NOT an AOW & NOT a Pistol???

[skydiver]

This is not an AOW and not a pistol - it's an "other".

Link to their website so you can read yourself.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Bookite03]

I'm on the same page as you. I was flipping through the latest issue of "Shotgun News" and saw Franklin Armory had this setup posted in their ad. I already have an AR pistol with the 11.5" barrel...curious to see what you find out.

 

[ScorpioMk]

Just go by what atf says, if its over 26" with a forward grip its not an AOW since they have to be under 26". Its just an Other Weapon.

 

[spikedzombies]

So does the buffer tube count as part of the overall length?

Sent via Iluminati Spy Satellite Foxtrot Yankee

 

[iamme]

Buffer tube would count. What's interesting is it seems one could do this themselves if you could show when you built the gun you built it not with the intention of being fired using one hand.. Or am I reading that wrong?

 

[Nwcid]

Yes the buffer tube counts for length because it is REQUIRED to make the gun function in this case. Even though the buffer tube CAN be used against the shoulder that is not the intent or the purpose so it is not considered a stock. Just make sure you use a buffer tube that can not readily accept a stock. Page 2 paragraph 2 and 3 clearly explain how and why this is legal, <broken link removed>

Now if you were to use a OA-93 style upper where no rear buffer tube was required then it would not count toward the OAL and could be considered a butt stock.

 

[Greenbug]

I'm pretty sure that weapon should be classified as a pistol.

 

[Nwcid]

I'm pretty sure that weapon should be classified as a pistol.

What is your legal basis for that? It in NO way fits the legal definition of a pistol.......... Along with the fact the ATF says it is not based on the letter from the ATF that I linked above with the legal reasons it is not.......

 

[FarmerTed1971]

Get em while you can.

 

[Greenbug]

What is your legal basis for that? It in NO way fits the legal definition of a pistol.......... Along with the fact the ATF says it is not based on the letter from the ATF that I linked above with the legal reasons it is not.......

It has a rifled barrel and not butstock, therefore it is a pistol. The only thing throwing a wrench into the works is the forward vertical grip. Since it is not a smooth bore barrel designed to shoot a shotgun shell the barrel length dosent matter (between 12" & 18" for pistol grip short barreled shotguns). The ATF rules are vague as they change the classification of the weapon based on where it is (concealed or not), that is another problem here also. If I were the retailer selling this I would remove the forward grip if it came attached and sell it as a handgun with handgun purchasing requirements (21 years of age and resident of the state where transfer is taking place). If the gun came from the factory without the forward grip attached I would sell it as a handgun. If the purchaser wanted to install the forward grip after he/she bought it then the stupid infraction would be on them. What about those Rossi ranch hand lever action "handguns" that are a cut down rifle? They are a shortened barrel and shortened stock, and they are classified as handguns? The only difference I see here is the forward vertical grip that ATF somehow deems is evil, to me it's just an accessory. Call your local ATF field office and give a description of this firearm, I bet you don't get a consistant answer for your classification question.

 

[iamme]

Green read the ATF letter, it explains why it falls where it does.

 

[Greenbug]

What is your legal basis for that? It in NO way fits the legal definition of a pistol.......... Along with the fact the ATF says it is not based on the letter from the ATF that I linked above with the legal reasons it is not.......

Also notice I said that weapon SHOULD be classified as a pistol. I read the letter in your link, the only reason they do not consider it a handgun is the forward vertical grip. Remove the FVG and all the sudden it's a pistol again? The letter also states that (given the overall length is not less than 26 inches) it can only be considered an AOW is if it has the forward grip attached and it is concealed on the person.

Lawmakers and policy pundits are not burdened with having to interpret their words. The average consumer, the law enforcement officers, and ultimately the judiciary officials, are the folks that have that responsibility.

 

[mjbskwim]

Soooo skydiver,you gunna test it for us? OC in Portland?
I'll send brownies while you are up the river.

 

[mjbskwim]

As a 'other weapon' ,could it be CCed?
It's not a pistol,I know Washington changed their carry permit to make sure it was specifically for pistols.

 

[coop44]

When I was at the Shot Show, I stopped at the BATF booth and asked them point blank about that weapon and classification. The first agent I spoke to didn't have a clue. He then took me over to another agent that said yes, the BATF gave one company permission to put a forward grip on it BECAUSE it was over 26".
I'm still kicking myself that I didn't ask if I could do the same thing. DARN...DARN...DARN!

do you need the phone number?

 

[ScorpioMk]

Call from a payphone. When you call they might just tell you to send a letter to the tech branch anyways, and you know how fast that goes.

 

[Both Eyes Open]

I don't know about where you all live but my first reaction was... What the heck is a Payphone...lol!!!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It looks like a headache waiting to happen.

The ATF may have things cleared up for now, but all the ATF has to do is issue a reclassification notice and you're in possession of an NFA item.

Remember the Akins Accelerator.

Though the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) initially approved the device, they later reversed this ruling, two years after they had approved it for sale. Bill Akins received no compensation, and was forced to surrender his devices and customer list to the ATF.

Heck, remember the shoe string?
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

 

[cyclesarge]

Great, they figured out a loophole to put a forward grip on a rifle lengthed weapon, that's not a rifle. In other words you get the lower velocity of an 11.5" barrel (vs 16"+) while NOT having the increased stability of being designed to shoot from the shoulder? And someone under 21 can't buy it?

It seems like the ATF probably let it slide because it doesn't have the benefits of a rifle OR a pistol, while simultaneously having the DISadvantages of both.

 

[Fishnutz]

Its just an Other Weapon.

:huh: