Interesting…always wondered why 18” for scatterguns and 16” for rifles.
Getcha a 14.5 P/W Aug that’s gtg. But lopping down a lever gun flush with a shorter mag tube…way too scary
The original NFA proposal was from the Attorney General at the time, Homer Stille Cummings, and it had no mention of rifles at all in it. It defined short barreled shotguns as having less than 16” barrels.
On Day 1 of the hearings, after the AG admitted that the whole thing was unconstitutional (his words), a numbskull Nazi sympathizer named Harold Knutson of Minnesota piped up and said deer-hunters back home might be harmed by this, and he didn’t want them affected.
The Attorney General said there is no mention of rifles, so no need to be concerned about it. Knutson then kept rambling that he felt the legislation would be stronger if there were protections for hunters and that included rifles and shotguns, and moving the barrel length to 18”. The AG said if Knutson felt that would make the legislation stronger, he had no objection.
During the final round of hearings on Day 5, they went by each member of the Committee and almost finished it with no mention of the SBR infringement, by reading the original proposal of only less than 16” BBL shotguns. Harold Knutson piped-up again and reminded them of the Day 1 conversation about including rifles and the length moved to 18”, to which they responded, “Oh yeah, shotguns and rifles, shorter than 18” barrels."
In the 1960s, they amended the barrel length for rifles to 16” but left shotguns at 18” for some reason. Many have speculated that it was because of M-1 Carbines, but M-1 Carbines have ~18” barrels, so that doesn’t make any sense.
I’ve been searching for why they magically changed the arbitrary infringement to 16” for rifles, but have not found original source material as to why. I have printed out the NFA 1934 Hearings and studied them for many years, originally trying to find what the merits were for their discussion on silencers, only to learn there never was a discussion about silencers during the 5 days of hearings, and that the AG admitted the NFA was unconstitutional on Day 1, morning 1 of the hearings.
You could have an attorney instruct a prosecutor to read AG Cummings' own words from the hearings and watch their case fall apart before a judge or jury if you were charged with an NFA crime. It gets even worse because the AG’s proposal to evade the unconstitutionality of the NFA was to simply tax the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It proceeds to get worse than that where they explain that if they make the tax so high that nobody but the ultra-wealthy can afford it, it effectively accomplished their admitted unconstitutional goals of disarming the people of said arms.
But it gets even better: The AG then explained that the scheme is designed to bypass the normal due process of criminal law by demanding that the accused present the papers (Tax stamp) and when they can’t present said papers (due to pricing), they don’t get a fair trial (with its complicated proceedings), and can be thrown straight into jail.
Thought I was done? When asked if the untold number of Americans out there who still possessed these items pre-1934 were caught with them, the Asst AG explained that as long as they weren’t out exercising their rights, they should be just fine.
The NFA is openly and self-admittedly a multi-layer unconstitutional set of infringements in some of the most obscene ways one can imagine. It’s all in their own words, not my interpretation.
