This SBR business is starting to get ridiculous, especially since the "experts" at ATF have been going back and forth with it for years. IMO, an AK or AR-15 without buttstock is more dangerous than one with a stock, it's a very awkward weapon that can't even be aimed properly. Still, this configuration seems to be what ATF prefers in order to "satisfy the letter of the law".
I can't remember where I read this, but somebody traced down the origin of the SBR to an oversight in the NFA of 1934. The original proposal included a restriction that made handguns subject to the $200 tax stamp, so they had to define what constitutes a pistol. The proposed pistol restrictions were later removed, but some of the definitions were left in the final document. Thus, the law came to define a rifle of certain dimension as a pistol, and being a pistol it cannot have a buttstock. In other words: The whole SBR thing appears to stem from a simple mistake, which is now causing great confusion among gun owners, as well as ATF agents.
|