PDA

View Full Version : WTK-is there a link to dertermine what is a 'rifle' vs a 'firearm'-?


DisgruntledReaper
05-25-2009, 11:24 AM
Looking for a BATF,DOinJ or other link to find what factors derttermine a firearm is 'rifle' or a 'firearm' such as what makes a M2 .50cal or a M1919 w/spade grips a 'firearm' and not subject to the AW flowchart compared to an AR15 or even an MG42 s/a being classed as a 'rifle' .
In the case of the MG42 S/A it would be crew served like the M2 BUT since it is smaller-?,lighter? or the fact that it has a PG (officially called a gripstick and NOT a PG)make it a 'rifle'? Also some LMG's the front end may look like a flash hider but are actually recoil boosters(MG42) or needed to get the action to function correctly in terms of gas pressure,redirection,etc.

Is there a weight or configuration chart,C&R discription...something.

I have some projects and need to know.

Thanks in advance for any leads on this.:thumbsup:

bwiese
05-25-2009, 11:34 AM
A rifle is "designed intended to be fired from the shoulder".

The related shotgun situation came up in relation to pistol-gripped shotguns without buttstocks - like a Mossberg 500 Cruiser.

Those PG-only firearms are not shotguns per GCA '68 exemption, and cannot be sold by an FFL to those in 18 to 21 age range. (They may not really even be shotguns per CA law.)

CA DOJ has a letter out supporting ownership of tripod/pintle-mount M1919s, as they are not AWs. The letter dealt with issues about nature of its 'pistol grip' not triggering AW status - but I feel the real issue is that it is not a rifle and the DOJ letter found a spurious issue on which to focus so as to not open other cans of worms.

DisgruntledReaper
05-25-2009, 11:57 AM
Hi Bill, thanks for replying...so IF I read you right, the fact that an MG42, Bren gun, an M1919 WITH a shoulder stock(have seen pics of them used in conjunction with the PG) whether belt fed mag fed,etc ...is classed as a 'rifle' simply due to this feature or characteristic. Weight has no bearing, how the firearm was 'originaly designed to be employed' has no bearing,nothing like that...

Man this AW law needs to go away or ammendments for weight or feed type,etc need to be made.....

this state needs an enema......

DisgruntledReaper
05-25-2009, 11:59 AM
oh hey,where is the letter you speak of??? link please?

ke6guj
05-25-2009, 12:26 PM
here is the CA PC definition of a rifle,
12020(c)(20) As used in this section, a "rifle" 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 energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

If it is designed to be fired from the shoulder, it is a rifle whether it weighs 10 pounds or 100 pounds.

There is no legal definition of "crew served". People throw that around like it has meaning in the PC, but it doesn't. If it is over 26" long, and is not a rifle/shotgun, it is merely a long gun firearm.

hawk84
05-25-2009, 1:08 PM
I call shenanigans, AR-15's and AK's were designed to be spray fired from the hip, not the shoulder:confused:

CHS
05-25-2009, 4:49 PM
Title 1 "firearms" encompass handguns, rifles, shotguns, non-rifle long guns, non-shotgun long guns, receivers for all of the above.

Title 2 "firearms" encompass machineguns, silencers, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns and AOW's, destructive-devices. (Some receivers count in this as well, like for machineguns).

Rifle: Title 1 firearm that is designed to be fired from the shoulder. I.E. it has a buttstock.

Shotgun: Title 1Firearm that fires fixed shotshell and is designed to be fired from the shoulder.

Non-rifle or non-shotgun Long gun: A title 1 firearm greater than 26" overall length, which fires shotshell ammunition or other cartridge ammunition, and has no buttstock, and is not a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun.

An example of the above is a 1919A4 with a 13" barrel. It's just a title 1 long gun, not a handgun, and not a rifle. It is not a short-barreled rifle because it doesn't have a buttstock along with the 13" barrel. Overall length is about 27".

For non-rifle and non-shotgun long guns, you must be 21 years old or greater to buy from a licensed firearms dealer or in any private party transfer. Same as handguns.

timdps
06-15-2009, 9:52 AM
Would really like to see/have a copy of this letter as I will be picking up a Russian equivalent of the 1919 out of the 10 day jail soon (semi-auto SG43 without muzzle device) and would like to have the letter to carry with the gun.

Thanks,

Tim




CA DOJ has a letter out supporting ownership of tripod/pintle-mount M1919s, as they are not AWs. The letter dealt with issues about nature of its 'pistol grip' not triggering AW status - but I feel the real issue is that it is not a rifle and the DOJ letter found a spurious issue on which to focus so as to not open other cans of worms.

CHS
06-15-2009, 10:54 AM
Would really like to see/have a copy of this letter as I will be picking up a Russian equivalent of the 1919 out of the 10 day jail soon (semi-auto SG43 without muzzle device) and would like to have the letter to carry with the gun.


Read what I posted above, and just print out and carry the AW flowchart with you.

Does the gun you're picking up have a shoulder stock? If so, then it's a rifle and the AW laws apply. If it doesn't have a shoulder stock, it's not a rifle and the AW laws DO NOT apply at all. The flowchart will back this up as it quotes the proper PC which specifically states "rifle".

bwiese
06-15-2009, 10:59 AM
Does the gun you're picking up have a shoulder stock? If so, then it's a rifle and the AW laws apply. If it doesn't have a shoulder stock, it's not a rifle and the AW laws DO NOT apply at all. The flowchart will back this up as it quotes the proper PC which specifically states "rifle".

While true, that's a very, very aggressive legal position.

Don't think that someone found with a stockless 26+" AK with PG, detachable mag, etc. will not have an interesting fight in court.

Also, the "made or remade" may add drama depending if the firearm was a 'virgin non-rifle'.

It would be a case that's interesting to fight and ultimately winnable, but I'd rather CGF encounters this case accidentally than having folks encouraged to push this - or better yet, resources expended to wholly take down AW law. Nevertheless, prosecuted cases such as this can show 'unclarity' around CA AW laws.

ke6guj
06-15-2009, 11:13 AM
Does the gun you're picking up have a shoulder stock? If so, then it's a rifle and the AW laws apply. If it doesn't have a shoulder stock, it's not a rifle and the AW laws DO NOT apply at all. The flowchart will back this up as it quotes the proper PC which specifically states "rifle".Yes, that is what the PC says, but IIRC, a CG'er is currently dealing with that issue with an Ma Duece .50BMG. CADOJ confiscated it as being a .50BMG rifle, but I haven't heard anything further about it.

Fjold
06-15-2009, 12:30 PM
I call shenanigans, AR-15's and AK's were designed to be spray fired from the hip, not the shoulder:confused:

Crap! I just spit on my monitor!

Thanks

timdps
06-15-2009, 1:02 PM
I have the flowchart and will be carrying it along with the Sac letter, C&R and COE. Yes, I know it is not a C&R gun, but the C&R and COE show that I have been thoroughly checked out at Federal and state levels.

Potential problem with the flowchart is that rifle is not defined anywhere on it.

While you and I understand that the gun is a non-rifle long gun and not covered buy the AW ban, persuading a LEO is a whole different matter. There will be no muzzle device with the gun when I pick it up, just to cover that potential problem.

Having a have a copy of the DOJ 1919 letter would be a great backup. I would not be totally adverse to being the crash test dummy for this (non-rifle) issue, but would prefer not to have to go through it.

So Bill, if there is a copy of this letter anywhere, I would sure like to have a copy (redacted for personal information if necessary). Please PM me if there is a problem with this request.

Photos of the SG43 at the bottom of the post. Belt fed with spade grips and a weight of 40 pounds. Receiver built (or rebuilt) by Wiselite. Its not likely to mistaken for "a stockless 26+" AK with PG, detachable mag, etc."

Thanks,

tim




Read what I posted above, and just print out and carry the AW flowchart with you.

Does the gun you're picking up have a shoulder stock? If so, then it's a rifle and the AW laws apply. If it doesn't have a shoulder stock, it's not a rifle and the AW laws DO NOT apply at all. The flowchart will back this up as it quotes the proper PC which specifically states "rifle".

CHS
06-15-2009, 1:34 PM
Don't think that someone found with a stockless 26+" AK with PG, detachable mag, etc. will not have an interesting fight in court.


Hahahaha! I didn't even think about that. I was really just thinking in terms of 1919-type guns.


Also, the "made or remade" may add drama depending if the firearm was a 'virgin non-rifle'.


Oh definitely! You can't just remove a stock from a rifle and call it a non-pistol long gun. But if it was made originally without a stock, then it's good. Again, that's what I was thinking about (1919).

CHS
06-15-2009, 1:42 PM
Potential problem with the flowchart is that rifle is not defined anywhere on it.

While you and I understand that the gun is a non-rifle long gun and not covered buy the AW ban, persuading a LEO is a whole different matter. There will be no muzzle device with the gun when I pick it up, just to cover that potential problem.


Assuming for the sake of argument that that firearm is going to be considered a "rifle", we just have to follow the flowchart.

It's semi-automatic and centerfire (and we're calling it a rifle), does it have:
(A) A pistol grip
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

The answers to A, B, C, D, and F are all definitely "NO".

The answer to E might be "yes" with the muzzle device installed. So if you keep the muzzle device removed from the "rifle", then it's the CA legal equivalent of an M1A or Mini-14.

timdps
06-15-2009, 2:11 PM
Noted and understood.

Take at look at the photos. I suspect that most LEOs are going to get pretty excited at finding one of these, regardless of the legality of the gun...which is why I would like to have the 1919 letter as backup.:TFH:

tim


Assuming for the sake of argument that that firearm is going to be considered a "rifle", we just have to follow the flowchart.

It's semi-automatic and centerfire (and we're calling it a rifle), does it have:
(A) A pistol grip
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

The answers to A, B, C, D, and F are all definitely "NO".

The answer to E might be "yes" with the muzzle device installed. So if you keep the muzzle device removed from the "rifle", then it's the CA legal equivalent of an M1A or Mini-14.

peepshowal
06-15-2009, 3:15 PM
The DOJ letter I've seen was copied and posted in this older thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=112361&highlight=1919a6

wildhawker
06-15-2009, 3:56 PM
Just for S&G, since most of the discussion so far has been CA-related and the OP mentioned BATF, here's a basic flowchart for Fed regs.

25715

timdps
06-15-2009, 3:57 PM
Thank you peepshowal!

tim

The DOJ letter I've seen was copied and posted in this older thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=112361&highlight=1919a6

CSACANNONEER
06-15-2009, 4:16 PM
I think the OP is a bit confussed (or, I am?). The reason a 1919 is not a Ca AW is because it does not have any evil features per SB23. The PG on a 1919 does not protrude from below the action. However, the PG on a MG42 does! Thereby making it an AW per SB23. An M2 with does not have any evil feature so, it's not an AW. It doesn't fit Ca's definition of a 50BMG RIFLE either. This is because Ca does have a legal definition of "rifle". M2s are not banned but, good luck convincing anyone of that.

CHS
06-15-2009, 4:23 PM
I think the OP is a bit confussed (or, I am?). The reason a 1919 is not a Ca AW is because it does not have any evil features per SB23. The PG on a 1919 does not protrude from below the action.

A 1919A6 would be a legal featureless semi-automatic centerfire rifle, but a 1919A4 is legal because it's not a rifle at all. So, theoretically you could attach a flare launcher to a 1919A4 :)

CSACANNONEER
06-15-2009, 8:22 PM
A 1919A6 would be a legal featureless semi-automatic centerfire rifle, but a 1919A4 is legal because it's not a rifle at all. So, theoretically you could attach a flare launcher to a 1919A4 :)

Agreed but, I don't think the OP gets the difference between a PG on a MG42 and a 1919A6. The placement of the PG makes a difference.