Bill Overview
Title: SHORT Act
Description: This bill removes certain short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other weapons from the definition of a firearm for purposes of regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The bill also eliminates certain restrictions that apply to the sale or transportation of such rifles and shotguns in interstate commerce. If a state or local registration or licensing requirement is determined by reference to the NFA, the bill treats persons who acquire or possess a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with the Gun Control Act of 1968 as meeting the registration and licensing requirements. The bill preempts certain state or local laws that tax or regulate these rifles, shotguns, and weapons. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives must destroy records relating to the registration, transfer, or manufacture of applicable weapons described by this bill within one year after the enactment of this bill.
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by changes to firearm regulations, specifically owners of short-barreled rifles and shotguns
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The US population as of 2023 is estimated to be approximately 334 million people.
- There are millions of firearms owners in the United States, with estimates ranging from 70 to 100 million people.
- The National Firearms Act (NFA) currently regulates specific types of firearms, including short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
- The potential direct impact is on those who own or intend to own short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and similar weapons, which is a subset of all firearms owners.
- The bill impacts individuals interested in acquiring, selling, or transporting these specific types of firearms across state lines.
- State or local governments that rely on the NFA for firearm regulations may be indirectly impacted by the preemption of their laws.
- Owners of such weapons may benefit from reduced regulatory and tax burden.
Reasoning
- The US population most directly affected by the SHORT Act is firearm owners, specifically those interested in short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
- Given the scale of gun ownership (an estimated 70-100 million gun owners), the subset affected by this particular regulation is relatively small but significant, estimated around 20 million people.
- The policy effects need to be considered over different durations and levels of impact, as not every owner will see the same benefits or concerns due to the policy being largely deregulatory.
- Some individuals may benefit from reduced regulation and potential tax burdens, while others may have safety concerns, or see little effect if they do not own these specific types of weapons.
- The budgetary constraint implies a need to focus on regulatory changes with minimal direct financial allocations but with significant legal and procedural changes.
- Any government savings or costs resulting from deregulatory actions would pertain to administrative budgets, not direct services or subsidies to individuals.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a relief as it removes unnecessary bureaucracy and paperwork that I always thought was burdensome for law-abiding citizens.
- I expect to save time and money on registrations and permits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Police Officer (Colorado)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried about how this might affect our ability to track weapons and prevent crime.
- From a personal standpoint as a gun owner, there might be positive aspects, but it's complicated by my role in law enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Software Developer (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was always frustrated with the red tape involved in maintaining my hobby, so this change is mostly welcome.
- However, I hope it doesn't lead to increased firearm misuse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Lawyer (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an interesting legal shift, and I foresee both benefits in terms of personal freedoms and potential legal challenges.
- My concern remains about proper checks to maintain public safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Firearms Dealer (Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might increase sales and reduce burdensome paperwork, which is positive for business.
- I remain cautious about the broader societal impacts and potential changes in buyer demographics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Military (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see both sides: the potential ease for responsible owners but worry about what this means for public safety.
- Balancing these is crucial for the efficacy of such policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone interested in both legal and recreational aspects, I think this might encourage more participation in the shooting sports.
- It's crucial to ensure responsible ownership and education continue to be emphasized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Gun Shop Owner (Alabama)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time these cumbersome regulations are stripped back, allowing more freedom for business and consumers alike.
- I predict a slight uptick in business volume, though managing increased responsibilities for sales.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
State Legislator (Washington)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have strong reservations about federal preemption impacting state decisions, though the administrative burden might be lessened.
- Public safety protocols need to be steadfastly maintained.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Civil Rights Advocate (Virginia)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step towards what we believe is a broader recognition of rights, though it should come with responsible use education.
- Balancing rights and safety requires constant dialogue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Altering the definition of firearms under the NFA can affect enforcement, administrative burden, and revenue collection.
- State and local governments relying on NFA references for regulation and taxation may need to adjust their legislative frameworks.
- The policy does not directly provide federal savings, and any cost reductions are indirect and at the state or local levels.