Short-Barreled Rifles, the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court: Why Robinson v. U.S. Matters
The fight over short-barreled rifles (SBRs) isn’t just about barrel length — it’s about whether courts will follow the clear rules laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), or whether they’ll find creative ways to sidestep them.
In Robinson v. U.S., the Eleventh Circuit upheld the federal restriction on SBRs without doing the required historical analysis. Instead, it leaned entirely on U.S. v. Miller (1939), treating that 86-year-old case about short-barreled shotguns as if it automatically decided the SBR question. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with the Second Amendment Law Center, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case — and to set the record straight.
Step One: SBRs Are “Arms” Under the Second Amendment
Under Bruen, the test is simple:
- Does the “plain text” of the Second Amendment cover the conduct?
- If yes, does the government’s restriction align with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?
SAF argues the first step isn’t complicated. “All firearms constituted ‘arms,’” Heller explained, citing founding-era sources (554 U.S. at 581). Short-barreled rifles are still rifles — the difference is just a few inches of barrel. The Eleventh Circuit’s refusal to even engage in historical analysis is what Justice Thomas has criticized in other cases as courts giving “a judicial middle finger” to the Supreme Court’s precedents (Duncan v. Bonta, 133 F.4th 852, 890 (9th Cir. 2025) (R. Nelson, J., dissenting)).
No Historical Tradition of Barrel-Length Restrictions
When courts do try to find historical analogues, they come up empty. Because,,, there’s no national tradition of banning common firearms based on barrel length. Winchester, for example, sold its popular Model 1892 “Trapper” lever-action in 14″ and 15″ versions — both would be SBRs under today’s NFA rules. These weren’t exotic weapons; they were production firearms sold to the public.
SAF points out that over 870,000 registered SBRs exist today, despite the NFA’s burdens. And millions of similar firearms — AR pistols, carbines with 16″ barrels, etc. — are in civilian hands without the NFA’s extra taxes and registration requirements.
Even Miller Supports SBR Protection
The Eleventh Circuit claimed that Miller resolved the SBR question. That’s wrong. Miller held that a short-barreled shotgun wasn’t protected because there was no evidence it had a militia use. But SBRs do. The U.S. military’s M4 carbine has a 14.5″ barrel — making it an SBR in civilian form. If Miller is about arms “part of the ordinary military equipment” (307 U.S. at 178), SBRs are exactly that.
As SAF notes, even the U.S. government’s own brief in Miller said the Second Amendment “gave sanction only to the arming of the people as a body to defend their rights against tyrannical and unprincipled rulers” — and the arms in question were the ones useful for that mission.
The NFA’s inclusion of SBRs was never based on a belief they were “dangerous and unusual.” Congress initially planned to ban handguns, and SBRs were swept in only to prevent people from substituting them for banned pistols. When the handgun ban failed due to public backlash, SBR restrictions stayed anyway — a legislative accident that became entrenched law.
This case concerns a defendant charged with possession of an unregistered short-barrel rifle.
Skipping the Bruen analysis altogether, the 11th Circuit ruled relying entirely on U.S. v. Miller (1939) that the question was already decided, and the restrictions on SBRs are… https://t.co/aITegZGLes pic.twitter.com/6r7B0B7P5n
— SAF (@2AFDN) August 12, 2025
Special Taxes & the Second Amendment
This case is also about money. The NFA imposes a $200 tax on each SBR — the equivalent of thousands in 1934 dollars — and SAF argues there’s no historical tradition of taxing common arms.
Historical examples of taxes on arms are rare and targeted at concealable weapons like Bowie knives or pocket pistols, not the standard-issue arms of the day. An 1856 North Carolina law even exempted pistols used for militia mustering from its weapons tax.
Other taxes were openly discriminatory. In 1867, Washington County, Mississippi, imposed a $5–$15 tax “on every gun and pistol” — a sum that would be $108–$325 today — as part of Reconstruction-era efforts to disarm newly freed Black citizens. Such laws are not the “historical tradition” Bruen calls for; they are examples of unconstitutional abuse.
Why the Supreme Court Should Step In
This isn’t an isolated case. SAF points out that certain circuits — especially the Ninth and Fourth — have repeatedly twisted or sidestepped Bruen. When lower courts “appear bent on distorting this Court’s Second Amendment precedents” (Snope v. Brown, 145 S. Ct. 1534, 1538 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting)), waiting for more “percolation” only rewards judicial resistance.
Granting Robinson would let the Court affirm two key principles:
- All firearms are “arms” under the Second Amendment.
- Restrictions must be justified by clear historical precedent, not by skipping straight to outdated or misread cases like Miller.
And if the Court isn’t ready to take the full case, SAF urges at least a grant-vacate-remand, with instructions to do the proper historical analysis.
The Stakes
For gun owners, Robinson v. U.S. is about more than SBRs. It’s about whether courts will apply Bruen consistently — or whether the Second Amendment will be treated, in Justice Thomas’s words, as “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees” (Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70).
If the Court takes the case, it could reaffirm that the right to keep and bear arms includes the very arms — like the M4 in military service or the civilian SBR — that are most suited to the Second Amendment’s core purposes: self-defense and defense against tyranny. And it could shut down the growing tactic of pricing the right out of reach with punitive taxes.
We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?
Second Amendment Foundations Petition for Certiorari in Robinson v. U.S.
Supreme Court Asks for Justice Department’s Position on SBRs
NFA Prosecution Shows ATF Still Determined to Imprison Americans for Braced Pistols
The NFA AND HUGHES AMENDMENT are blatantly unconstitutional and indefensible. Both must be abolished and any politician proposing similar infringements prosecuted for operating under the color of law and abuse of powers the government does not have.
And likewise, machine guns and suppressors are ordinary military equipment employed by people to defend against tyranny, and the gov has no power over them or our use and ownership of them.
in this day and age what Amendment is more abused/restricted/infringed than any of the others? if you guessed the 2nd, you would be correct. the roberts court will historically be remembered as one of the worst in protecting the freedoms bestowed upon us through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. although there have been a couple proper rulings for the 2nd Amendment, cases like this which should be preeminent in ensuring our civil rights is protected against government tyranny. that the lower courts are allowed to deny/restrict any law-abiding citizens civil rights in a fashion like this and have scotus… Read more »
Sometimes I wonder what these Court Jesters, er, squeeze me, justices, eat for breakfast that twists their minds so badly. There are LAWS that define what constitutes a “firearm”. We all KNOW what a firearm is… but they put on their ugly black pyjamas and suddenly reality begins to twist and fold and shimmer and morph….. like that film Vertigo. I should think that when these guys leave this planet with their twisted thinking they should be adjudicated mentally unstable then defrocked and debenched. A tiny pillbox Derringer firing a .22 Short and with a barrel half an inch long… Read more »
Penning the Second Amendment, the Founders expected citizens to answer the call to “…defend the security of a free state…” with their personally owned, current technology, fully military capable keep’n’bearables…..barrel lengths and rounds/minute/trigger pull not restricted…..not Liibturd approved SuperSoakers and rubberband guns.
The Miller opinion doesn’t include determination that SBS’s were arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS GVR’d the case back to the circuit court with instructions to determine if a smooth bore firearm with barrel length less than 18″, the NFA definition of SBS, has any efficacy to the maintenance of a well regulated militia. Because, the remaining plaintiff in the case, Miller, nor his attorney presented evidence to answer SCOTUS’s question the NFA prohibition of possession of SBS wo/payment of $200 excise tax which includes registration of tax payment wasn’t determined. 2008’s Heller v. DC mooted Miller by disconnecting… Read more »
All 2nd Amendment articles and court decisions have become word salads. It would be interesting to know why. If you pay people money to sit around and talk about something, they would get bored after a short while when they get to work each day and say, “Nothing to do here, the right to weapons can not be infringed”. What I can not figure is the gun owners. They sit around every day and read this stuff. Are they bored? Are they chicken? Do they want to be controlled? The engineering way to figure out a black box problem is… Read more »
I think it’s risky to put too much stock in the historical tradition argument. At some point, courts will cite BAD laws and policies, such as the NFA, as part of that established history. 2A lawyers will then have to remind courts that slavery was the accepted law for a long time, but that didn’t make it right. The plain text, along with actual data that shows the public is safer with more guns in the hands of good people, is a better argument. And we should work on specifically codifying the right to self-defense.better than it is now. By… Read more »