Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Tell that to the ATF's proposed checklist which also says "may be AOW" also, they have said handguns with second vertical grips are AOWs even if the handgun has a rifled boreAn AR pistol could never be an AOW, based on their definition.
"The term does not include a pistol or revolver with a rifles bore…."
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-does-"any-other-weapon-mean
Yeah, I get it. But these ideas to try and skirt around the rules could get someone heat they don't want…..and misinformation here at NWFA puts the whole site at risk.Tell that to the ATF's proposed checklist which also says "may be AOW" also, they have said handguns with second vertical grips are AOWs even if the handgun has a rifled bore
WA does impose a 16" upper limit for CPL purposes.There is no limit on handgun barrel length.
Should negate but.... that still leaves ATF saying unilaterally that AR pistols "could be AOWs" for whatever capricous reasons they come up.Yeah, I get it. But these ideas to try and skirt around the rules could get someone heat they don't want…..and misinformation here at NWFA puts the whole site at risk.
Until they update their definition or release the checklist to the masses, the current definition should be followed. And that would negate any AR pistols as AOWs.
RCW cite?WA does impose a 16" upper limit for CPL purposes.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010RCW cite?
Understood. I'll take a real definition over a "could be" any day. Especially if we're talking about potential legal issues.Should negate but.... that still leaves ATF saying unilaterally that AR pistols "could be AOWs" for whatever capricous reasons they come up.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-does-"any-other-weapon-meanATF won't give an hard definition, they purposely leave it vague for future interpretation.
Also why they like to say Determination Letters are only good for one case, so they can stomp on someone with an identical build later at will.ATF won't give an hard definition, they purposely leave it vague for future interpretation.
Indeed. One question that I have never seen answered satisfactorily...So much time and money wasted. Just to try and find a loophole for a limited amount of time. Why do you think braces are going away….
In no way am I regretting the form 1s I have done in fact I am pretty happy they have been completed and approved. I don't have to stress any of the legalities of "braces" or "AOWs" ect.
Call me a "boot licker" I could care less.
Not that I know of….. I'm not worried about getting my stuff confiscated. And there are people with way more stuff then me out there. I am a guppy in a huge ocean. I'm not even worth the time, attention, oxygen or paperwork. It's the people that try to skirt the law, find loopholes, create "new" firearms etc. that the ATF is really focused on. It ain't me.Indeed. One question that I have never seen answered satisfactorily...
In the decades, years since the establishment of NFA 1934, and subsequent GC laws...
Has there ever been any attempts by the Federal Govt to confiscate lawfully registered NFA firearms/items from lawful/law-abiding owners? (Edit, other than the MG registry and post 1986 MG thing)
I mean, we keep hearing about unregistered this and that and so forth.. and yes there have been several cases related to unregistered NFA items or unlicensed individuals.
Indeed. Its only being discussed because of the proposed worksheet/scorecard containing the term AOW in addition to SBR.To answer your question, no. I've never heard of any legal NFA item being confiscated just because. But I'd bet if someone tries to justify a 16" barreled AR pistol as an AOW they would. Hell if they tried to justify ANY AR pistol as an AOW they would. The ddefinition is crystal clear on that. I don't even know why it's being discussed.
I think I disagree; when statutes have an "or" clause, it means either/or. So a firearm with a 20" barrel would still be a pistol if it is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010
9A.41.010 (23): (23) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
So a 10.3" Mk 18 with a brace and no VFG is a CCW-legal pistol, a 12.5" Troy A4 (ATF "Other Title 1 Firearm") with VFG is not.
I edited my post, discussions are good when facts and logic are recognized.Indeed. Its only being discussed because of the proposed worksheet/scorecard containing the term AOW in addition to SBR.
I think trying to fire a 20" AR with one hand would be dangerous at a minimum. And a tough sell to anyone wearing .gov gear.I think I disagree; when statutes have an "or" clause, it means either/or. So a firearm with a 20" barrel would still be a pistol if it is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
(24) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
Most laws are written this way so as to allow for courts and agencies to interpret them to apply to different scenarios and circumstances.ATF won't give an hard definition, they purposely leave it vague for future interpretation.