By Jim Sturdy
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit Court docket of Appeals dominated in United States v. Rush that short-barreled rifles (SBRs) can nonetheless be restricted underneath the Nationwide Firearms Act (NFA). This determination depends on outdated authorized precedent and the flawed reasoning that SBRs are inherently extra harmful than different firearms because of their concealability and energy. Nonetheless, an examination of contemporary firearm know-how, felony statistics, and even the legal guidelines of anti-gun international locations undermines this logic.
This ruling is especially related in gentle of the 2022 Supreme Court docket determination in New York State Rifle & Pistol Affiliation v. Bruen, which established a historic custom take a look at for evaluating firearm legal guidelines. Beneath Bruen, firearm rules should be justified by a historic analogue—that means the federal government should show that comparable restrictions existed on the time of the Founding. Whereas the Court docket acknowledged that firearms deemed harmful and strange could also be regulated, it additionally reaffirmed that weapons in frequent use for lawful functions are constitutionally protected.
This straight contrasts with United States v. Miller (1939), through which the Supreme Court docket upheld the NFA’s regulation of short-barreled shotguns underneath the reasoning that the Second Modification solely protects weapons with a transparent connection to militia service.
As a result of no proof was introduced that short-barreled shotguns had been generally utilized in militias, the Court docket upheld their regulation. The Miller determination has since been used to justify varied firearm restrictions, however Bruen basically altered the authorized panorama, requiring a extra rigorous historic evaluation.
The Rush Case and the Seventh Circuit’s Reasoning
Jamond Rush was charged with unlawful possession of an SBR, particularly a 7.5-inch Anderson Manufacturing AR-15. He challenged the cost underneath Bruen, arguing that SBRs shouldn’t be restricted underneath the Second Modification. The Seventh Circuit upheld the NFA’s restrictions, rejecting his argument based mostly on three major factors:
SBRs are extra concealable than full-length rifles, making them extra probably for use in crime. SBRs are extra highly effective than handguns whereas nonetheless being concealable, making them uniquely harmful. Historic firearm rules help restrictions on concealable weapons.
Primarily, the courtroom’s place is that SBRs are a particular case—too harmful to be freely owned however too concealable to be unregulated. This classification, nevertheless, is legally and factually unsound.
Why This Reasoning is Flawed
1. Criminals Do Not Care About SBR Laws
The primary flaw within the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning is the belief that SBR legal guidelines affect felony habits. In actuality, the distinction between an SBR and a braced pistol is minimal—the first distinction being the presence of a rifle inventory versus a stabilizing brace. Criminals don’t swap between braces and shares earlier than committing crimes, nor does the authorized classification of an SBR affect their determination to make use of a firearm unlawfully.
Moreover, handguns—not rifles of any type—are used within the overwhelming majority of firearm-related crimes. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report constantly reveals that handguns account for 80–90% of firearm-related homicides, whereas rifles (together with so-called “assault rifles”) make up solely round 3%. Shotguns, together with each short-barreled and standard-length variants, are concerned in fewer than 2% of firearm-related crimes.
From a sensible standpoint, if criminals wished an simply concealable but highly effective firearm, they’d merely use a handgun, which is unrestricted by barrel size legal guidelines—and, the truth is, they already do.
2. The Concealability Argument is Misplaced
The courtroom’s concern over concealability is equally misplaced. Whereas it’s true that some SBRs are extra maneuverable indoors than full-length rifles, they’re nonetheless not practically as concealable as handguns.
Even essentially the most compact SBRs, such because the MP5K-PDW or the Flux Raider, are nonetheless considerably bigger than a handgun, which stays the popular firearm for criminals exactly due to its concealability and ease of use.
And even these nearly concealable “SBRs” (actually, like semi-auto submachineguns) are pistol calibers anyhow, no more highly effective rifle or shotgun chamberings.
The “Harmful and Uncommon” Argument is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
One other main flaw within the “not in frequent use” argument is that it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy—sure firearms are uncommon not due to a scarcity of demand, however as a result of the federal government has artificially restricted them for many years. Sarcastically, this round logic was identified – albeit from the opposite aspect – by Justice Breyer.
Within the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, highlighted the round reasoning inherent in figuring out a weapon’s constitutional safety based mostly on its commonality. He argued that almost all’s strategy may result in a paradox the place the legality of a weapon is determined by its widespread use, which is itself influenced by current rules.
Particularly, Justice Breyer famous that if legislative our bodies lifted restrictions on sure firearms and so they turned fashionable for self-defense, the Court docket would possibly then be compelled to acknowledge these weapons as constitutionally protected, thereby partaking in round reasoning.
However the identical argument from a pro-gun perspective seems to be like this:
Machine weapons and SBRs are uncommon as a result of they’ve been closely restricted underneath the NFA and the Hughes Modification (1986). Courts then argue that they are often banned as a result of they’re uncommon. However they’re solely uncommon due to these very bans.
Fashionable gun restrictions have formed what weapons are thought-about “frequent” at the moment. In different phrases, if the federal government bans a firearm lengthy sufficient, it might probably later declare that the firearm is “uncommon” just because folks haven’t been allowed to purchase it legally for generations. That isn’t an goal authorized customary—it’s a consequence of previous regulation.
If frequent use is the take a look at, then it ought to be based mostly on what folks would personal in a free market, not what they had been allowed to personal underneath practically a century of presidency restrictions.
SBRs are Already in Widespread Use
Brief-barreled rifles are firmly in frequent use, significantly throughout the U.S. navy and legislation enforcement. The M4 carbine, which is the standard-issue rifle for many U.S. service members, has a 14.5-inch barrel—just one.5 inches underneath the authorized threshold for an SBR.
The Mk18, a ten.3-inch barreled variant, is broadly utilized by particular operations, SWAT groups, and federal legislation enforcement businesses exactly as a result of it’s simpler to maneuver in confined areas corresponding to buildings and autos.
The identical attributes that make the Mk18 efficient for close-quarters fight would logically make it a perfect house protection firearm for law-abiding civilians.
SBRs are Much less Highly effective Than Customary Rifles
Regardless of the notion that SBRs are uniquely harmful, the ballistics inform a special story. The Mk18’s 10.3-inch barrel ends in considerably decrease velocity and power than a normal 20-inch M16:
A 55-grain M193 5.56mm spherical fired from a 20-inch barrel achieves roughly 3,250 ft per second (fps) and 1,290 foot-pounds (ft-lbs) of power. From a Mk18’s 10.3-inch barrel, the identical spherical drops to 2,600 fps and 828 ft-lbs of power—a discount of practically 36% in muzzle power.
If SBRs are much less highly effective than customary rifles, the declare that they’re “uniquely harmful” is unsupported by primary physics.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces an outdated and arbitrary restriction that does little to advertise public security. Criminals don’t care about barrel size legal guidelines, and SBRs are neither statistically extra harmful nor extra generally utilized in crime than customary rifles or handguns. The Supreme Court docket might must make clear whether or not these restrictions align with Bruen or in the event that they signify one other instance of legacy legal guidelines upheld with out significant historic justification.
If courts proceed upholding restrictions that lack a rational foundation, it’s only a matter of time earlier than the Supreme Court docket should step in and produce federal gun legal guidelines according to the trendy authorized framework.
Jim Sturdy is a Second Modification legal professional with practically 20 years of expertise litigating firearms legislation and constitutional points. Licensed in a number of federal and state jurisdictions, he has represented purchasers in complicated gun rights issues and is a devoted advocate for preserving the basic proper to maintain and bear arms.
