NFA, some more...

This is not an original bit, this is repeating what others have said.  Because I am certain at least a couple of my readers don't read where I read it; this is a public service message.

I have been asked what the deal is with the short barreled rifles and shotguns.  Why are they restricted like machine guns when the shortening has a negative effect on the weapon's performance?

Way back when the 1934 Gun Control Act was being drawn up the idea was to completely ban handguns. The barrel and overall length restrictions of the NFA was to prevent someone from making a concealable firearm out of something that wasn't a handgun.

In 1934 that $200 tax is the equivalent of over $3,200 today.  Considering that a $50 shotgun was a pretty damn fancy one in 1934, this tax was expected to eliminate ownership of most anything that was listed in the NFA.  And it pretty much did.

Luckily for we collectors and enthusiasts; they left that tax at $200.  That's $12.20 by 1934 standards.  It's no longer really cost prohibitive to buy or own an NFA item by "virtue" of the tax.

Constitutional issues aside, the SBR and SBS portions of this law did not do what it aimed to do because the much more concealable handgun remained a normal firearm.  Handguns remain Title I firearms, so continuing this charade is foolish.

In a related note:

One of the big pushes that made the 1934 act popular back then was that this dealt with "gangster" weapons.  Where, pray tell, did this gangster problem come from?

The Volstead Act.  The banning of booze.

I also note that the 1934 GCA is passed after the end of prohibition.  I'm willing to bet that the violence reductions attributed to the GCA have more to do with the criminals having far less lucrative ventures to tend.