There’s a major flaw in the legal reasoning behind the ATF’s recent Can Cannon letter, and I doubt that it was accidental . . .

By Robert Farago

TTAG reader Armchair Command’oh writes:

In its letter to X-Products, the ATF claims that when affixed to an AR lower, the can cannon must be registered under the NFA. Their argument: the definition of an NFA firearm includes “short-barreled shotguns,” which is a shotgun with a barrel under 18″ of length. Problem. In their letter, the ATF pulls the definition of shotgun from the GCA, not the NFA. And this bit of interpretive legerdemain makes all the difference in the world . . .

Every lawyer knows that different legislative acts can have different definitions for the same word. For example, a “GCA firearm” is more like the common definition of a firearm, where an “NFA firearm” is limited to the fun stuff like machine guns and silencers. As with “firearm,” the GCA and NFA both have their own definition for “shotguns.” Under the GCA, a shotgun is defined as stated in the ATF’s letter. “Shotgun” under the NFA, however, is defined as follows:

The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the …read more

Source:: Truth About Guns