Or it keeps it out of the hands of people who need it most. Those living in low income areas who are trying to do things by the books. Criminals can just steal guns and/or get shit underground for less.

[@cassivellaunushonestus4927]

@@tonybadaboni Yeah, another problem with your idea is a gun is no good to anyone if the person wielding it is not proficient with it. We all need that time on the range.

[@RueKake]

It's people like you, that actually know what they are talking about and have accurate knowledge of the history, that need to be the speakers for the gun community.

[@onpoint2292]

Unfortunately, the most attention-seeking people tend to be ambassadors for movements. And attention-seeking people aren't always the best informed.

[@RobinTheBot]

The NRA has done more damage to the cause of depoliticizing/normalizing this topic through its many lies, maneuvers, and lobbying than any leftist activist could ever dream of doing. It's basically permanently the sole domain of the US right wing now because even gun-loving leftists cannot support their approach... which means we're trying to protect a right at half strength! If they cared as much about gun rights as they did for manufacturers it could have been different...

[@bleedthebeat1]

It doesn’t help that the NRA is out there power grabbing and trying to enrich themselves instead of actually lobbying for gun rights. They’re too busy making gun rights a left vs right political football rather than advocating that all Americans should have the right to bear arms.

[@DS-nw4eq]

The Government wants to ensure that the police and military maintain its monopoly on power. The second amendment right to bear arms is inherently in conflict with the concept of sovereign power.

[@freshjnew]

Can you imagine being an atf agent in Ian's house? Imagine how much he'd explain things. He'd explain so much. The dog would have time to escape.

[@lostalone9320]

"Now, this full auto M16 is in fact a curio and relic... Let me show you the page of the list that its on..."

[@Kriss_L]

Uh, they shoot the dog upon arrival so no chance for escape.

[@s_t_r_a_y_e_d]

shush people will join the atf just for a free tour and engaging history lecture xD

[@me-memachine5272]

I really hate that alphabet soup-er's (ATF) shoot dogs, What is the most nasty way I can harm these people? asking for a friend.

[@joshuastenzel8101]

@@Kriss_Lthey don’t. Fire extinguishers are sprayed at aggressive dogs.

[@prycenewberg3976]

One reason I want to see the SBR rule die is that many handguns designed BEFORE the rule included the option to mount stocks (C96 Mauser being the most famous example) and I want to see that come back. There are a lot of powerful handguns out there today (500 S&W Magnum or the .50 AE Desert Eagle) that could benefit from an attachable (and, by extension, detachable) stock.

[@wolfeeee]

Why would the government want any gun to "benefit" though? All they ever do is tighten, not loosen regulations

[@prycenewberg3976]

@@wolfeeee I think you missed the point of my statement...

[@jbray8603]

Thank you Ian! Lets remove the barrel length restrictions from the NFA and redirect our federal enforcement efforts to deal with actual crimes that are harmful to our nation, rather than using these baseless, pointless, and meaningless restrictions as a basis for our government to attack (and kill) law-abiding citizens as they did at Ruby Ridge.

[@tf2lover105]

Thank you👍

[@ChaosTherum]

Forget that, let's repeal the NFA altogether it's all unconstitutional.

[@brrt3678]

@@ChaosTherum Article 4 Sec 3 Clause 1, use it. You people are unable to read the fucking constitution and have no right to be among other people in society. That isn't protected, A4S3C1 is a west Virginian maneuver. Please fucking remove yourself and make your own Gaza strip.

[@uni4rm]

You know what has always annoyed me about the whole SBR thing is that there is already a name for this. Carbine.

[@duggydugg3937]

kkel tek made one years ago.. smith & Wesson just came out with one

[@duggydugg3937]

i like byne vs bean

[@williamwinstrop3918]

Carbine encompasses not only barrel length but also cartridge size. SBR only refers to barrel length. The cool thing about English is we have very specific words to differentiate very small differences.

[@x-calibearusallc]

@@williamwinstrop3918 yeah. I converted my 300 BLK pistol to a 16” barrel with a carbine stock early last year. The other one I had was disassembled to the point that all that is left are the brace and the barrel.

[@Edoc-kc9mn]

The purpose of the dictator in the executive is limit law abiding gun owning citizens in protecting themselves it NOT to protect us from criminals. Unfortunately the president is lying to us.

[@PunchingCacti]

The ATF just admitted in their brace ruling that short barreled rifles are in common use. If 40 million people had braced ARs then 40 million people probably more have SBRs so SBRs are in common use.

[@dillonshirey8076]

Exactly they should know that making that many new felons overnight is a terrible thing like seriously imagine if that many new people had to be put in jails we would run out of jails for people who ACTUALLY DESERVE TO BE INCARCERATED!!!!!! but then the government would also try to screw everyone else over by saying "we need to increase taxes to pay for these prisons" also like Ian mentioned that the ATF could actually get off their oppressive asses and actually do something about gun smuggling into Mexico and possibly even Canada I've heard

[@DRAG0N1012]

Per bruen any and all laws or rules regarding 2a must have a historical basis it must be an analog at the time of the founding so around 1791 there are no laws. So these are most definitely unconstitutional

[@Courageous_Lion]

@@DRAG0N1012 That's because they understood explicitly what SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED meant. But our modern genius "judges", "legislatures" and "law enforcement" are just not that bright. It's just too hard to figure those four words out.

[@emu314159]

Pretty much the only people who use braces are either disabled slightly, or hunters/competition shooters (if that's allowed in some category.) If you're a nutcase POS going to shoot up a place, you carry a duffle or backpack, and have handguns and rifles with folding stocks (that can absolutely have the legal 16+ in barrel.) This bullshit is such a waste of time and money.

[@davidwhi2703]

I consider myself pretty far left I would say the vast majority of people with similar beliefs do not oppose gun ownership or these ridiculous restrictions.

[@sithassassinstl7864]

The problem is this is no longer a question of Constitutionality. The people who support these bans and restrictions have openly admitted for decades that they don't believe the 2nd Amendment should exist to begin with. They argue in bad faith and will never change their opinion to begin with.

[@jamesrussell5196]

Hey I’ve come around. Mostly because weird nazi kids freak me out.

[@SamKramer]

Moreover, the incomprehensible spiderweb of senseless and unconstitutional laws on the matter serve a very important purpose in making EVERYONE a felon, and leaving the DOJ free to choose who they want to imprison.

[@sirrivet9557]

I wish democrats would realize that gun control is not a wedge issue at all for most moderate liberals but it is a wedge issue for moderate conservatives. It sucks that the only people who care about my basic human rights also want to take away the way to defend them.

[@jarlbalgruufthegreater1758]

When the 2nd amendment was written, they used muskets. Its a joke

[@jarlbalgruufthegreater1758]

​@@sirrivet9557owning firearm is not a basic human right period. Get a licence, then you can own and use the weapon. Just like a car or anything you can kill masses with. (Knife argument doesent work)

[@randallbarrick1192]

I've owned NFA items since 1988, and while I was, of course, aware of the 18" shotgun and 16" rifle law, I had no idea the about the reasons/history behind the difference. While I was also aware of the removal of handguns from the '34 law, before it passed, I had no idea that SBRs & SBSs were in the law solely because it was feared that rifles & shotguns would easily be "sawed off" into "handguns". As always, thank you Ian for your very informative videos.

[@carsonhunt4642]

It’s essentially why everyone hated trump for banning bump stocks. Give an inch they take a mile. That’s what happened with sbrs.. they wanted pistols banned and instead compromised for sbrs. That’s basically how all these infringements keep happening, especially in strict states. They just keep moving it further and further.

[@asd-km2hf]

How long was the average wait time in 1988?

[@randallbarrick1192]

My first three NFA items, in 1988, took 30 days for approval. And, believe it or not, NFA branch sent me a letter noting that they received my application, and then, sent me a letter noting that I was approved. The approval notification letter began with, "CONGRATULATIONS"!!! Man, how times have changed.@@asd-km2hf

[@dickdastardly4236]

"Wow, I sure like this pistol. I wish I could make it bigger and less concealable by putting a stock on it." "No, that's illegal. You have to keep it small enough to fit in your pocket." "Ok... can I make this rifle smaller?" "No. It will be too small and concealable." "So, I can't make a pistol bigger or a rifle smaller for exactly the opposite reasons?" "It's best you just stop thinking about it."

[@aussiebloke609]

I'd be laughing if it weren't so accurate. 👍

[@cobensalazar5492]

This actually helped point out the absurdity of the situation to me even more so now.

[@dickdastardly4236]

@@Joe-hu7di An SBR is literally less powerful than the same gun with a longer barrel. A 9mm rifle is going to be the most powerful version of a weapon in that caliber. A 9mm pistol will be the least powerful. Here's where it gets really dumb, you could make a pistol with a rifle length barrel which makes it more powerful and that's totally fine even if you you put a stock on it. But, if you make a rifle weaker by putting a pistol length barrel on it, that's not legal. A very easy way to explain it is that both ends of the spectrum are completely legal but the middle of that spectrum is somehow bad. Stock plus long barrel: fine Stock plus short barrel: felony No stock plus long barrel: fine No stock, short barrel: fine There is literally no way to logically defend this ruling.

[@Ray-yv7kn]

Not American here, but I think that last line applies not only to gun laws, or any kind of law for that matter.

[@shadow50011]

Putting a stock on an SBR isn't about making it less concealable. You then make it as controllable as a rifle but far more concealable.

[@mostlycensored7668]

"We don't want you to conceal it" "But I have a CCW, why do I need a tax?" "We don't know, but it's a felony if you make your weapon more precise and accurate" "So I can't use optics?" "They don't look scary enough yet"

[@RCZM64]

In Spain scopes were regulated for years. I heard some other European countries had restrictions. They tried again with the new rules that didn't get to pass a few years ago (under the "right wing" party government). But, during "the sickness lockdown" and without warning, they (left wing government) imposed other restrictions that didn't affect scopes (not too much, yet), but it did their use. This years there a new threat announced, sugar coated with some "gifts" to sport federations to make it more palatable to the noisy ones. No idea if they are going after scopes again (past restricting even more noght sight use), but they go after 22's (only competitive sport shooters could have them), for example.

[@SatoshiAR]

"Ya dont need no stinkin optic to shoot well son" -some Boomer probably

[@RCZM64]

@@SatoshiAR me, because of the astigmatism

[@g0h0gz70]

Optics have not yet evolved to become as deadly as the "forward grip".

[@joshgalt2022]

This guy needs to be brought in as a subject matter expert when this case is heard before the Supreme Court.

[@robmiller7201]

He is hardly an expert. His claims have no support in the NFA hearing testimony.

[@robmiller7201]

The Attorney General in NFA hearings asserted that short barreled shotguns were the most dangerous weapons.

[@robmiller7201]

Short barreled rifles were apparently added by accident when a blithering idiot congressman from Minnesota thought adding rifles would protect hunters from his state. The AG explained that leaving rifles out would protect them, but the moron insisted.

[@justnsaliga8518]

@@robmiller7201 thats because all these AG's and Directors of these 3 letter agencies. are pushing political agendas instead of pursueing the agencys role of law enforcment.

[@Dixielinemuzik]

​@@robmiller7201 and their evidence?

[@seanfoltz7645]

Just noticed something at the range - my bullpup is the same length or shorter than a 10" SBR along with AR15s with pistol braces, even though it has a 16" barrel. So if you want an SBR, just buy a bullpup instead as you get the same length or shorter AND a longer barrel, thus increasing accuracy, range and velocity.

[@DonovanFlamingusIII]

That may be, but bullpups are more often than not kinda dogshit, whether it’s bad triggers, reliability issues, or a mixture of the two. There’s really only one bullpup rifle I’d take (IWI Tavor) over those, but I’d definitely take the 20 inch barrel over a 16 in a bullpup.

[@Silentguy_]

You can get quite a few bullpups with 20” barrels that have a shorter overall length than that of a M4 Carbine (with stock fully extended) which has a 14.5” barrel. Increased velocity and accuracy in a more compact form, and the only sacrifice you make is a somewhat mushy trigger. Easy trade off IMO

[@Silentguy_]

@@DonovanFlamingusIIIpeople harp on the triggers of bullpups but will use praise striker fired pistols all day lmao.

[@riley2133]

That's really the reason bullpup rifles were created. The Steyr AUG (the first militarily successful bullpup assault rifle) has the same barrel length as an M16 while being just under 3 in. longer than an M4. Although as with most bullpups, the trigger sucks, but as @Silentguy_ said, people use striker-fired pistols that have equally poor triggers all day.

[@matthewdecoursey6524]

Aug Hbar shits all over the m4 can go from assault rifle to LMG form with a quick change heavy barrel and bigger mag, the famas has become a very accurate gun with a pretty decent trigger for a bullpup people just have obsessions with the m4 an outdated weapons platform hk makes a way better assault rifle hk416 not to mention. The m4 and its variants like the knights armament sr25 is horrible in desert combat they are do finicky but nobody talks about it only men who served and fought with that rifle will tell you they were tossing their m4 away and picking up ak47 off dead enemies because they'd run out of 5.56 so they could always find enemy ammunition too so they started carrying some aks as spare rifl was in Afghanistan and the Ukraine War the m4 is hated and never sees use its always an ak74m or some type of ok

[@grt49er]

I am a longtime fan of this show. As an engineer I just enjoy watching the good and bad designs. I don’t own any guns. This episode did not disappoint. No rhetoric. Just logic and reason.

[@Quintuplin12]

The thing is, anti-SBR legislators are absolutely anti-pistol as well. They're just taking the long way around to get there, because the direct route hasn't historically been successful. That they were able to quickly and easily criminalize a previously legal pistol subcategory means the strategy is proving incredibly effective.

[@antonkirilenko3116]

What the politicians actually want is to erase the 2nd amendment and ban the guns from civilian use. However, it's never gonna happen because there are more guns in civilian use than the population of the US, aka it's more than one gun per person across the whole country. Like, go ahead and try to take them all away.

[@jimdandy8119]

Exactly. Let's not pretend than the folks behind this wouldn't outlaw everything down to air rifles if they thought they could. I appreciate Ian's dialog here, but we should all know by now what the real intent it. An eventual restriction or ban on nearly every firearm. This is just a legal door they found cracked wide enough for them to stick their foot in.

[@AJadedLizard]

Yeah, make no mistake: they want *all* your guns. They're just starting with these.

[@nehcrum]

Well, yeah, as Ian explains in the video, the whole SBR-legislation was about handguns originally, just that someone managed to scratch out pistols in the final part that was adopted. It was always about restricting "everything but legitimate hunting and sporting guns", same as most other western nations that don't have a 2nd amendment that legislators cannot just simply ban completely. At the turn of the last century (1900) most western nations had free gun ownership, it was during the 20th century that they all started banning private ownership of guns except those used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes, which essentially meant manually operated rifles and a very slim selection of target pistols. In the USA, this was clearly attempted with several pieces of legislation, the gun control act that banned SBRs and SBSs is a very clear one. They are attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment and basically invalidate it, so that USA can have the same restriction on gun ownership as the rest of the world. And for the same reason. The government wants a monopoly on violence. The 2nd amendment is basically there to ensure the opposite of that.

[@Demmrir]

@@nehcrum The USG should have a monopoly on violence. I'd rather fewer people have the capacity to kill me than more. And as for resisting an unjust government, all our guns are meaningless when the government has drones that can kill you from out of sight and sound. Also the second amendment doesn't guarantee firearms for private citizens but the SCOTUS has deemed it so for decades because the SCOTUS has an extreme conservative lean.

[@antoniavie]

The 3 letter abbreviation is so common in the USA. I was showing an American friend a picture of a shortened PCC and his immediate response was, "that's an SBR". I had to explain to him that SBR is a USA thing and the rest of the world doesn't have that designation. For the rest of the world it's just another rifle.

[@pa_trickbrandt]

Absolutely ludacris what we've come to accept as normal and been forced to deal with

[@bidenisasnake9932]

@@pa_trickbrandt Land of the Free..?.!

[@pa_trickbrandt]

Home of the brave

[@p51mustang24]

Yeah, the NFA laws are just a really weird quirk of american law. We generally have the best gun laws in the world, except for where the NFA is involved. NFA is an anachronism, an artifact of the interwar era.

[@MyPointofPew]

Casual gun owners have no clue. Most cops do not either - as if you commit a crime with ANY gun, that's really all they care about. When I first started into guns I never even thought there would be a limitation on barrel length. Then someone mentioned it, I looked it up... and being a logical rational person was completely floored that this would ever even be a thing. And mind you, this was back when I wasn't completely into the 2A and what it really means - and still thought it was ridiculous.

[@paradoxofperfection8965]

They'll put someone in prison for 10 years for a pistol brace but they'll let a rapist go after 1-3 years. I don't understand how this country's laws are supposed to work.

[@zebraheem]

Good balanced conversation. You explained it clearly and respectfully. No colorful speech. Just a clear sensible conversation. Thank you for your contribution to a healthy conversation on personal defense devices.

[@wesphonic]

Yes, I agree, non-inflammatory and not sensational language.

[@GoofysBandit]

Fun Fact: In case you guys were wondering, right now the ATF has eight people who review, process, and approve Form 1 applications. There are 40 million pistol braces in the US. If everyone were to register their braces as SBRs, each of the eight ATF employee's would have to handle 5,000,000 applications a peice. If each ATF employee working 40 hours per week, spent a maximum amount of 1 minute on each application (which would be impossible) it would take the team 68.5 years to finish all the applications. Lmao

[@CMDR_Hadion]

All the while it is illegal for you to own (due to constructive possession) the property you have legally owned for years. At least if I understand the amnesty process correctly, I haven’t looked into it all that much.

[@LimestoneCube]

Huh, at $200 a tax stamp this would also net the ATF 8 billion dollars

[@DrRussian]

@@LimestoneCube Didn't they waive the fee as well?

[@jrow96]

8 people? Who?

[@jamomeara1894]

@@LimestoneCube why do you think they want it? $$$

[@cltnthecultist]

You know what’s so nice about Ian and Karl doing videos like this?(I know Karl wasn’t involved in this one but it also applies to him) I feel comfortable sending this video to even the most staunchly anti-gun members of my family. It’s not abrasive, it’s not in your face, it’s not shouting down at people who disagree. It is straightforward, intelligent, factual and engaging. He’s not talking shit about any political affiliations. He’s not using trite pro-gun rhetoric. He’s laying out the history of this current situation in such a way that makes it incredibly hard to argue against, without coming across as anything but polite, well-informed and eloquent. It would be fantastic if more pro-gun people could conduct themselves in this way. This doesn’t feel like yet another video targeted directly at people who already agree with the message. Bravo, Ian. If this is you getting political, I’d say you should do it more, because this was phenomenal.

[@chipsdubbo5.56]

I agree. I have a lot of liberal relatives and I always show them Ian's videos for a non abrasive, informative video

[@zachklopfleisch8501]

Ian's the guy news shows should interview to get "the other side of the story" instead of Rupert from the "Free Guns for Kindergartners" society.

[@justanothergunnerd8128]

Yes!

[@TheMoldyMenace]

I agree. You could call me "anti-gun" - well more like pro-regulation since I love guns(hence I am subscribed to Ian for near on a decade now) - but I totally agree with him here. Even though I would like to see "short barreled rifles" - among others - being harder to aquire, the regulatory laws concerning them are absured and ineffective.

[@Sophistry0001]

Nothing about anti gun rhetoric is intelligent and factual. It is entirely based on emotion, knee jerk reaction, and fear that stems from a lack of understanding.

[@King2Stone]

Thank you for spreading truth. The first thing they would recognize if they intended to "get guns off the street" is that criminals will not purchase a firearm legally, let alone register it with the government. In my opinion I feel we should be very weary and see this as proof of an ulterior motive rather than a mistake.

[@Eduardo_Espinoza]

& a financial mistake that gains them money.

[@themightykabool]

@@Eduardo_Espinoza registration-tax is bonus for the gov't. however, big gun lobby pays off gov't quite well. and professional private sellers also like having their sales private for a reason (note - these are 'legal' sale). and in turn purchase more supply which feeds the big gun lobby... so who's got the money?

[@thewolfofgod3908]

Plenty non criminals shooting up schools, Malls, shopping centers. Plenty men and women killing families. It’s a difficult social issue. But if feeling like a victim and being in lock step with FOX news is what matters then “their trying to take our guns”.

[@hotsingleplaguedoctorinarea]

Modt illegal guns were once legal and transported through state borders.

[@cococock2418]

@@hotsingleplaguedoctorinarea is that statement supposed to mean something lmao? Of course they were “once legal”, all guns are technically legal upon manufacture. Then either by theft , trafficking, or whatever other criminal act, they become illegal . Braindead leftist clown. His comment stated criminals won’t go through the process to get a gun legally. Which is a fact.

[@maximusnukeage]

Thanks for this! It is quite clear SBRs shouldn't be regulated under the NFA. What's the best way for citizens to lobby our legislators to make this change?

[@ilovehotdogs125790]

🔫

[@phuckyocouch9098]

​@@ilovehotdogs125790lol

[@davidkang9985]

Simply love how Ian casually shows two uber rare guns, Calico and Taiwanese T65, as examples of pistols and rifles

[@ironbunny4121]

calicos arent super rare. out of production and unusual, but theres a bunch floating around.

[@kilroy5166]

Neither of those are "Uber rare". Uncommon sure but not moon rock.

[@matts3579]

Only the Nazi belt buckle gun is "uber" rare. 😅

[@davidkang9985]

@@matts3579 lol

[@davidkang9985]

@@kilroy5166 well then that's a good news today if I decide to move to the US one day in the future. Gonna collect as many Taiwanese guns as possible:)

[@tangydiesel1886]

I've talked with some atf agents, and they pretty much share this sentiment. They feel like the government wants them to waste time playing tax man when they should be going after explosive devices and investigating stolen firearms.

[@immikeurnot]

But their main mission is supposed to be excise tax enforcement. That's why alcohol and tobacco got thrown in with firearms.

[@mattfleming86]

If they spent as much time chasing stolen guns as they do harassing folks that aren't criminals, I bet they could make an actual positive impact on violent crime.

[@jpnewman1688]

@@mattfleming86 nah.. they belong to the biggest gang.. 💯💯

[@sethtenrec]

@@mattfleming86 nope

[@xxxlonewolf49]

The ATF had ZERO Constitutional standing.

[@Turbonator49]

Idk about anybody else.. but I found you refreshing to listen to.. Omg No bs talk, but to the point in a smooth concise manner, you're not confused following.. I remember hearing you before.. Very well spoken "Hippie" Guy! Lol.. I can say that.. I'm a 74 yr old "Biker" Guy!! Lol.. Great Job Sir, you're Awesome!!

[@Swampytheroot]

Nice presentation. I'm glad I found your channel this evening.

[@Rogus_mtb]

In Russia, there was a similar subject this summer. It was possible to buy a shotgun from 18 years old (of course, with registration, etc.), but to buy a rifle - you have to own a shotgun for 5 years. About 8 years ago, weapons appeared, in which only part of the barrel was rifled - according to our laws, it was considered as a smoothbore and equated to shotguns. Of course, no increase in crime was happened. However, our idiots in the government decided that it was bad, and since last July this type of weapon equated to rifles. But still you can buy a fully smooth-bore gun with a thread at the end of the barrel and put special nozzle with rifling on it (and it will not be a felony). However, with this "correction" was added a lot of another shit, which really makes the life of weapons owners in Russia worse. Sorry for bad English)

[@socialtraflicnetwort]

Russian Gun Laws are WTF 😒

[@crwilliams4597]

That sucks dude. All these gun laws in every country should go. They do not save lives and it is obvious that this is solely about the governments wanting a monopoly on force.

[@j.l.stanford1754]

Твои по-англиский отлично 👍

[@socialtraflicnetwort]

@@crwilliams4597 yup, Government are evil

[@damianbigelow9511]

Better English than most Americans speak my friend. We have the same problem here in the US. A corrupt government has taken over and have gotten so big no 1 single person can do anything about it. I don't care what country your from but I will 100% stand behind your rights to freedom and that dose not sound free... You deserve better my friend! We all do!

[@shaypalmer2531]

ian should legitimately write a fully cited report on this, and send it to the court, or at least post it online with intent to spread public awareness

[@zachv1942]

Pretty sure he could get Amicus

[@2packrm781]

Hey, Shay P., what's another alternative(s) in the mean time.... because this needs to be "confronted" to "challenged" by people who can use this & take on this case & do it (some true) justice, but how or who or what...?

[@kirkmooneyham]

Yes, actually he should. It could be submitted as an amicus brief.

[@antsache]

Yeah, to be clear, there's no court involved in the rulemaking. The Department of Justice issued a new final rule following the required Notice and Comment process which has already passed. There's no direct procedural way for him to get involved with that - that would have been to participate in the now-ended comment process. There are going to be (looks like there's already at least one) lawsuits over this, though, so there's the potential to try to get involved later on.

[@alman5568]

Oh, the courts that ruled the 2020 election was totally legit? Those courts? Next thing you will say is that I should just vote harder.

[@thefoolishhiker3103]

This was a fantastic explanation. I never understood how the SBR restriction came about

[@shorebird9]

Thank you, Ian, for an as-usual informed historical analysis of firearm history. As a member of one of the covered parties of the injunctions, I have a decided opinion on the matter.

[@lunarthief6501]

Thank you for the history lesson. Logically I never understood why SBRs are restricted and pistols are not. Now I know.

[@Vorpal_Wit]

Same. It always seemed like an odd thing to regulate given the availability of hand-guns. That hand-guns were the original target of the legislation makes the presence of the SBR SBS categories suddenly make a little more sense, but unfortunately make me even more incensed at the whole NFA in general.

[@robmiller7201]

SBRs were added to the NFA because a moron congressman from Minnesota thought it would protect hunters from his state. The other Democrats unquestionably accepted it.

[@R045T_B33F]

It's videos like these that make me realize how great of a teacher Ian would be. He explains everything in such a simple and understandable yet engaging way that I could easily see him being my favorite history teacher

[@ferrisbueller9991]

Would be? He is already, we are the class.

[@jpnewman1688]

I bet he plays the stupid game of voting for his masters regularly.. 💯💯😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@russquarles1071]

he is my History of Firearms teacher

[@toomanyhobbies2011]

Ian would be 100% wasted in a high school classroom, with all the ill-behaved jerks in high school.

[@broughswenson651]

The key to him being great at what he does, is his passion for it. He loves what he does so he does it well by default.

[@gunsoutdoorsmilitary7816]

Like you thoguhts on the pistol brace issue :) Love your channel. Regards

[@cruisin682002]

GREAT Video Ian ! I liked it so much, I liked/ Subscribed... You do VERY WELL on Your Presentations and Subject Content !!

[@christinepearson5788]

This was hugely informative. 👏 I don't trust our legislators to do the right thing without presure from the public and courts; but removing SBR & SBS from the NFA would instantly clear up the problem. That there are 10 million to 40 million in circulation and they are not their own category on the FBI crime statistics and even lumped together with rifles, rifles total are used in less crimes than hands and feet shows they are not a problem

[@Former11BRAVO]

The entire NFA is unconstitutional as per SCOTUS's latest "plain text and historical" context.

[@Crazt]

I don't trust our legislators to do the right thing so long as Riggs decision is a thing. While you're all crying about a dumb pistol brace, NYS passed a toothless right to repair bill that basically admits you don't own shit.

[@mountedpatrolman]

Suppressors as well, and the Hughes Amendment needs to be killed.

[@kevinsullivan3448]

Your logic is sound, a shame Leftards and closet communists are only interested in ruling over you and don't care about your logic.

[@rudyschwab7709]

With 10 million to 40 million of these now called "short barrel rifles" in circulation, and no appreciable increase in short barrel rifle crimes, they still won't do anything to change the law. It's always been about the control, not the gun.

[@jasontolles5505]

You are spot on Ian. If this goes to the US courts you would be the perfect person to present the objective facts. Thank you my friend.

[@RADIOACTIVEBUNY]

Since when do objective facts matter? They’ll get away with what they can, and it’s more and more every year. Stop taking them at their word when they say they value “democracy” and “law” and all that shit. When they say they hate us, though, you can take that to the bank.

[@ElationProductions]

I'd chip in some money to send him there too.

[@arethouready]

I would spend some money to send him there

[@aaronjohnson8575]

This needs to happen tomorrow morning.

[@jerichofalls8236]

If anyone was wondering, $200 in 1934 when this was passed = $4,582.48 in 2023

[@First_name_youtube_doesnt_like]

As a white person I’m ashamed we’ve became so passive and didn’t immediately start danglings because of it

[@Swampytheroot]

A dear friend/fellow vet/motorcycle buddy/neighbor of mine texts me and says, "You need to save yourself a grand and register your pistols." No. No; I don't think so. He texts me again a few days ago, "I already got my SBRs approved. You need to act on this while it's free." No. That's not what I see happening. "Are you concerned they might come after you?" No: it's none of their business. "I would urge you to reconsider and take advantage of the free tax stamp." I don't think I will. It is none of the Feds business what I own.

[@brianjames8600]

THANK YOU for FINALLY being the FIRST GunTuber with a following to actually explain that PROPERLY!!! I’ve been saying this for years that gun tubers need to educate themselves and their viewers to rally a push to remove the short barrel long gun provision off the NFA instead of playing grey man in the status quo Talking about “save the braces” waiting for them to do exactly what they are doing now: laying out some upside down crap.

[@huwhitecavebeast1972]

The whole NFA and all gun laws following need to be abolished. Your wet noodle limp wristed compliance is the problem.

[@hooptiej]

we need Forgotten Weapons and Legal Eagle to team up for an epic overview

[@myon-]

@@hooptiej legal eagle leans left tbh

[@DiggingForFacts]

@@hooptiej What you need (or more particularly: who) is Matt Larosiere over on Fudd busters.

[@jessebarnett4205]

I didn’t watch this video but the SBR movement was started because of the Tommy Gun

[@philstocks7859]

Would you be willing to testify before Congress or the Supreme Court if this issue ever comes up before them? This is the most common sense and easily understood explanation of this issue I have ever heard. Great job. Thank you sir!!!

[@irvan36mm]

This video should be used by groups or entities that might bring this matter to the Supreme Court

[@HiroNguy]

Agreed. Ian just plain sounds more rational, informed, and articulate than 99% of polytricktians do these days. And that included the "R" brand of the Uniparty.

[@Khan.WrathOf]

Dont get it twisted. The people pushing these laws through don't care about what makes sense. They want you disarmed. Period. Point blank.

[@mrsa101]

thank you Ian. you constantly educate and enlighten.

[@kiault7263]

Thank you, that was very informative and well presented!

[@CaptainFAL]

This should be put in every upcoming legal case. Every judge should be required to watch this.

[@scelonferdi]

Isn't this something congressmen should watch? A judges task is to stick to the law, not make it. This is clearly an legislative not judicative issue, it pertains to wholly different step of the process.

[@CaptainFAL]

@@scelonferdi to be honest everyone who has anything to say, rule, interpret about our whack SBR laws should view this.

[@shadowstorm657]

The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. Sadly, the same goes for thinking. Many of the judges we have follow that. I would trust my toaster and bathtub to make the correct (lawful under the second admendment) choice before I would some judges.

[@nehcrum]

The mistake you're making is that you think that legislators (and activist judges) care about the 2nd amendment. They really dont. They don't like it. It's a hard limitation on their powers on what they are able to legislate. At the turn of the last century (1900) most western nations had free gun ownership, it was during the 20th century that they all started banning private ownership of guns except those used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes, which essentially meant manually operated rifles and a very slim selection of target pistols. In the USA, this was clearly attempted with several pieces of legislation, the gun control act that banned SBRs and SBSs is a very clear one. They are attempts to circumvent the 2nd amendment and basically invalidate it, so that USA can have the same restriction on gun ownership as the rest of the world. And for the same reason. The government wants a monopoly on violence. The 2nd amendment is basically there to ensure the opposite of that.

[@reliantncc1864]

The problem with judges was never their ignorance (not that there aren't ignorant judges). The problem is that many of them are ideologically possessed. Giving them more information just means they'd have to come up with even more convoluted and insane legal justifications to rule the way they always intended to. Anti-gun judges will always be anti-gun because they're anti-American. You can't train them out of it.

[@RottSkagg]

Thank you Ian. I love how you can take a political topic, speak of the actual history, and express an opinion in such a clean professional manner.

[@kalasmournrex1470]

I prefer to take a page from the commie activist handbook. "My human rights are not political".

[@ryanluna7322]

wasnt just about the criminal stuff tho, they wanted to avoid assassinations and military coups or takeovers funded by other nations, kinda why anything concealable was the initial intent, and machine guns ect, and as always they hate cheap firearms, puts the poor on equal footing with the rich + they dont mind causing justification to charge people more for less, feel allot of it is like seatbelts, laws that r used as addons to keep criminals locked up who may or may not deserve it, as u said they aint rounding people up, so isnt like they take power away from people if they really ran into a situation where theyd need it. if they got the ability to monitor you 24/7 they sure dont seem to be exploiting it that much, take a pic with your phone and it tell u what it sees right? can do a search like that? so every thing ur phone looks at can automatically scan and know exactly what u got. feel its the intent over all, criminals want the fancy and tacticool stuff so like i said add on crimes. im sure theres more illegal sbrs, than people realize, and like drugs being illegal i feel its so when people cant control themselves it gives justification for someone else to step in."will the poor be less exploited if drugs are legal? or will the addiction lead to people feeling its the users fault and not those feeding it to them?" so good or bad i dont feel it hurts anyone, and tbh if you repeal the nfa im sure more guns will find their way to places like mexico, but instead of a garage machinist making m4 clones or that guy in texas who sold mini guns to the cartel, the companies will make all the money same as when they legalized pot, dosnt stop any of the problems just concentrates the cash to the people you seem to be against non the less, imagine ammo prices when everyone has machine guns, and how will the gun community look when the cities and criminals have all the fun toys? dont mean to sound anti gun here cuz im not in any way, but feel legalizing everything will lead to more problems and more for them to take from us, whole one step forward 2 steps back type deal. if u legalize machine guns and drugs how easy will it be for the rich or foreign entities to fund a private army of addicts?

[@delmusingle2338]

Thanks for sorting this out.

[@noahboss9618]

This is a very political video in the sense that youre making a case for a certain legislative action, but it's a very respectful and compassionate video as well and that's whats missing in most politics today. You're not doing the whole outrage media cycle thing, youre calmly and genuinely engaging with a political issue. I really appreciate that.

[@justcallmenoah5743]

As a Canadian who has far stricter gun regulations than the not restrictive US states, watching discussions of US gun laws is interesting. So often each side holds an ideological reason for their position, pro 2nd amendment folks claim it's all about people's rights, and the gun control crown typically claim that guns pose a safety risk to people. In my opinion they're both correct for different reasons. a right to own firearms is something people should have, and there should always be a pathway towards gun ownership for responsible, mentally healthy, and law abiding citizens. However certain classes of weapons that are genuinely primarily designed to kill people should be restricted to decrease the deadlines of mass shootings. As for my opinion on Canadas recent handgun ban, I'm conflicted personally, though I probably land more on the side of it being over restrictive, especially considering that under our existing laws, gun violence is already very uncommon.

[@GashimahironChl]

@@justcallmenoah5743 Good chatter, but if you're lugging a gun around with the intent to defend yourself, and the gun wasn't designed to quickly kill or incapacitate something or someone, then there is little point in the act.

[@Bristecom]

@@Jkp1321 "Guns are the ultimate source of political power - and I have all the guns." - Chairman Mao (Communist China)

[@justcallmenoah5743]

@@GashimahironChl yeah well you aren't allowed to carry guns for self defense in Canada, they're only for sport shooting, hunting, and other activities like that, soo. What you're describing is an illegal act that would lead to you getting your PAL revoked if you were caught. Interestingly, because everyone isn't packing semi autos to the grocery store with them at all times, we don't have a lot of mass shootings.

[@beze9632]

@@justcallmenoah5743 ' However certain classes of weapons that are genuinely primarily designed to kill people should be restricted to decrease the deadlines of mass shootings. ' Such as? ' Interestingly, because everyone isn't packing semi autos to the grocery store with them at all times, we don't have a lot of mass shootings.' Firstly, not everyone carry in the US either. Secondly, correlation doesn't imply causation. Mass shootings aren't done with legally carried weapons anyway.

[@tonygoochafanchi578]

Have seen countless videos on the whole SBR and pistol brace issue, but none come close to this perfectly clear and understandable video. Well done sir

[@lynxoutdoors8192]

Thank you for making this. It was extremely informative, and I learned a ton.

[@MrBmcgraw]

Great video!!! Just out of curiosity, what is that pistol you have in your demonstration in this video???

[@HazellRahh]

As always, a very informative and non-biased explanation. Ian has done an excellent job of educating the populous in an intelligent and academic way. Thank you for helping us out.

[@kennyschmidt1236]

He is amazing at what he does and always answers the most common and important questions that people have about firearms,rules,laws. For sure someone I could probably talk or listen to for hours

[@mothman6378]

yeah it's very nice to have some clear and concise answers in the sea of "Congress just repealed the 2A"

[@dirtydoigler2116]

I agree. Very nice historical summary of the NFA. I learned a lot from this video!

[@DandoBorusu]

common sense is rare these days. and most legislation is about as nonsensical as it gets.

[@JustDefense]

“Populace.”

[@phrederickvonbean9474]

The NFA was a jobs program for former Prohibition Agents.

[@texasrex2222]

That seriously just blew my mind; I never put the two together until seeing your comment.

[@Shep01]

It shows.

[@Murph945]

Totally agree, as was the creation of the DEA, helped by the newspapers of Mr Hearst. Jobs for otherwise unemployed 'law officers'.

[@jeffkaczmarek3577]

Every law enforcement agency is a socialist jobs program for blue costume wearing welfare queens.

[@halfsourlizard9319]

Too bad they didn't just learn to code.

[@johngalt1257]

Thanks for making this video. It's a very calm and comprehensive discussion of what the "SBR" classification is, and why this is a silly distinction that should be removed from the NFA. Thank you for your analysis.

[@torchofkckch.2928]

Ian, I wish that you would have been speaking right next to Brandon Herrera against the AFT. I couldn't honestly say how many times I've come back to rewatch this video. I've also shared via msg.s & played to show others on the spot. Keep up the great work.

[@Black70Fastback]

I didn't actually know the history until now of why SBR and SBS are even a regulated thing. In light of this, it would almost appear that Randy Weaver's wife and son were shot for nothing.

[@battalion151R]

I'm sure they weren't shot for nothing. There was the cost of gas to get the Feds to Idaho. The cost of housing the Feds that shot them. The salary of the Feds that trespassed on their property. The the cost of the ammunition expended on the wife, son and dog, while the Feds were trespassing on the Weaver's property. See, it wasn't for nothing. And, we had the privilege to pay for it. Kinda like the Branch Davidian invasion and massacre. Doesn't it make you proud to be a taxpaying American?

[@actionjaxxson1749]

Don't forget the dog, they killed the dog too. They really screwed the pooch at Ruby Ridge.... Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[@trux91ify]

Wait until you hear about the ATF's track record with dogs...

[@darksu6947]

@@actionjaxxson1749 Poor Fido. He was a good boy.

[@thurin84]

and dont forget their doggo.

[@michaelbrown3418]

This subject always astounds me. In my state in Australia if it’s over 750mm long it’s a rifle, if it’s under 750mm long it’s a pistol. Doesn’t matter what stocks or accessories you bolt on. It’s really sad the ridiculous limitations you have to deal with in the US which just feels like the government making it difficult for the sake of making it difficult.

[@kentuckybowl-o-sticks]

It's called "arbitrary and capricious"...

[@BobC59]

That's because Australia needed to know which crusher the guns would fit into when everyone turned them in.

[@opelwasp]

So much for "Shall not be infringed".

[@kalasmournrex1470]

Basically all guns are illegal in Australia, so why does it matter?

[@free_josel]

@@kalasmournrex1470 You must be at least eleven years of age; persons aged 11 to 17 can apply for a minor's licence. For traditional licences, you must be at least 18 years old. You must also have somewhere safe and secure to store your weapon, and you must undergo a safety training course.

[@garyhammond2213]

The NFA act should be repealed. I recently sold 3 machine guns from an estate. It took 4 filings and 1.5 years later the transfers took place. ATF didn't even know what models I was trying to transfer. So, we went round and round over a model number they were wrong on.

[@WyomingWelding2112]

Ian, thank you so much for what you do!, much needed!.

[@charlesenfield2192]

Thanks for the history on this. The short-barrel restrictions never made sense to me. I've heard lots of explanations about sawed-off shotguns that have a hint of believability (which is why so many people believe them) but they never passed the smell test with me. Congress doing a half-assed job with legislation, which regulatory agencies then exploit for their preferred policy ends, is a familiar story to everybody by now.

[@flamespear86]

It would make sense if the restriction was on something like the cartridge used. But that was never part of the law. They're trying to shoehorn the law into doing something it wasn't written to do. If you want to stop people from having AR pistols or other rifle cartridge pistol just say so. But they don't even do that.

[@garyrolen8764]

I've never had any desire to own a SBR, but I pride myself on not being a fudd. AR pistols and other pistols with attached braces always seemed a bit funny, but once I understood that the braces have been around for ten years and help people shoot more accurate, they make sense. For those people who have them as an aid, I see no problem. For those that have them just cause, I see no problem. I also seen no problem with the nfa and the SBR rules. Admittedly, that's probably because I have no desire to own an SBR, so, I simply didn't think about it. Now, with this new rule being hot as fire, I'm thinking about it. Not only do I not have any problems with the braces, I'm starting to wonder why an SBR would even need to be regulated in the first place.

[@cassiespencer6134]

The short barrel restrictions were initially intended to regulate the number of SBR's for example since they were seen as being easier to conceal compared to a full size rifle, yet with more 'capability' than a handgun.

[@emberfist8347]

I think they might have thought everyone would be using Obrez rifles when they got home but I seriously doubt that as if you cut down the barrel and stock that much the accuracy means you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside.

[@c3bhm]

Ian should have mentioned the obvious fact that Tavor's (bullpups) are perfectly legal despite being short, and Shockwaves are perfectly legal despite being no different from 'sawed-off shotguns'. So if there's any possible justification for regulating short weapons, then why aren't those short weapons regulated?? It's all blatant nonsense. And yet here we all are, complying with utter nonsense that violates the Bill of Rights for going on NINETY YEARS. The founding fathers would have behaved differently by now.

[@Danlight1911]

Really hoping after all the lawsuits and action this results in SBRs having their NFA regulations removed.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

You must be joking?

[@kyleh3615]

Removed? Doubt it. Adjusted? Possibly

[@yemo34]

Either it'll get worse or Clarence Thomas and the crew is just going to legalize machine guns suddenly, for giggles.

[@cityrippers9445]

That would be amazing but I don't think that's a realistic scenario since a ruling like that would set the precedent that banning specific types of guns is unconstitutional (it is but the court seems like it doesn't care). Rather I do think the win scenario is that the ATF gets told they have to honor their original statements about braces being different than stocks.

[@Isaac_5.56x45]

Hopefully it will result in the NFA being repealed and the ATF abolished.

[@broncobra]

I love the Calico you have in the background. I own one as well.

[@hoot6077]

Good to see this being discussed! Great video.

[@jonathansmith6050]

I hadn't heard about the surplus M-1 carbine oopsie before; a cool bit of forgotten weapon history.

[@armynurseboy]

What's funny, M1 carbines can easily be converted to full auto with the installation of an M2 kit with the only modification needed is routing out a small area of wood on the stock so the selector switch can fit.

[@edwardbarton1680]

I wasn't aware of the mistake when the M1 was surplussed. It's worth noting that the M4 carbine currently in use by the US military has a 14.5 inch barrel. It's also select-fire, which means that *two* modifications would need to be made to every rifle for it to not violate the NFA, which isn't supposed to cover "ordinary military equipment", according to the SCOTUS (1939 US v Miller).

[@robertgibbs4449]

Excellent Video, very well done and excellent point made.

[@keithkaderly8533]

Great argument and well thought out!

[@cheappoetry2798]

Ian always has the most logical thought-process for his videos. He's a great representative of Guntubers showcasing passion for a hobby that millions of citizens share

[@user-qo3yy9nv1u]

Do not comply Americans!!!

[@codysimonson6260]

As a democrat with multiple guns I sincerely wish Ian would help testify in Congress to abolish all the nonsense guns laws in this country and help pass laws that make sense.

[@user-qo3yy9nv1u]

@@codysimonson6260 question. How can you support the democrat party as they actively try to disarm you?

[@rory2094]

@@user-qo3yy9nv1u In my case: they support social policies and rights which I value more than my gun rights, as they affect the validity of me and my friends/family's existence rather than just the right to be armed, though the ability to defend those social rights if need be is equally as important and the fact that the democrats don't recognize this is stupid.

[@codysimonson6260]

@@user-qo3yy9nv1u never said I agree with everything they support. There's lots of things they do try that I support however. Medicare for all for instance. There's a lot that republicans do that I don't support such as gutting medicaid and social security with the new proposed tax plan. Not to mention all the dumb ass shit that they do against abortion and not supporting any sort of mental health based gun laws.

[@hificat101]

This is fascinating. I've always wondered why there were so many hoops to jump through to buy a weapon that was less deadly and less accurate than if it had a longer barrel.

[@PhilipFear]

And at the same time, I've always wondered why the Leftists anti-gunners chose to ban weapons that have features that actually improved their function (pistol grips, adjustable pull stocks, and stocks that cover /enclose the barrel, or suppressors for hearing protection) to make a gun fit and function for the person better❓🤔❓

[@HTacianas]

@@PhilipFear Because it's easier than banning guns outright. By making all these ridiculous hoops to jump through and forcing weird features and regulations on guns, people will be discouraged to buy them. Plus, no one can rally support against them. If a bill was being passed to make all guns illegal, you'd see protests and riots across the country. But making importation of guns with certain features or those features in general illegal doesn't stir up enough outrage to form a centralized resistance. Your average person who passively supports the 2nd amendment but doesn't really like guns isn't going to see the implication in it.

[@Mainz_1901]

@@PhilipFear leftists aren't anti gun.

[@joskarifinaukr6503]

@@Mainz_1901 Right, the catch is they only want people they like to have guns. Up until a couple years ago, that was police, military, and the federal alphabet soup ... exactly the people who by and large would become the enemy if, or rather when the US becomes a full-blown dictatorship. Now with so many of them trying to defund police departments, a few are starting to wake up and realize that an armed society is a polite society. The question then becomes, when will they decide that preemptively shooting citizens of a conservative disposition counts as self-defense? Before you argue that they wouldn't do that, keep in mind that these are the same people who voted for Biden, a pedophile with a hair-sniffing kink and documented dealings with China and Ukraine using his positions in power for personal profit. Logical reasoning isn't exactly their strong suit.

[@psychomantis2881]

​@@Mainz_1901 yes they are

[@alexwilbrecht6962]

It doesn't make sense that SBRs are treated worse than pistols.

[@stevethompson8171]

In my state if I were to try to register with the ATF, the ATF would deny me. The reason is that SBRs are illegal in RI, by filling out the application I am admitting to violating state law, and this information will be shared with the state. But the pistol with the brace was legal. Another catch 22.

[@john-.-doe]

A friend of mine, who is a European enjoiner of suppressed 14.5" HK MR223, always was confused about the SBR thing. Thanks for the explanation!

[@c3bhm]

Many of those 'progressive' gun-controlled countries have over-the-counter suppressors too.

[@cldfactor]

You are an asset to the KZbin firearm community and under appreciated my friend. Bravo for your help.

[@kornhead37]

Awesome video sir! I am a self proclaimed “Hippy with a gun” and definitely agree that firearms (like many other issues) have been trapped under a party which helps no one. All sides need to come to the table with common sense and real data. This also means all sides are going to swallow some pride for it to be successful. Keep it up man!

[@tekno4blood]

I really liked how you stayed apolitical and just presented the facts. I appreciate the ending comment about how this law could produce 40m felons over night. I really don't think America needs even more inmates but the for-profit prison system is positively creaming their pants at the thought of all that money right now.

[@cruisin682002]

I just became a FELON within the last 6 months... and at 73 years old... I don't give a F**k !!!! Out of my cold dead hands !!! Quote !!

[@lambsauce5312]

Prison Song is becoming more and more relevant as the years go by

[@mynamesjudge]

It's political in nature though. The authoritarian left wants to disarm freedom-loving Americans and turn them into felons. Meanwhile, the authoritarian right wants to bolster the police and give them massive amounts of "weapons of war" in order to disarm freedom-loving Americans. Only a tiny percentage of Americans actually agree with the Constitution.

[@rambler2885]

And the private jails are the scary thing that's what should be illegal

[@rambler2885]

@@cruisin682002 amen brother amen

[@kuebby]

Thank you for a fair and honest explanation. A lot of people just don't want to admit the "braces are used as stocks" part, which is an important part of the story and is required for it to really make sense. SBRs really don't make sense to have banned if pistols are allowed though.

[@G0rgar]

This has always been my position. The pistol braces everyone is clearly using as a stock was clearly something that wouldn't go ignored forever. The idea solution would have been to re-examine the SBR policy but they decided to do the most draconic thing possible instead.

[@oni_goroshi]

A pistol being stabilized against the shoulder with a stabilizing brace is still, in effect, being used as intended... To stabilize a pistol. The fact that they had to be invented to point out the ludicrousness of sbr and sbs laws is what everyone should be focused on. Why have these arbitrary, do nothing laws in the first place? Especially if you can just pay a fee of $200 and own it anyways. It's always been a money grab.

[@nooneai]

@@oni_goroshi Because when people pay a "tax" even the government can manage to remember who they are

[@carsonhunt4642]

@@oni_goroshi As the vid demonstrated, it was a prohibition. The massive irony being that the gov’s own massive amounts of (done on purpose) unlimited money printing and inflation came back to bite them rather quickly 😂 200 back then was rich ppl stuff. 200 nowadays the peasants can afford. This law was always retarded due to the simple fact if a criminal wanted to conceal his rifle, he would just cut the barrel and do so. He isn’t gonna go pay a tax stamp and submit photos and fingers. Criminals don’t follow laws. It’s just a way to control the law abiding civs. Much like how everyone filing the free f1 for the brace has to do so as an individual, not a trust. All ways to control the guns.

[@cococock2418]

Terrible take. Wouldn’t need this device if the laws weren’t draconian in the first place.

[@Specter044]

I would think that the ATF's declaration to not pursue action on this issue would demonstrate to the court the capricious nature of this decision

[@matthewbeaver5026]

Yet we all know how they backtrack and change their minds. When a court ask they would just 180, again.

[@480JD]

They are just going to use this to persecute vocal right wing gun owners.

[@victorbruce5772]

The 1934 NFA was intended to include handguns, pistols and revolvers. Thus the inclusion of cutting rifle barrels to make prohibited handguns. It is very interesting to read the editorial articles in 1934 American Rifleman magazine, written when the NFA was enacted. Archives available online at Internet Archive.

[@theselector2310]

This was an exceptional analysis of a topic that deserves a review and correction by lawmakers. I appreciate the clarification of this banal law situation that you have thrown light on.

[@brianwilson2546]

I was waiting and hoping that you would make a video on this subject. While I usually appreciate the fact that this channel is nearly completely apolitical, there aren’t really any other KZbinrs that I trust to speak accurately on this issue. Thank you so much for your contribution.

[@michaelblacktree]

Well said, Ian. The whole SBR / pistol brace debacle is ridiculous. The gov't created an imaginary problem to fix, and we all get to suffer for it. That is completely outside the scope of how our government is supposed to operate.

[@dummgelauft]

Wait 'til they begin forcing you into electric vehicles. It has already started in some states.

[@redwolfexr]

The issue being the FIRST mistake was the Governments liability - the "we will have to buy them back if we don't fix the law" thing. The second was a bunch of people who KNOWINGLY grabbed a loophole that was based on helping the disabled. (the ATF SHOULD have added that the brace would only be legal in cases where it was used as a brace) The "liability" is all on the people who thought they had "gotten one over" on the "evil ATF and $200 tax." The fix is to remove SBR and treat any weapon based on length as a pistol or as a rifle. What are SBRs become legally a pistol below a specific length. But the Government doesn't really like to "reward" scofflaws by allowing them to "get away" with intentional abuse of a loophole that was intended to help disabled. Just like its TECHNICALLY legal for me to park my mothers handicap plated car in a handicap spot when she isn't there -- I get nasty looks and might get her car all keyed up. In some places might even get a bit roughed up. But the issue is that even the gun owner part of the Democrats can't "give away" something like that without something in exchange. (the Progressives have to be appeased) I would remove suppressors and SBB/SBS categories as part of a UBC law that allowed/REQUIRED individuals to use NICs on all transactions. Go through a dealer and it goes in the dealers "bound book" and go through the public system and it goes into a database. (but its free - pay a dealer if you want more privacy)

[@LRRPFco52]

@@redwolfexr There isn't a loophole to exercising our rights. The Attorney General and Congress were allowed to get away with violating the Bill of Rights in 1934, and now we have to correct their criminal misconduct by whatever means necessary.

[@adrianmizen5070]

There is an argument that an SBR/SBS is inherently more dangerous than a pistol, because firing from the shoulder absorbs more recoil, enabling the shooter to keep the gun on target while firing at a higher rate.

[@CelsiusPC]

@@redwolfexr This is fudd lore to the max holy shit. *-"people who KNOWINGLY grabbed a loophole that was based on helping the disabled"* It's not a loophole if the ATF explicitly announced on multiple occasions that shouldering the brace doesn't make the (AR/AK) pistol into an unregistered SBR. Also don't pull the "think of the children" BS into it, especially since the brace is used by handicapped individuals and can be legally shouldered as well. This clearly is a win win situations for law abiding gun owners regardless if they're handicapped or not. *-"The "liability" is all on the people who thought they had "gotten one over" on the "evil ATF and $200 tax."* Let's set things straight. the ATF is not a good agency, at least under the current administration. they have quite clearly stated that they do want to take firearms from law abiding citizens, and will keep trying to do it. The ATF can be used for good, as Ian explained in the video, to prevent cartels from moving firearms into Mexico, but instead they're worried about braces that aren't used in a statistically sizable amount in crimes. ATF is wasting its resources on lawful citizens instead of, you know, stopping massive crime syndicate cartels. *-"Just like its TECHNICALLY legal for me to park my mothers handicap plated car in a handicap spot when she isn't there. I get nasty looks and might get her car all keyed up. In some places might even get a bit roughed up"* Just to be clear here you ARE breaking the law by doing this. Also, there is no justification for property damage (car keyed) or assault (roughed up) for this, and if you think so, you need to seek help immediately. Anyone who retaliates by doing this are committing more serious crimes that what you committed by using the handicapped space. *-"I would remove suppressors and SBB/SBS categories as part of a UBC law that allowed/REQUIRED individuals to use NICs on all transactions. Go through a dealer and it goes in the dealers "bound book" and go through the public system and it goes into a database."* Law abiding gun owners do not need to compromise on anything. We gave and inch and they took a mile for decades and look how out of hand its gotten. Lets use the word "compromise" when referring to other civil rights; it just wouldn't fly today. Besides, your exchange wouldn't even be possible. UBC *requires* a registry, and under the US any form of registry when it involves firearms is strictly forbidden (obviously not including NFA). I wouldn't even trust the ATF or any US government agency with documents about all my serial #s, components, addresses, ETC. especially the way the ATF has been weaponized by a particular political affiliation and administration to disarm any innocent non felon who happens to own firearms. A registration is begging for a Gestapo style raids all around the US which im sure ATF agents aren't afraid to send .223 straight to innocent gun owners.

[@ScottWilder]

This video was so good in many ways. I think it failed to the essential problem this new rule is trying to address. User “I want an at-15 with a short barrel” Govt “great. Show me the money” User “well what if I also cut off the stock? then it’s essentially a pistol” Govt “we’ll that’s kind of sus. But we can try it” User “awesome now I’m going to add something to my AR based pistol called a brace. It functions just like a stock” Govt “nice try. Your brace is by your own multitude of examples in social media a de facto stock. Pay up.”

[@erg2]

One of the best videos I have watched regarding this issue…

[@davidhochstetler4068]

This’ll be a fun comment section

[@PieTheWayOriginal]

Indeed.

[@1891shooter]

[@daveshrum1749]

Right 😆.

[@SkunkApe407]

As of yet, it would appear that your concerns were misplaced. We'll see if that is yet to change, I reckon.

[@TheFanatical1]

Every time Ian mentions anything to do with modern politics all the gun nuts come out the woodwork and start screeching about how the ATF is unconstitutional. I always have a laugh reading some of the more insane comments about the american government here.

[@69MrMaster69]

Finally, someone is actually explaining this stuff, instead of just laughing and joking about it, while pushing their agenda.

[@ch3cksund3ad]

So many channels making 5-10 min videos of nonsense, saying basically nothing at all. Thank God for people like this guy

[@ryanthomas2374]

There are many many videos about this issue and its origins.

[@LilPistachiofr]

Yes i agree. This video is very helpful in explaining the whole thing

[@TheFanatical1]

Even when Ian is being his most political, he's barely political. Luckily, Ian picked the only part of the NFA that's actually totally nonsensical.

[@randymagnum143]

@@TheFanatical1 NFA is a tax on a right. How that is *not* nonsense, IDK.

[@BAstudios5]

I don't understand how a pistol without a stock is less dangerous than one without one, especially when most modern pistols have rifle calibers now. And to add to that, the federal legal definition of a pistol is paraphrased designed and intended for one handed use. By this definition, even the ATF using a pistol is in violation or misusing it. Most pistols do not have a curved handle to be used one handed like many older revolvers. Most new pistols are designed, intended, and used 2 handed and don't function properly without it.

[@PeterSikachev]

More than a year to buy an SBR? In one year in Poland I can literally: -Sign up to a sport gun club -Wait 3 months -Get obligatory course -Pass the exam -Pass the medical test -Wait for authorities to get their shit done -Buy at least 18 SBRs with no further tests

[@jamesz.1047]

The NFA became law in 1934. According to CPI, $200 in 1934 is equal to $4497 as per the end of 2022. Just to remember that the lawmakers wanting to force you to SBR everything would, if they could get away with it, make you pay a $4500 tax to own your $500 PSA 10.5in special.

[@ChaosAndAnarchy]

Much of what we're suffering through right now, is a direct result of policy that came about in the 20s and 30s, and should've never been tolerated then.

[@TheArklyte]

In short - to disarm even middle income families while using same money for further militarization of police. Is this US or Putin's Russia, lol?

[@MumrikDK]

The fee is weird. Either allow or disallow. That massive fee did what - keep certain weapons away from the poors?

[@Sophistry0001]

@@MumrikDK Minorities specifically, but yea the poor too. Gun control stems directly from racism.

[@lostalone9320]

"Taxes" like this are ALWAYS because they can't outright ban, but still want to force change to happen. Even some taxes that we generally accept these days on tobacco and alcohol specifically aim to reduce consumption. That was the explicit aim when they were created, that is the reason why they continue to ratchet upwards. I don't quite buy the idea that the tax stamp was about rich people keeping guns for themselves - Such taxes are often accused of that, but it tends to be that the legislators are just idiots rather than malign. Regardless, when the state tells you they are going to regulate your stuff and also you must pay for them to regulate your stuff, you should be suspicious.

[@actualreplyguy]

Easily best video I've seen about this issue yet. No bravado, no defiance, no name-calling. Just straight up a lesson in history and common sense.

[@sethtenrec]

If only some of the commenters were as mature

[@simoneidson21]

@@sethtenrec Yeah I can imagine some boogaloo boys and neo Nazis would show up

[@johnclark1406]

Thank you! I’ve shared this multiple times.

[@Pheonixco]

Its going to be hilarious if this goes to court and not only SBR's taken off, but the court repeals the entire NFA, given the state of the judiciary currently, for good or ill.

[@jacobstaten2366]

Don't give me hope.

[@nickdalton9528]

Man I would want that to happen just to watch the bottom fall out of the artificially inflated machine gun market. Imagine how cheap hi-point submachine guns would be

[@notahotshot]

"We're not going to spend resources to locate and confiscate the pistol braces." ~ ATF "ʸᵒᵘ ᵏⁿᵒʷ, ᵘⁿᵗᶦˡ ʷᵉ ᵈᵒ." ~ Also the ATF

[@Meravokas]

The "Until we Do." Is basically still a never. They don't have the resources or the apparent desire. The DOJ therefore does not also have any desire for real enforcement and both are just leaving it to county/city/state police to do the work for them. IF the specific officer/officers even want to bother with enforcing it.

[@SexyFace]

this showed me why you only have nine subscribers after 16 years

[@JA-wd9yx]

Great info! Thank you Sir.

[@mmpatriot2170]

Thanks for a clearheaded review of part of the craziness in our country today. I must say that I chuckled when you mentioned that form 4 currently takes 6 to 9 months for the ATF to process. I’ve had a suppressor, a safety device, sitting at an FFL in downtown Salt Lake City for a year and a half now. I paid for the supressor a year and a half ago, I paid the tax to the ATF a year and a half ago, and I filled out all the paperwork and documents a year and a half ago. They just don’t give a shit. 🤷‍♂️

[@Nos2113]

Damn, you filed about the same time I did, and I got mine a year ago...

[@allyourbrainnowbelongtous1777]

Sometimes sending an email that this has taken too long and you’re going to sue them helps. Not joking. I think some get lost in the shuffle abs bringing their attention to it can cause it to get pushed through.

[@mattcary8075]

sucks to have to go through the atf for suppressors we can just go to our local store and by them with a normal background check

[@thomcad]

@ MM Patriot I think he was referring to efiled Form 1s, which you would use for SBRs and seem to be a little quicker than Form 4 for Silencers. I feel your pain though...all my form4 stamps took over a year to process.

[@bananaman8691]

Sue them. They literally just stole your money.

[@Dakktyrel]

It's not hypocritical ... it's silent. These are by far the worst laws. The ATF is 'saying' they won't enforce it so the general public says 'well then it's nothing to worry about'. Seeing no public pushback, more laws get passed in a similar fashion and at some point silent laws pile up enough until a government decides to take extreme action "legally" for any number of excuses. Ian, you're on point. I hope some level of sense is brought to the table soon. Stay safe friends.

[@browning_hi_pwr]

Give them an inch they take a mile, it's all on big slippery slope

[@jeanniebuchholz9923]

Not trying to be argumentative, but the AFT makes rules and Congress makes laws. That's why this is so atrocious IMHO, Congress doesn't have the votes or the stones to pass legislation to ban them, yet the AFT is going to possibly make 40M folks felons overnight while Congress does nothing to reign them in. SMDH, good luck and God bless.

[@jpnewman1688]

@@browning_hi_pwr who gave government the power?? 😂🐑😂🐑😂🐑

[@sethtenrec]

@@jpnewman1688 You prefer anarchy?

[@turtletruth]

ANTI-2nd UNITY If you can't beat them, join them!!! (Together there is Unity!) The "do-gooder" gun owners shall eventually destroy the 2nd amendment on their own, by self-righteousness! What part of shall not infringe do "do-gooder" and politicians not understand! (This is their fault too!) Nearly half the nation are convicted felons for victimless non-violent offenses who are ETERNALLY BANNED from possessing a firearm or single bullet, for life! (Self-righteous gun owners shall eventually lose their guns & bullets with the help of the police!) FACT: There are more non-violent than violent felons without God-given gun rights thanks to self-righteous do-gooders! Non-violent felons can still vote though and abolishing "guns & bullets" from backstabbing "do-gooders" is exactly how they'll vote with vengeance, in record millennial numbers for equal (Slave) EQUALITY! ALL FOR ONE, AND ONE FOR ALL IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM of SLAVERY!!! (If non-violent felons without victims and injured parties can't legally possess a single bullet, then nobody should possess guns or bullets!) PERIOD!... - Turtletruth (Oorah).

[@IRAMightyPirate]

What a fantastic history on this situation and the absurdity of it all.

[@wvdave771]

By far the best breakdown I've seen on the subject , history , and common sense

[@GraydonMcKee]

AWESOME jacket! Wish I could pull off that look.

[@iamcondescending]

7:20 similar thing happened here in Canada. Government gave the natives a bunch of AKs for sustenance hunting, then banned the AK and all its variants... Except the variant that they gave to the natives. But you couldn't import new ones.

[@Esper320]

Ive been hearing about NFA being struck down so many times but now with the Hughes Amendment lawsuit gaining traction, and the braces putting SBS/SBR/AOWs into common use - not to mention the illegality of taxing a right - really puts the NFA outside of cans in peril.

[@ChevyConQueso]

Cans should have never even been included on this list. It isn't mentioned anywhere in the NFA, except by name, in the list of banned items. That's it. No reasoning at all.

[@BobC59]

@@ChevyConQueso Has reason ever played a part of any of this?

[@dionh70]

I don't understand your phrase "illegality of taxing a right".

[@RagtimePiano]

@dionh70 "... shall not be infringed." Any tax on a right that is explicitly outlined in the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights, is unacceptable. Imagine a scenario where a person (who has not otherwise had any of their Constitutional rights taken due to felony conviction or renouncement) was forced to pay a tax in order to exercise their right to vote, to remain silent, to be protected in their personal papers and effects in the event of an unlawful search or seizure, or to speak freely without being persecuted by their government. Hopefully this analogy was able to help you better understand what the comment you replied to was trying to say.

[@ben501st]

Remember when the hearing protection act was supposed to pass under Trump? Pepperidge Farm remembers.