|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*snip* That's what I'm saying: 14 1/2" barrel + 11 1/2" receiver/pistol grip = 26" overall length, correct? I'd actually be very interested in this since I like the idea of a shorter barrel even if it means being limited to a pistol grip.  it's always been a "both" requirement, and not an either/or. if the gun is either less than X, or has a barrel length of less than Y, it's an (insert whatever NFA weapon you want to talk about here). for the record - i'm guessing someone at the tech branch didn't toatlly understand the question. virgin receiver or not, a pistol gripped 14.5" barreled 12 ga "firearm" still fits the definition of an AOW. |
So, shotguns such as the Ithaca Auto & Burglar (which came from the factory in this configuration) would NOT need a stamp anymore?
That's good, but I believe that ATF's philosophy is that pretty much all guns in private hands are illegal (or they'd like them to be anyways), they just have to find a way to make it so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: I'm not sure where the 26" requirement comes from
The bATFe. With a m1919 they say you can chop the barrel to any length, as long as the OAL is greater than 26" From what I have been able to deduce from their logic (which is saying something) they seem to have decided that 26" is the length you have to have to not be "capable of being concealed on a person" and be in AOW land. It's possible that the OAL requirement comes from another ruling. The AOW definition is a weapon made from a shotgun. ATF ruled that a pistol grip 12 gauge is not a shotgun under the CFR definition because it is not designed to fire from the shoulder. |
|
I'm going to presume this is similar to the ATF FTB decision letter that a semi-1919 with, IIRC, an 10" barrel was not an SBR due to the overall length of the firearm exceeding 26"
Even if the ATF decides they are good with this, it will give the "constructive intent" brigade a whole new playground. Found it: 
|
|
Quoted:
What exactly is to stop you from adding a 14" barrel and putting a full stock on the gun? Since it is just a "firearm" as long as it meets the OAL rules, where is the catch? The definition of a shotgun is a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder. As soon as you attach the shoulder stock, it's a shotgun (fired from the shoulder) with a short barrel. ATF reclassed Mossberg Cruisers, et al, because they were not intended to be fired from the shoulder and therefore we could not sell them at retail to person under 21 years of age. Somebody commented that if this was the case, manufacturers would already be doing it. That's not true. ATF reclassed pistol grip shotguns after they had been sold as shotguns for decades. ATF also reclassed T/C Encore muzzleloaders after we sold them for a couple of years. Both rulings were easy to understand when you went back and read the applicable laws, but even ATF missed them when the products were first introduced. |
|
Quoted: jrzy's "loophole" is making it on a virgin receiver that has never been a shotgun (as defined). Like an AR-15 pistol. Does not matter. Smooth bore over 1/2 inch must be greater than 18 inches as measured from the breech face for a fixed action, from the cylinder gap for revolvers. OAL over 26 inches. The minimum barrel length is not up for debate. Mossberg Cruisers satisfy both minimum barrel length and OAL. |
|
Quoted:
I'm going to presume this is similar to the ATF decision that a semi-1919 with, IIRC, an 10" barrel was not an SBR due to the overall length of the firearm exceeding 26" Even if the ATF decides they are good with this, it will give the "constructive intent" brigade a whole new playground. my guess is, when push comes to shove, the proposed firearm is still an AOW. the semi 1919's and M2's etc. out there really are just "firearms". they are they can't easily be carried, can't easily be shot without a tripod, can't be concealed, still have a rifled barrel and expel a projectile though... the proposed firearm still fits the definition of an AOW - you can't just build it from a "virgin receiver" and pretend like the NFA doesn't exist because it "wasn't a shotgun to begin with". you can't just slap a stock and a short barrel on a stripped AR15 receiver and call it good because it "wasn't a rifle to begin with". once configured in that manner, it fits the definition of an SBR, and must be tax-paid to be legal. the OP may indeed get a tech branch letter that says it's good. my guess is that the ATF will backpedal from that position shortly, if the letter really does say what the OP seems to think it will. anyone remember the akins accelerator? 
|
|
Quoted:
I'm going to presume this is similar to the ATF FTB decision letter that a semi-1919 with, IIRC, an 10" barrel was not an SBR due to the overall length of the firearm exceeding 26" Even if the ATF decides they are good with this, it will give the "constructive intent" brigade a whole new playground. Found it: http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee97/DualFeed/SAR/1919letterpanacea.jpg Interesting.... I will tag this . |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you sure?
Quoted:
I doubt it. I'll tell you what I will donate $100.00 to this site if I am wrong If you're wrong you do the same. Bet? http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf Barrel length is determined by measuring from the breech face to muzzle for all but revolvers which are measured from cylinder gap to muzzle. Anything with a bore diameter over "one half inch" defined in rifles by land to land diameter (not groove), is a DD unless exempted by the Director (and there is none now). Therefore, all shotguns over 43 gauge in diameter are blanket exempted by the Director who HAS in past, revoked the sporting clause exemption on certain shotguns. And shotguns must have a barrel length over 18", otherwise it is a short barreled shotgun (6) The term "short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length and any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. Good luck. Going to be hard to get by the barrel length restriction OP is right. I've seen the original determination letter from BATFE. Though I will say this. Don't go out making them yet. There are a few hurdles that are being crossed to ensure BATFE doesn't back peddle on this. I kinda wish the OP hadn't said anything yet as now it's going to make this effort that much harder. I guess it's too late to ask everyone to just keep this quiet until we get BATFE locked into this determination. 
|
|
for the record, here is the definition of an AOW: 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 shall include 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.
it really doesn't matter if you call it a "shotgun" or a "firearm" or anything else. if you build it as stated, it fits the hilighted portion of the definition. |
|
What the man says is true. [why he went public with this now I don't understand]
I have an ATF letter and have had since last month. [Whiskerz has seen it] Why is this legal? In November 2009 the ATF published it's "FFL Newsletter" it that news letter it had an article on "pistol gripped shotgun-like firearms" telling FFL's we are to now log in and out all pistol gripped pump action shotguns under "type" of firearm as "pistol gripped". Since they are not designed to be fired from the shoulder they are not "shotguns" even though they fire a shotgun cartridge. Since they are not shotguns they can only be sold to persons who are older than 21 years of age who not a "prohibited person". That sparked an idea, I contacted ATF; Since they are not shotguns they are not restricted to the 18 inch barrel requirement. They are however required to not be "concealable about the person" or they would be an AOW or any other weapon. ATF considers anything that is less than 26 inches in overall length to be "concealable about the person". Barrel length only applies as it constitutes a portion of "over all length". If you read the AOW definition carefully you will note that pistols and revolvers are exempted from the classification criterion of "concealable about the person". [This explains the 1919 situation, since it could never be considered a pistol, but has no shoulder stock] So yes, a "pistol gripped, shotgun-like firearm" that is greater than 26 inches in overall length and has a barrel length of less than 18 inches is a title 1 firearm. My understanding is that I was not the only 07 FFL to submit this idea since the ATF FFL Newsletter. [Dude, you shot shot MY pigeons! LOL!] |
|
Quoted:
for the record, here is the definition of an AOW: 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 shall include 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.
it really doesn't matter if you call it a "shotgun" or a "firearm" or anything else. if you build it as stated, it fits the hilighted portion of the definition. But it does matter if the ATF calls it a "firearm" rather than a "shotgun". A pistol-grip-only shotgun is neither a shotgun, nor a pistol or revolver, and doesn't have a combination of rifle and smooth-bore barrels, so the highlighted portion may not apply. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
for the record, here is the definition of an AOW: 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 shall include 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.
it really doesn't matter if you call it a "shotgun" or a "firearm" or anything else. if you build it as stated, it fits the hilighted portion of the definition. But it does matter if the ATF calls it a "firearm" rather than a "shotgun". A pistol-grip-only shotgun is neither a shotgun, nor a pistol or revolver, and doesn't have a combination of rifle and smooth-bore barrels, so the highlighted portion may not apply. my point is, you can't just call it something else, and then pretend the techincal definition doesn't apply any more. you'll notice that the definition for AOW says "any device..." the proposed "firearm" fits the definition of an AOW. if the ATF has decided it doesn't, well, that's great for us. but color me shocked that they chose to go that route, and i'll be even more shocked if they don't back away from this position. as an aside, aren't stripped AR15 lowers now sold as something different? |
|
"the proposed "firearm" fits the definition of an AOW. if the ATF has decided it doesn't, well, that's great for us. but color me shocked that they chose to go that route, and i'll be even more shocked if they don't back away from this position."
You hit the nail on the head....If the proposed "firearm" as in "pistol gripped shotgun-like" firearm is an AOW....So must the millions of of all the possessed "pistol grip pumps action shotguns" be declared AOW's under that same interpretation. How does the ATF explain to DOJ and Congress it failed to regulate them for decades? Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to track down and seize them? What would the court system do when faced with hundreds of thousands of new cases?....Where every defendant makes a defense of "entrapment by estopel" [or the govt. documented it's lawful and now charged me with a crime]. Even the so called "Elmer Fudd's [I personally detest that term] would be drawn into this one. Not going to happen. The ATF cannot and will not back a way from this position now. |
|
Quoted:
for the record, here is the definition of an AOW: 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 shall include 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.
it really doesn't matter if you call it a "shotgun" or a "firearm" or anything else. if you build it as stated, it fits the hilighted portion of the definition. as long as it is 26" or longer, it is technically not "concealable". |
|
I need more time to understand the legal arguments posted... I know full well the BATFE's intent is that a shotgun can't have a barrel under 18-inches and I also realize that what the argument here is about is that teh BATFE has said that a pistol gripped shotgun is NOT a shotgun so in as much then a shotgun with a pistol grip can have any length barrel...
What I don't get is what does the 26-inches still apply then? The only reason 26-inches apply is for SBR or SBS and in this case we assume that we are talking about a pistol type weapon ONLY we can't have a bore that big or it becomes a DD. There is a logic flaw here and the error is in the original letter that said a pistol gripped shotgun is not a shotgun! If it is not a shotgun, then it must be some other type of unclassified weapon or a pistol. Perhaps the 1919 example is the best for what this really is? I need to think this over looking at the regs and a fresh cup of coffee! |
|
So which type Mossberg 500 that comes standard from the factory with just a pistol grip would be best to shorten? I have 500 with the "breacher" end that I wouldn't want to mess with, I'd rather get another 500 with a standard barrel to shorten. Add a longer pistol grip and enjoy getting told you have an illegal shotgun everytime you go to the range!
 |
|
Quoted:
"the proposed "firearm" fits the definition of an AOW. if the ATF has decided it doesn't, well, that's great for us. but color me shocked that they chose to go that route, and i'll be even more shocked if they don't back away from this position." You hit the nail on the head....If the proposed "firearm" as in "pistol gripped shotgun-like" firearm is an AOW....So must the millions of of all the possessed "pistol grip pumps action shotguns" be declared AOW's under that same interpretation. How does the ATF explain to DOJ and Congress it failed to regulate them for decades? Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to track down and seize them? What would the court system do when faced with hundreds of thousands of new cases?....Where every defendant makes a defense of "entrapment by estopel" [or the govt. documented it's lawful and now charged me with a crime]. Even the so called "Elmer Fudd's [I personally detest that term] would be drawn into this one. Not going to happen. The ATF cannot and will not back a way from this position now. bear in mind, my argument is NOT in support of the NFA or the ATF - more "thinking out loud" about the situation. in my "perfect world", this type of determination would be used as part of a challenge to the NFA in general. ESPECIALLY if they don't/can't back away from their position. it helps point out the absurdity that our gun laws are. because of this you can now have THREE of the exact same guns, one which can be bought at any store, one which needs to go through the NFA, and one which is illegal. 
|
|
Quoted: Let's see where this goes. I think jrzy is on to something. Now, we will see what proof he offers and then the question will become who wants to dance inside that fire. If the ATF Tech Branch issues a letter of approval and then decides (Atkins) later they made a mistake they will not run out and arrest people. No one in the Atkins debacle was ever arrested to my knowledge, it sucked big time for Atkins for sure though. |
|
Quoted: Finally some rational thought here in this thread.Quoted: What exactly is to stop you from adding a 14" barrel and putting a full stock on the gun? Since it is just a "firearm" as long as it meets the OAL rules, where is the catch? The definition of a shotgun is a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder. As soon as you attach the shoulder stock, it's a shotgun (fired from the shoulder) with a short barrel. ATF reclassed Mossberg Cruisers, et al, because they were not intended to be fired from the shoulder and therefore we could not sell them at retail to person under 21 years of age. Somebody commented that if this was the case, manufacturers would already be doing it. That's not true. ATF reclassed pistol grip shotguns after they had been sold as shotguns for decades. ATF also reclassed T/C Encore muzzleloaders after we sold them for a couple of years. Both rulings were easy to understand when you went back and read the applicable laws, but even ATF missed them when the products were first introduced. |
|
Quoted: Well are you taking my bet of the $100.00 donation to ARFCOM if you're so convinced I'm wrong?Quoted: jrzy's "loophole" is making it on a virgin receiver that has never been a shotgun (as defined). Like an AR-15 pistol. Does not matter. Smooth bore over 1/2 inch must be greater than 18 inches as measured from the breech face for a fixed action, from the cylinder gap for revolvers. OAL over 26 inches. The minimum barrel length is not up for debate. Mossberg Cruisers satisfy both minimum barrel length and OAL. Come on Keith put your $$ where your mouth is. |
|
Quoted: The ATF is wrong in that ruling and is still wrong.Quoted: I'm going to presume this is similar to the ATF decision that a semi-1919 with, IIRC, an 10" barrel was not an SBR due to the overall length of the firearm exceeding 26" Even if the ATF decides they are good with this, it will give the "constructive intent" brigade a whole new playground. my guess is, when push comes to shove, the proposed firearm is still an AOW. the semi 1919's and M2's etc. out there really are just "firearms". they are they can't easily be carried, can't easily be shot without a tripod, can't be concealed, still have a rifled barrel and expel a projectile though... the proposed firearm still fits the definition of an AOW - you can't just build it from a "virgin receiver" and pretend like the NFA doesn't exist because it "wasn't a shotgun to begin with". you can't just slap a stock and a short barrel on a stripped AR15 receiver and call it good because it "wasn't a rifle to begin with". once configured in that manner, it fits the definition of an SBR, and must be tax-paid to be legal. the OP may indeed get a tech branch letter that says it's good. my guess is that the ATF will backpedal from that position shortly, if the letter really does say what the OP seems to think it will. anyone remember the akins accelerator? They threw out their own definition of what a full auto is. one pull and reset of the trigger is semi auto no matter what they said. This is totally different. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are you sure?Quoted: I doubt it. I'll tell you what I will donate $100.00 to this site if I am wrong If you're wrong you do the same. Bet? http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf Barrel length is determined by measuring from the breech face to muzzle for all but revolvers which are measured from cylinder gap to muzzle. Anything with a bore diameter over "one half inch" defined in rifles by land to land diameter (not groove), is a DD unless exempted by the Director (and there is none now). Therefore, all shotguns over 43 gauge in diameter are blanket exempted by the Director who HAS in past, revoked the sporting clause exemption on certain shotguns. And shotguns must have a barrel length over 18", otherwise it is a short barreled shotgun (6) The term "short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length and any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. Good luck. Going to be hard to get by the barrel length restriction OP is right. I've seen the original determination letter from BATFE. Though I will say this. Don't go out making them yet. There are a few hurdles that are being crossed to ensure BATFE doesn't back peddle on this. I kinda wish the OP hadn't said anything yet as now it's going to make this effort that much harder. I guess it's too late to ask everyone to just keep this quiet until we get BATFE locked into this determination. It is locked in, it's not going to get over ruled. There are now three letters stating the same thing. One coming out of an 07 in the Mid west, mine is going out I have been told and one two coming from Ga. |
|
Quoted:
The ATF is wrong in that ruling and is still wrong. Thye through out their own definition of what a full auto is. one pull and reset of the trigger is semi auto no matter what they said. This is totally different. it's only different because they haven't reversed their decision. yet... again, i'm not supporting them, just talking it through. it seems like they've gotten themselves between a rock and a hard place on this one. as i said above, based on this decision, you can now have three of the exact same guns and one will be title 1, the second title 2, and the third illegal.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are you sure?
Quoted:
I doubt it. I'll tell you what I will donate $100.00 to this site if I am wrong If you're wrong you do the same. Bet? http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf Barrel length is determined by measuring from the breech face to muzzle for all but revolvers which are measured from cylinder gap to muzzle. Anything with a bore diameter over "one half inch" defined in rifles by land to land diameter (not groove), is a DD unless exempted by the Director (and there is none now). Therefore, all shotguns over 43 gauge in diameter are blanket exempted by the Director who HAS in past, revoked the sporting clause exemption on certain shotguns. And shotguns must have a barrel length over 18", otherwise it is a short barreled shotgun (6) The term "short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length and any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches. Good luck. Going to be hard to get by the barrel length restriction OP is right. I've seen the original determination letter from BATFE. Though I will say this. Don't go out making them yet. There are a few hurdles that are being crossed to ensure BATFE doesn't back peddle on this. I kinda wish the OP hadn't said anything yet as now it's going to make this effort that much harder. I guess it's too late to ask everyone to just keep this quiet until we get BATFE locked into this determination. It is locked in, it's not going to get over ruled. There are now three letters stating the same thing. One coming out of an 07 in the Mid west, mine is going out I have been told and one two coming from Ga. LOL... you really believe that BATFE won't reverse their opinion? You really think that it's "Locked in"? Dude, you gotta be kidding me. Why don't you go ask Bill Akins about THAT then come and talk to me. Discretion is the better part of dealing with the BATFE. I'm betting that there will be a redetermination letter within a year on this. Probably after a ton of these guns get sold or made then the BATFE will re-classify them and fuck the gun owning community again. JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH THE AKINS. Basically, this thread is probably going to be viewed as a challange or "in your face" to BATFE. |
|
I am starting to believe this is possible and while I don't like pistol gripped shotguns as a whole I am thinking a pistol gripped 20-gauge Remington 870 with a short barrel might just make a handy camp gun. I say 20-gauge as the recoil is more acceptable for a wimp like me - I have never liked shooting pistol gripped shotguns
|
|
I've been making this argument for years.
Basically, the weapon is NOT a shotgun because it does not have a buttstock. It is NOT an AOW because it cannot be easily concealed. It is, by definition, identical to a semi-auto 1919 - it is merely a firearm. This shenanigans of late with the "pistol-gripped shotgun" that the ATF has pulled is all the impetus needed to kick this pig and get her started. I wouldn't wager against the OP. BTW OP, is it not AWESOME how the ATF just FABRICATED the "pistol-gripped shotgun"! |
|
Quoted:
Yeah I think SURBU would have stopped making all those cool short shotguns out of pistol grip pumps and paying the $5 to do it also... ( That is, if what you are saying is true, but I doubt it. The transfer tax is $5 but there is still a $200 tax to make it. |
|
I love seeing loopholes to NFA idiocy,but I'm curious: why wouldn't this just get tossed under the bus as a DD with the director directly exempting it from the sporting purposes clause? The language allows the director to exempt shotguns firing shotgun ammunition from the DD list which is usually done as a matter of course for most shotguns,but it by no means prohibits him from making DD's out of any new shotguns that displease the ATF (the Striker 12 or USAS-12 for example). A stroke of the directors pen,and every shotgun in the US no longer has a "sporting purpose". At least in theory, anyway. Doing it with one new variant proposed by Mossberg or Remington would be a far easier task. |