People v Smith - short barreled shotgun

[Molly B.]

However, unlike handguns, short-barreled firearms are not “an entire class of
‘arms’ *** chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self-defense. See Heller 554
U.S. at 625, 628. Short-barreled firearms are regulated precisely because they are “concealable
weapon *** likely to be used for criminal purposes.” See United States v. Thompson/Center
Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 517 (1992) (explaining that short-barreled rifles are regulated under the
National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845 (2018)) for this very reason). The sheer number
of registered short-barreled firearms does not undercut their dangerousness or the fact that they
are “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”4 See Heller, 554 U.S.
at 625, 628; see also People v. Dean, 207 Ill. App. 3d 640, 642 (1990) (noting that the UUW
statute “provides that a person in possession of a sawed-off shotgun *** has committed a crime.
No exceptions are allowed under this section because such weapons are considered to be
inherently dangerous to human life”).

 

 

People v. Smith, sawed off shotguns.pdf

[Euler]

[s] strikes again (possibly a pun intended).

Decision said:

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
...
In 1992, defendant Calvin Smith (also known as Sam Hewitt) pled guilty to two counts of unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) (720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7) (West 1992)) for possessing a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches and an overall length of less than 26 inches (a short-barreled shotgun). Defendant was initially sentenced to 18 months' probation and was subsequently sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for violating his probation.

On June 23, 2022, defendant filed a petition for relief from judgment under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2022)), seeking to vacate his UUW conviction as a violation of his second amendment rights.
...

In other words, he is/was seeking restoration of his 2A rights as a convicted felon, saying the law he was convicted of violating (possessing an NFA item banned in Illinois) is unconstitutional.

Edited February 14, 2024 at 06:26 PM by Euler

[Flynn]

This is an issue the Supreme Court is going to have to address, that being are these 'weapons' not in common use by choice or because they are illegal, if they are illegal I don't believe the state has a solid leg to stand on in regards to the common use claim...  Plus history and tradition come into play as short-barreled rifles were very common in this country historically, and nothing makes a short-barred riffle inherently dangerous and unusual...  Miller is IMO horrible case law and although Heller may lean on it, it literally also smacks Heller/Bruen in the face, it's just a horrible ruling and needs to be overturned...

[davel501]

On 2/14/2024 at 2:28 PM, Flynn said:

This is an issue the Supreme Court is going to have to address, that being are these 'weapons' not in common use by choice or because they are illegal, if they are illegal I don't believe the state has a solid leg to stand on in regards to the common use claim...  Plus history and tradition come into play as short-barreled rifles were very common in this country historically, and nothing makes a short-barred riffle inherently dangerous and unusual...  Miller is IMO horrible case law and although Heller may lean on it, it literally also smacks Heller/Bruen in the face, it's just a horrible ruling and needs to be overturned...

 

How many SBSs exist out there as AOWs due to arbitrary ATF rules? Could ask the same for SBRs as pistols. I'll bet there's common use and then some.

[yurimodin]

On 2/14/2024 at 2:28 PM, Flynn said:

This is an issue the Supreme Court is going to have to address, that being are these 'weapons' not in common use by choice or because they are illegal, if they are illegal I don't believe the state has a solid leg to stand on in regards to the common use claim...  Plus history and tradition come into play as short-barreled rifles were very common in this country historically, and nothing makes a short-barred riffle inherently dangerous and unusual...  Miller is IMO horrible case law and although Heller may lean on it, it literally also smacks Heller/Bruen in the face, it's just a horrible ruling and needs to be overturned...

IANAL but from what I have gathered from watching 4 Boxes Diner its a big circular argument that oddly doesn't require Americans to posses them as "common use" like we would think of it. It basically came down to "A military or militia somewhere on the planet fields these types of weapons so therefore they are valid for America's 'well regulated/equipped militia'".

[Upholder]

It's also important to understand that it is not required that they be in common use to be protected.  Quite the opposite. 

 

Showing that they are in common use is a defense to any claim that they are "dangerous and unusual" because anything commonly used is not unusual.

 

They must be both, so even if they are not commonly owned, they also have to be shown to be unusual to be able to be banned.

[Flynn]

On 2/14/2024 at 4:42 PM, yurimodin said:

IANAL but from what I have gathered from watching 4 Boxes Diner its a big circular argument that oddly doesn't require Americans to posses them as "common use" like we would think of it. It basically came down to "A military or militia somewhere on the planet fields these types of weapons so therefore they are valid for America's 'well regulated/equipped militia'".

 

The thing is Miller flip flopped in their own logic...  Short-barreled shotguns are a staple of militaries and have been for centuries, yet Miller contradicted themselves in their ruling and claimed they were not protected because they had no militia use, this is hogwash at best at worst a deliberate flat-out lie by the court...  And post Heller where the 2nd was declared an individual right, the entire militia use test should be tossed as that is only one purpose of the 2nd, not the entirety of the 2nd's scope...  I would argue any day that a sawed-off shotgun is an extremely fine home protection tool for many reasons and because of this it should be covered under the 2nd...

[davel501]

On 2/14/2024 at 6:27 PM, Flynn said:

 

The thing is Miller flip flopped in their own logic...  Short-barreled shotguns are a staple of militaries and have been for centuries, yet Miller contradicted themselves in their ruling and claimed they were not protected because they had no militia use, this is hogwash at best at worst a deliberate flat-out lie by the court...  And post Heller where the 2nd was declared an individual right, the entire militia use test should be tossed as that is only one purpose of the 2nd, not the entirety of the 2nd's scope...  I would argue any day that a sawed-off shotgun is an extremely fine home protection tool for many reasons and because of this it should be covered under the 2nd...

 

Miller is ripe for challenge if you read the history of that case. Talk about a corrupt court, doubt the dems are as brave now. 

[mab22]

Depending upon the accuracy of the article. Some coach guns were as short as 12", and were used as defensive weapons. Pretty sure they can be found in the history books prior to the specific date. And I don't think they were outlawed way back before the civil war, there could be your history...
 

https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/guns/cz-hammer-coach-12-gauge-shotgun-review/

 

Quote

A Little Coach Gun History

The specs for an Old West coach gun are fairly liberal yet specific. They were generally side-by-side double guns in 12 or 10 gauge, and occasionally 16 gauge, with barrel lengths anywhere from 12 to 24 inches. They came as ready-made guns from factories or were cut down from longer barreled hunting guns by individuals or gunsmiths, as needed. They typically sported exposed double hammers and double triggers.

 

Of course this came up in a search.

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/nmah_414915

 

[mab22]

And then there is this, according to the article they were used by police in the 1920-30's, as LESS THEN LETHAL and designed to maim fleeing burglars.

So, less than lethal, less recoil, would be good for in the home as it may not go through as many walls, so lets BAN IT!

 

Quote

Officers carried them on motorcycles and in cars, and were allowed to use them to shoot to maim fleeing burglars.

https://www.guns.com/news/highly-prized-ithaca-auto-and-burglar-shotgun

 

Edited February 15, 2024 at 03:02 AM by mab22

[Flynn]

On 2/14/2024 at 8:55 PM, mab22 said:

Pretty sure they can be found in the history books prior to the specific date.

 

 

The blunderbuss was a very common naval, coach, cavalry and prisoner guard weapon, one that was used heavily in the Revolutionary War itself!  It was a very common firearm during our founding era for close-quarters defense, this can't be denied based on history and tradition...

[Jeffrey]

Sign me up for one:  https://americanguncraft.com/products/

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 2/15/2024 at 8:08 AM, Jeffrey said:

Sign me up for one:  https://americanguncraft.com/products/

Insane pricing.... $299 is about the max they should get for that. 

 

[JTHunter]

On 2/15/2024 at 8:08 AM, Jeffrey said:

Sign me up for one:  https://americanguncraft.com/products/

 

Unfortunately, these only have single triggers.  That Ithaca has double triggers.

That's one of the things I like about my old Stevens SxS.

[Jeffrey]

On 2/19/2024 at 9:42 PM, JTHunter said:

 

Unfortunately, these only have single triggers.  That Ithaca has double triggers.

That's one of the things I like about my old Stevens SxS.

I hadn't even noticed that.  I agree the double trigger should be mandatory for a piece like this.

[skinnyb82]

On 2/14/2024 at 5:29 PM, Upholder said:

Showing that they are in common use is a defense to any claim that they are "dangerous and unusual" because anything commonly used is not unusual.

 

They must be both, so even if they are not commonly owned, they also have to be shown to be unusual to be able to be banned.

That's the thing, the "and" which people seem to have great difficulty grasping. It must be BOTH dangerous AND unusual. Is it dangerous but not unusual? Protected. All guns are dangerous. Is it unusual but not dangerous? Protected.

 

It's just like "cruel and unusual punishment." Punishment must be both cruel and unusual, not one or the other. Is it cruel to execute a pedophile? Absolutely not. Is it unusual? Yes, because we haven't executed them in a long time, but it doesn't pass the test so constitutional IMO.