[hoosierham]

If 14 inch shotgun barrells are government approved for their agents then we all should be able to have one if we want.

[Sender]

Actually you can buy one for just a $5 tax stamp. But then you are listed as an “AOW” owner with the feds.

[Cboldt]

-- If 14 inch shotgun barrels are government approved for their agents then we all should be able to have one if we want. --

The District Court held that section 11 of the [1934 National Firearms] Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly ... quashed the indictment. ...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

That was then. 1) Miller's indictment was quashed, and 2) the Supreme Court had no evidence regarding the efficacy of short barrel shotguns, and because it had no evidence, it COULD NOT SAY whether or not the 2nd amendment protected the forbidden weapon. If a Court had evidence that a short barrel shotgun met any of the several criteria the Supreme Court outlined, and if it followed the instructions of the Miller case, it would find, as did the court below in the Miller case, that the 1934 NFA ban on short barrel shotguns was unconstitutional.

Fast forward to 2008, and behold the Supreme Court butchering its own precedent.

The judgment in the [Miller] case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men's federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act ... It is entirely clear that the Court's basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was ... that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection.

District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (2008)

My point being that the federal government is corrupt to the core. It draws it's "legitimacy" only from the credible threat of use of force against its subjects. It's position as superior against the people is morally void.

[ctdonath2]

You can have one. $200 tax for one with a stock, $5 without.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Yeah they are AOW and the NFA tax is minuscule - it's not unheard of to pick up the guns for $400 or so when cop shops are selling them off. They are somewhat a niche weapon, and I think a bit short on rounds for the purposes many of us like to have a pump gun.

The specs don't mention breacher nozzles but it seems to me the 14 inchers have them quite often. I did not look up Remington's exact specs for that model number.

Why IRS thinks they need them is a mystery to me since there are already cops who will happily enforce bona-fide judicial orders in every state and county. Probably just a little extra stimulus money to spend to help out a small business or two.

Yeah that's gotta be it - nothing to get het up about at all.