By Jim Strong
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in United States v. Rush that short-barreled rifles (SBRs) can still be restricted under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This decision relies on outdated legal precedent and the flawed reasoning that SBRs are inherently more dangerous than other firearms due to their concealability and power. However, an examination of modern firearm technology, criminal statistics, and even the laws of anti-gun countries undermines this logic.
This ruling is particularly relevant in light of the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a historical tradition test for evaluating firearm laws. Under Bruen, firearm regulations must be justified by a historical analogue—meaning the government must prove that similar restrictions existed at the time of the Founding. While the Court acknowledged that firearms deemed dangerous and unusual may be regulated, it also reaffirmed that weapons in common use for lawful purposes are constitutionally protected.
This directly contrasts with United States v. Miller (1939), in which the Supreme Court upheld the NFA’s regulation of short-barreled shotguns under the reasoning that the Second Amendment only protects weapons with a clear connection to militia service.
Because no evidence was presented that short-barreled shotguns were commonly used in militias, the Court upheld their regulation. The Miller decision has since been used to justify various firearm restrictions, but Bruen fundamentally altered the legal landscape, requiring a more rigorous historical analysis.
The Rush Case and the Seventh Circuit’s Reasoning
Jamond Rush was charged with illegal possession of an SBR, specifically a 7.5-inch Anderson Manufacturing AR-15. He challenged the charge under Bruen, arguing that SBRs should not be restricted under the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit upheld the NFA’s restrictions, rejecting his argument based on three primary points:
- SBRs are more concealable than full-length rifles, making them more likely to be used in crime.
- SBRs are more powerful than handguns while still being concealable, making them uniquely dangerous.
- Historical firearm regulations support restrictions on concealable weapons.
Essentially, the court’s position is that SBRs are a special case—too dangerous to be freely owned but too concealable to be unregulated. This classification, however, is legally and factually unsound.
Why This Reasoning is Flawed
1. Criminals Do Not Care About SBR Regulations
The first flaw in the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning is the assumption that SBR laws impact criminal behavior. In reality, the difference between an SBR and a braced pistol is minimal—the primary distinction being the presence of a rifle stock versus a stabilizing brace. Criminals do not swap between braces and stocks before committing crimes, nor does the legal classification of an SBR impact their decision to use a firearm unlawfully.
Additionally, handguns—not rifles of any kind—are used in the overwhelming majority of firearm-related crimes. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report consistently shows that handguns account for 80–90% of firearm-related homicides, while rifles (including so-called “assault rifles”) make up only around 3%. Shotguns, including both short-barreled and standard-length variants, are involved in fewer than 2% of firearm-related crimes.
From a practical standpoint, if criminals wanted an easily concealable yet powerful firearm, they would simply use a handgun, which is unrestricted by barrel length laws—and, in fact, they already do.
2. The Concealability Argument is Misplaced
The court’s concern over concealability is similarly misplaced. While it is true that some SBRs are more maneuverable indoors than full-length rifles, they are still not nearly as concealable as handguns.
Even the most compact SBRs, such as the MP5K-PDW or the Flux Raider, are still significantly larger than a handgun, which remains the preferred firearm for criminals precisely because of its concealability and ease of use.
And even these almost concealable “SBRs” (really, like semi-auto submachineguns) are pistol calibers anyways, not more powerful rifle or shotgun chamberings.
The “Dangerous and Unusual” Argument is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Another major flaw in the “not in common use” argument is that it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy—certain firearms are rare not because of a lack of demand, but because the government has artificially restricted them for decades. Ironically, this circular logic was pointed out – albeit from the other side – by Justice Breyer.
In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, highlighted the circular reasoning inherent in determining a weapon’s constitutional protection based on its commonality. He argued that the majority’s approach could lead to a paradox where the legality of a weapon depends on its widespread use, which is itself influenced by existing regulations.
Specifically, Justice Breyer noted that if legislative bodies lifted restrictions on certain firearms and they became popular for self-defense, the Court might then be compelled to recognize those weapons as constitutionally protected, thereby engaging in circular reasoning.
But the same argument from a pro-gun perspective looks like this:
- Machine guns and SBRs are rare because they have been heavily restricted under the NFA and the Hughes Amendment (1986).
- Courts then argue that they can be banned because they are rare.
- But they are only rare because of those very bans.
Modern gun restrictions have shaped what weapons are considered “common” today. In other words, if the government bans a firearm long enough, it can later claim that the firearm is “unusual” simply because people haven’t been allowed to buy it legally for generations. That is not an objective legal standard—it is a consequence of past regulation.
If common use is the test, then it should be based on what people would own in a free market, not what they were allowed to own under nearly a century of government restrictions.
SBRs are Already in Common Use
Short-barreled rifles are firmly in common use, particularly within the U.S. military and law enforcement. The M4 carbine, which is the standard-issue rifle for most U.S. service members, has a 14.5-inch barrel—only 1.5 inches under the legal threshold for an SBR.
The Mk18, a 10.3-inch barreled variant, is widely used by special operations, SWAT teams, and federal law enforcement agencies precisely because it is easier to maneuver in confined spaces such as buildings and vehicles.
The same attributes that make the Mk18 effective for close-quarters combat would logically make it an ideal home defense firearm for law-abiding civilians.
SBRs are Less Powerful Than Standard Rifles
Despite the perception that SBRs are uniquely dangerous, the ballistics tell a different story. The Mk18’s 10.3-inch barrel results in significantly lower velocity and energy than a standard 20-inch M16:
- A 55-grain M193 5.56mm round fired from a 20-inch barrel achieves roughly 3,250 feet per second (fps) and 1,290 foot-pounds (ft-lbs) of energy.
- From a Mk18’s 10.3-inch barrel, the same round drops to 2,600 fps and 828 ft-lbs of energy—a reduction of nearly 36% in muzzle energy.
If SBRs are less powerful than standard rifles, the claim that they are “uniquely dangerous” is unsupported by basic physics.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces an outdated and arbitrary restriction that does little to promote public safety. Criminals do not care about barrel length laws, and SBRs are neither statistically more dangerous nor more commonly used in crime than standard rifles or handguns. The Supreme Court may need to clarify whether these restrictions align with Bruen or if they represent another example of legacy laws upheld without meaningful historical justification.
If courts continue upholding restrictions that lack a rational basis, it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court must step in and bring federal gun laws in line with the modern legal framework.
Jim Strong is a Second Amendment attorney with nearly two decades of experience litigating firearms law and constitutional issues. Licensed in multiple federal and state jurisdictions, he has represented clients in complex gun rights matters and is a dedicated advocate for preserving the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Read the full article here
