Brief-Barreled Rifles, the Second Modification, and the Supreme Courtroom: Why Robinson v. U.S. Issues
The struggle over short-barreled rifles (SBRs) isn’t nearly barrel size — it’s about whether or not courts will observe the clear guidelines specified by District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), or whether or not they’ll discover inventive methods to sidestep them.
In Robinson v. U.S., the Eleventh Circuit upheld the federal restriction on SBRs with out doing the required historic evaluation. As an alternative, it leaned solely on U.S. v. Miller (1939), treating that 86-year-old case about short-barreled shotguns as if it mechanically determined the SBR query. The Second Modification Basis (SAF), together with the Second Modification Regulation Middle, the California Rifle & Pistol Affiliation, and the Minnesota Gun House owners Caucus, filed an amicus temporary urging the Supreme Courtroom to take the case — and to set the file straight.
Step One: SBRs Are “Arms” Underneath the Second Modification
Underneath Bruen, the take a look at is easy:
Does the “plain textual content” of the Second Modification cowl the conduct?
If sure, does the federal government’s restriction align with the Nation’s historic custom of firearm regulation?
SAF argues step one isn’t sophisticated. “All firearms constituted ‘arms,’” Heller defined, citing founding-era sources (554 U.S. at 581). Brief-barreled rifles are nonetheless rifles — the distinction is just some inches of barrel. The Eleventh Circuit’s refusal to even have interaction in historic evaluation is what Justice Thomas has criticized in different circumstances as courts giving “a judicial center finger” to the Supreme Courtroom’s precedents (Duncan v. Bonta, 133 F.4th 852, 890 (ninth Cir. 2025) (R. Nelson, J., dissenting)).
No Historic Custom of Barrel-Size Restrictions
When courts do attempt to discover historic analogues, they arrive up empty. As a result of,,, there’s no nationwide custom of banning widespread firearms primarily based on barrel size. Winchester, for instance, offered its standard Mannequin 1892 “Trapper” lever-action in 14″ and 15″ variations — each could be SBRs below right now’s NFA guidelines. These weren’t unique weapons; they have been manufacturing firearms offered to the general public.
SAF factors out that over 870,000 registered SBRs exist right now, regardless of the NFA’s burdens. And hundreds of thousands of comparable firearms — AR pistols, carbines with 16″ barrels, and many others. — are in civilian fingers with out the NFA’s further taxes and registration necessities.
Even Miller Helps SBR Safety
The Eleventh Circuit claimed that Miller resolved the SBR query. That’s flawed. Miller held {that a} short-barreled shotgun wasn’t protected as a result of there was no proof it had a militia use. However SBRs do. The U.S. army’s M4 carbine has a 14.5″ barrel — making it an SBR in civilian kind. If Miller is about arms “a part of the peculiar army gear” (307 U.S. at 178), SBRs are precisely that.
As SAF notes, even the U.S. authorities’s personal temporary in Miller mentioned the Second Modification “gave sanction solely to the arming of the folks as a physique to defend their rights towards tyrannical and unprincipled rulers” — and the arms in query have been those helpful for that mission.
The NFA’s inclusion of SBRs was by no means primarily based on a perception they have been “harmful and weird.” Congress initially deliberate to ban handguns, and SBRs have been swept in solely to forestall folks from substituting them for banned pistols. When the handgun ban failed resulting from public backlash, SBR restrictions stayed anyway — a legislative accident that turned entrenched legislation.
This case considerations a defendant charged with possession of an unregistered short-barrel rifle.
Skipping the Bruen evaluation altogether, the eleventh Circuit dominated relying solely on U.S. v. Miller (1939) that the query was already determined, and the restrictions on SBRs are… https://t.co/aITegZGLes pic.twitter.com/6r7B0B7P5n
— SAF (@2AFDN) August 12, 2025
Particular Taxes & the Second Modification
This case can be about cash. The NFA imposes a $200 tax on every SBR — the equal of 1000’s in 1934 {dollars} — and SAF argues there’s no historic custom of taxing widespread arms.
Historic examples of taxes on arms are uncommon and focused at concealable weapons like Bowie knives or pocket pistols, not the standard-issue arms of the day. An 1856 North Carolina legislation even exempted pistols used for militia mustering from its weapons tax.
Different taxes have been brazenly discriminatory. In 1867, Washington County, Mississippi, imposed a $5–$15 tax “on each gun and pistol” — a sum that may be $108–$325 right now — as a part of Reconstruction-era efforts to disarm newly freed Black residents. Such legal guidelines will not be the “historic custom” Bruen requires; they’re examples of unconstitutional abuse.
Why the Supreme Courtroom Ought to Step In
This isn’t an remoted case. SAF factors out that sure circuits — particularly the Ninth and Fourth — have repeatedly twisted or sidestepped Bruen. When decrease courts “seem bent on distorting this Courtroom’s Second Modification precedents” (Snope v. Brown, 145 S. Ct. 1534, 1538 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting)), ready for extra “percolation” solely rewards judicial resistance.
Granting Robinson would let the Courtroom affirm two key ideas:
All firearms are “arms” below the Second Modification.
Restrictions should be justified by clear historic precedent, not by skipping straight to outdated or misinterpret circumstances like Miller.
And if the Courtroom isn’t able to take the total case, SAF urges no less than a grant-vacate-remand, with directions to do the correct historic evaluation.
The Stakes
For gun house owners, Robinson v. U.S. is about greater than SBRs. It’s about whether or not courts will apply Bruen persistently — or whether or not the Second Modification will probably be handled, in Justice Thomas’s phrases, as “a second-class proper, topic to a completely totally different physique of guidelines than the opposite Invoice of Rights ensures” (Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70).
If the Courtroom takes the case, it might reaffirm that the suitable to maintain and bear arms contains the very arms — just like the M4 in army service or the civilian SBR — which are most suited to the Second Modification’s core functions: self-defense and protection towards tyranny. And it might shut down the rising tactic of pricing the suitable out of attain with punitive taxes.
We’re in harmful occasions! We’re NOT assembly our funding objectives! Will you assist out?
Second Modification Foundations Petition for Certiorari in Robinson v. U.S.
Supreme Courtroom Asks for Justice Division’s Place on SBRs
NFA Prosecution Exhibits ATF Nonetheless Decided to Imprison Individuals for Braced Pistols
