Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: Short-barreled rifles are strictly regulated under the federal National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and banned by five states. These regulations, however, cannot survive the Supreme Court’s test for Second Amendment challenges set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. Under Bruen, modern firearm regulations are constitutional only if they are consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This Article explains that neither the NFA’s tax and registration requirements nor states’ prohibitions on short-barreled rifles are historically justified. Rifles with short barrels and pistols with shoulder stocks were considered ordinary arms throughout American history and never singled out for regulation until the 20th century. No one argued when the NFA was enacted that short-barreled rifles were exceptionally dangerous weapons or disproportionately used in crime. Rather, Congress initially intended to include handguns in the NFA and added short-barreled rifles to prevent citizens from circumventing the handgun restriction by carrying short-barreled rifles instead. The state bans on short-barreled rifles were enacted only after they had been singled out by the NFA. But the historical tradition of short-barreled rifle use and regulation examined in this Article make clear that these restrictions are unconstitutional under Bruen.
Source: Wyoming Law Review
Author: Joseph Greenlee
Institution: National Rifle Association of America
Language: English
Subfield: Health
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W4409601323