Q: Mossberg Shockwave Raptor - is it a pistol in OR now?

[The Heretic]

Now that the OSP has requested that these be classified as a "pump pistol" when transferring, does that make them a pistol under OR law and therefore legal to carry concealed?

Any other states where this may apply?

I know federal law says it isn't a pistol or a shotgun or a rifle - it is something else, but I am wondering where it falls under state law.

Read More

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

If you want to carry your Shokwave concealed on the person it would then be considered an AOW (Any other Weapon) by the ATF requiring a $5 tax stamp and a long wait.

National Firearms Act Definitions
Any Other Weapon
26 U.S.C. § 5845(E)

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term "Any Other Weapon" means:

• Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive;
• A pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell;
• Weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading; and
  
• Any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire.

Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

 

[The Heretic]

But the ATF has already said it is not an AOW, and they are on shaky ground saying a firearm can be reclassified simply by how it is used - although they tried to go there with the pistol braces.

I am more concerned about state law than federal law in this regard. I doubt the ATF is going to be charging someone with carrying anything concealed, especially if the state did not arrest someone for the concealed carry to start with.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

If the ATF has evidence that you have concealed the Shokwave on the person then they consider it an AOW.

 

[Alexx1401]

But the ATF has already said it is not an AOW, and they are on shaky ground saying a firearm can be reclassified simply by how it is used - although they tried to go there with the pistol braces.

I am more concerned about state law than federal law in this regard. I doubt the ATF is going to be charging someone with carrying anything concealed, especially if the state did not arrest someone for the concealed carry to start with.

This would fall into one of those area's where "I" would not be the one to try it first. If OR does keep classifying these as a handgun for the transfer I would expect some will try this, CC of them. Then I would expect it would not take long till someone ends up in court over this. Will make an interesting test case. I just would not be willing to be the one to do it and have to pay.

 

[etrain16]

Well, it may be a wait, but why not go ahead and do the $5 AOW stamp and be covered? Then you wouldn't have to be concerned with the state or the feds.

 

[Alexx1401]

Well, it may be a wait, but why not go ahead and do the $5 AOW stamp and be covered? Then you wouldn't have to be concerned with the state or the feds.

Be interesting to see what the Feds would do if you tried to get one for one of these. If they would just sell you the stamp, or if they would say "this is not an AOW".

 

[etrain16]

Be interesting to see what the Feds would do if you tried to get one for one of these. If they would just sell you the stamp, or if they would say "this is not an AOW".

Send a picture of it under your jacket? By their definition, it would definitely be an AOW then....

 

[The Heretic]

Well, it may be a wait, but why not go ahead and do the $5 AOW stamp and be covered? Then you wouldn't have to be concerned with the state or the feds.

Oregon only allows handguns to be carried concealed, not AOWs or SBSs or SBRs or anything other than a handgun.

But as suggested, I will let someone else set the precedent. I suspect it won't be too long before we hear of a court case and it will be interesting to see what happens.

I know this sounds like one of those scenarios where the legal logic is weak and based on a paperwork technicality, but it just got me thinking. I actually don't care for shorty shottys (except bullpups), but if a person could carry one concealed, I can think of a scenario or two where that would be desirable (one would be getting home during a SHTF event - and yes, ROL would be applicable for at least a short time, if not longer - another would be carrying it loaded in a vehicle).

 

[etrain16]

Oregon only allows handguns to be carried concealed, not AOWs or SBSs or SBRs or anything other than a handgun.

But as suggested, I will let someone else set the precedent. I suspect it won't be too long before we hear of a court case and it will be interesting to see what happens.

I know this sounds like one of those scenarios where the legal logic is weak and based on a paperwork technicality, but it just got me thinking. I actually don't care for shorty shottys (except bullpups), but if a person could carry one concealed, I can think of a scenario or two where that would be desirable (one would be getting home during a SHTF event - and yes, ROL would be applicable for at least a short time, if not longer - another would be carrying it loaded in a vehicle).

I'm certainly not interested in being a test case. But it brings up an interesting question - state's rights vs. the feds. Who has the final say? If the state of Oregon can reclassify a weapon, in this case making a 'firearm' into a 'pistol pump', does that somehow trump the ATF? If yes, then there would be no problem concealing a Shockwave. But does a state have the right to do that?

 

[Stomper]

Should this guy get an AOW stamp for his AR?

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Be interesting to see what the Feds would do if you tried to get one for one of these. If they would just sell you the stamp, or if they would say "this is not an AOW".

If you don't have to use one and are not outed for printing, then the ATF is none the wiser.

If you are the subject of a Man with a Gun call, or need to use your Shokwave in self-defense then a liberal DA would have no problem pilling on illegal short barreled shotgun chargers.

 

[Alexx1401]

If you don't have to used in and are not outed for printing, then the ATF is none the wiser.

If you are the subject of a Man with a Gun call, or need to use your Shokwave in self-defense then a liberal DA would have no problem pilling on illegal short barreled shotgun chargers.

This is what I meant about someone will end up being a "test case" for this. If OR keeps transferring these as a pistol some are no doubt going to carry. Then someone will end up being a test case by either Feds, state, or both.

 

[Gonzales]

Ok, folks. Please show me a document that classifies these firearms as pistol. I read the document to the FFL's, and i don't see it. I only saw instructions on how to enter them in the state system. Nothing about a formal reclassification.

 

[Alexx1401]

Ok, folks. Please show me a document that classifies these firearms as pistol. I read the document to the FFL's, and i don't see it. I only saw instructions on how to enter then in the state system. Nothing about a formal reclassification.

That is what I have no doubt someone is going to go by. The state telling dealers to transfer it as a pistol. I can assure you it will not be me as I don't live in OR. Even if I did I would not do this. I also have little to no doubt that some are doing to try this because of how that was worded. Either by caring one concealed or keeping one loaded in the car when they have a permit. Someone will no doubt end up making themselves a test case. Again it will not be me.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

That is what I have no doubt someone is going to go by. The state telling dealers to transfer it as a pistol. I can assure you it will not be me as I don't live in OR. Even if I did I would not do this. I also have little to no doubt that some are doing to try this because of how that was worded. Either by caring one concealed or keeping one loaded in the car when they have a permit. Someone will no doubt end up making themselves a test case. Again it will not be me.

This is what confuses me, can we or can we not carry a loaded shotgun/rifle in a car with us? I have been told yes and I have been told no. Since the state classifies as a pistol I he hoped this would be a slam dunk. However the risk of being a liberal test case does not peak my interest. I would like very much to have a shockwave as my truck shotgun, but is does no good unloaded.....

 

[etrain16]

Ok, folks. Please show me a document that classifies these firearms as pistol. I read the document to the FFL's, and i don't see it. I only saw instructions on how to enter them in the state system. Nothing about a formal reclassification.

The question is why they did that in the first place. There is no need to transfer it as anything other than 'firearm', because that would be a legitimate transfer based on current classifications. But the state has chosen to depart from the ATF's classification by calling it a 'pistol pump'. Now I may not be a lawyer, but it seems to me that calling the gun anything other than 'firearm' is a form of reclassification - it's not a pistol, per the ATF, but the state of Oregon has decided to call it one - and that has a serious implication regarding Oregon carry law. If Oregon didn't want to create confusion in this matter, why bother calling it a "pistol" in the first place? What they've done is, potentially, reclassified these guns, which I think could now be argued in a court case based on the official direction given by the state police.

 

[Gonzales]

It's not legal to conseal them on your person in Oregon (Not covered by an Oregon CCW), and the Feds say if you get caught concealing one, then they "may" classify it as an AOW.

I seem to remember in my CCW class that there were some protections for us when we are traveling with "firearms" in a vehicle without a trunk, like an SUV, or a truck.... But that we needed a CCW to be excluded from the nasty ORS's.

 

[Gonzales]

etrain16, I did not see a classification as a pump pistol. Just instructions on how to fill out the electronic form.

The ATF form 4473 actually has special instructions on how to fill out the form for these firearms. Why would an FFL disregard theses instructions?

Until Oregon officially classifies them, then the federal classification stands. As paraphrased by several lawyers.

 

[etrain16]

It's not legal to conseal them on your person in Oregon (Not covered by an Oregon CCW), and the Feds say if you get caught concealing one, then they "may" classify it as an AOW.

I seem to remember in my CCW class that there were some protections for us when we are traveling with "firearms" in a vehicle without a trunk, like an SUV, or a truck.... But that we needed a CCW to be excluded from the nasty ORS's.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not so sure you can say one way or the other, at least without getting lawyers involved. Oregon doesn't have a "CCW", they have a "CHL" which is, specifically a "Concealed Handgun License". And Oregon defines "handgun" in the OAR's as: "Handgun" means any pistol or revolver using a fixed cartridge containing a propellant charge, primer and projectile, and designed to be aimed or fired otherwise than from the shoulder (OAR 166.210(5)) I think it's reasonable that someone could argue by Oregon calling these guns a "pistol", they are, in fact, allowing, by their own definition, that these are now 'handguns' as far as the state is concerned.

I wouldn't test this myself, but I'm darn certain someone's going to try it - and I think they will have a potential defense. In the end, the state had no reason to transfer them as anything but 'firearms', and in giving their new direction, they are responsible for creating a gray area. From what I've long understood, ambiguity in a law or contract favors the one that didn't write it. I think someone could potentially beat this - it just won't be me testing it.