The Florida Attorney General, Ashley Moody, has issued an opinion clarifying that the Florida legal definition of a “short-barreled rifle” does not include a pistol to which a stabilizing brace has been attached, even if the stabilizing brace is used as a stock. From myfloridalegal.com:
Unless and until judicially or legislatively clarified, I conclude that the definition of “short-barreled rifle,” which the Legislature enacted in 1969, does not include a handgun, such as a pistol, to which a person attaches a stabilizing brace, because the use of a such an optional accessory does not change the fundamental characteristics of the handgun.
The Florida statute banning the possession of short-barreled rifles was passed in 1969, shortly after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by Congress at the urging of President Lyndon Johnson. From Florida Statutes 790.001(16)
(16) “Short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches.
The short-barreled rifles were added to the federal National Firearms Act in 1934 as an afterthought by the actions of a Minnesota Congressman, Harold Knutson. Knutson was a man of dubious sexual proclivities who used his position on the Ways and Means Committee to have the Roosevelt Administration add short-barreled rifles to the items, which required a $200 tax and to be registered with the Federal government.
The Roosevelt administration never considered short-barreled rifles to be a significant criminal problem. They were focused on handguns.
In 1961, 27 years later, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), then a part of the Department of the Treasury, officially defined shoulder-stocked pistols as short-barreled rifles. They defined the most common shoulder-stocked pistols, Mausers and Lugers, into the curio and relic category (effectively removing them from the definition of short-barreled rifles) in 1981.
Shoulder stocks had been available for pistols as long as there have been pistols. Many people found that adding a shoulder stock to a pistol aided its accuracy.
Banning an entire class of firearms that are in common use is not allowed by the Second Amendment, as held in the Heller decision and clarified in the Bruen decision in 2022. Short-barreled rifles were common and advertised prior to 1934. Several hundred thousand have been registered under the onerous regulations and tax requirements of the National Firearm Act. Pistols with shoulder stocks should never have been added to the NFA.
Congressmen have been educated beyond what they were in 1934 and 1968. Those who want to disarm the American people resort to silly argument about how adding a shoulder stock to a pistol makes it “more powerful”. They also claim it is still as concealable as a pistol. Adding a shoulder stock makes a pistol less concealable.
Shoulder-stocked pistols have historically been hindered by the same short sight radius that exists for regular pistols. Micro red-dot optical sights have increased the practical accuracy of a shoulder-stocked pistol to virtually the same as a pistol caliber carbine.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
It has always been my contention, that the laws in this country are made by people of dubious character who have no idea of what they are doing!
I think that most of you will find this interesting: What Was the LOGIC behind the 1934 National Firearms Act??There was none…it was an emotional response to a gangster problem…that was created by the 18th amendment
Stop using reason, logic and common sense Dean. It was even worse than what you are saying. I have done some deep dives in the 1934 NFA and came up with some rather scathing information about the whole debacle that if utilized by the supremes or anyone court for that matter would put the whole mess to rest. 1934 – National Firearms Act (NFA)Doesn’t this act OBVIOUSLY violate SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?Especially the video at the bottom about pistol braces.
Considering that they didn’t outlaw SBRs in congress but instead simply chose to tax them is a clear violation of 2A law to start with. Acknowledging that as the standard is problematic regardless of their intentions to help brace owners.
In other words; The word salad of frightened stupid people continue as to ‘what is a pistol’. The “controller groups” have always had a crazy “hard-on” to remove a hand-gun from the American Citizen. The CONTROLLERS have tried in the past to disarm Americans from owning pistols. They have never stopped. There are OVER 25,000 INFRINGEMENTS currently on the “law books” across America.
There is only ONE REASON, as stated in the Federalist Papers by an Originator of Our American Constitution. This ONE RESTRICTION for any individual, AFTER CONVICTION IS : “A person who is WANTON to harm others”!!
Adding a pistol brace to a AR 15 , 5.56 caliber weapon does not turn it into a 454 Casull . Where is the logic in any of this brace rule crap ? LMFAO
that is good for us floridians but, the corrupt feds can still enforce the illegal federal pistol brace rule and bring us up on federal charges. kind of f-ed up, but that is the way they roll.
I love this comment…”congressmen have been educated beyond what they were in 1934 & 1968.” That’s a true statement. Their allegiance is their excuse nowadays. They’re either Constitutionalists or they have gone over to the dark side with the communists, no middle ground anymore contrary to what the charlatans want to tell us. They also have to deal with some, not nearly enough engaged constituents who are much wiser than them on any given subject. Let’s not forget the advocacy groups, sans the limpdick NRA and its members, are growing in influence daily. Once we all engage, it will be… Read more »
Surprisingly, Ms Moody gets one right now and again. Something something blind squirrel something something.
So the law was originally intended to ban sawed off rifles and shotguns that kind of convert a long gun into a pistol. So you should be able to put a long barrel or a buttstock onto a pistol to make it larger and easier to use, but not the other way around. That’s how it used to work.