Buckeye Reporter

The ongoing legal battle over short-barreled rifles (SBRs) has drawn attention to how federal courts interpret Second Amendment rights in light of Supreme Court precedents. In Robinson v. U.S., the Eleventh Circuit upheld restrictions on SBRs, relying on the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller rather than conducting a historical analysis as outlined in more recent Supreme Court decisions.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with several other organizations, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the case and clarify how lower courts should apply District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The SAF's position is that SBRs are protected "arms" under the Second Amendment and that there is no longstanding national tradition of banning firearms based solely on barrel length.

According to SAF, “All firearms constituted ‘arms,’” referencing language from Heller. The organization also criticized the Eleventh Circuit for not engaging in historical analysis, echoing concerns raised by Justice Thomas about courts disregarding Supreme Court precedent.

The brief argues that attempts to find historical analogues for barrel length restrictions have failed, noting that firearms such as Winchester’s Model 1892 “Trapper” lever-action rifle were commonly sold with barrels that would now classify them as SBRs under current law.

SAF points out there are over 870,000 registered SBRs today despite regulatory hurdles imposed by the National Firearms Act (NFA). Millions of similar firearms remain unregulated by those standards.

The organizations further contend that even under Miller, SBRs should be protected because they have recognized military uses; for example, the M4 carbine used by the U.S. military features a 14.5-inch barrel—classified as an SBR for civilians.

They also highlight that Congress originally included SBRs in NFA regulations primarily due to efforts to ban handguns—a ban which ultimately failed—leaving what they describe as a legislative accident entrenched in law.

Financial burdens associated with these regulations are also at issue. The NFA imposes a $200 tax per SBR, which would equate to thousands of dollars today when adjusted for inflation from its inception in 1934. SAF argues this is inconsistent with historical practices regarding taxes on common arms and references discriminatory post-Civil War gun taxes aimed at newly freed Black citizens as examples of unconstitutional abuse rather than legitimate regulation.

SAF maintains this is not an isolated matter but part of a broader pattern where some federal circuits avoid or reinterpret Supreme Court guidance on gun rights cases: “When lower courts ‘appear bent on distorting this Court’s Second Amendment precedents’... waiting for more ‘percolation’ only rewards judicial resistance.”

They conclude by calling for clear affirmation from the Supreme Court that all firearms fall under Second Amendment protections and any restrictions must be supported by historical precedent—not outdated or misapplied rulings like Miller.

“For gun owners, Robinson v. U.S. is about more than SBRs,” SAF states, emphasizing concerns about whether courts will treat Second Amendment rights equally alongside other constitutional guarantees.

If reviewed by the court, Robinson could determine whether commonly used firearms such as civilian versions of military rifles remain accessible and whether financial barriers may be imposed through special taxes.