PDA

View Full Version : Do These Allow For A Pistol Style Grasp?


10TH AMENDMENT
03-05-2006, 8:50 PM
Does anyone here think they see a pistol grip "that allows for a pistol style grasp" on this rifle???

This came off of the Ace LTD. web page with a little editing.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c142/solascriptura1984/ARFX-M16E.jpg



Editing note: I removed the M-96 so the question can be confined to specifically address the "off list" "series" rifle issue.

bu-bye
03-05-2006, 9:12 PM
Yes those are both pistol grips. The web of your hand can not be below the exposed part of the trigger.

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/graphics/aw2.jpg

10TH AMENDMENT
03-05-2006, 9:17 PM
Sorry to differ with you bu-bye, but you can put the web of your hand under the top of the exposed part of a trigger on any rifle, just as long as there is no allowance for a pistol style grasp.

And in any event, if you look the rifle, you can easily operate it without the web of your hand being below the top of the exposed trigger. Notice how the beavertail on the AR allows for this kind of operation?

Also, one could simply operate the trigger with the middle finger. This would give the operator a good grasp of the receiver with the trigger hand while at the same time holding the mag and magwell with the opposite hand. This would give the operator excellent control of the rifle while shooting it.

xenophobe
03-05-2006, 9:25 PM
There was a dealer who was selling rifles like this at the various gun shows.... I don't remember who it was, but I do remember they were rolled up by the DOJ, and the guy is like driving a taxi or tow truck these days....

10TH AMENDMENT
03-05-2006, 9:30 PM
xenophobe:

Are you saying that you know he was convicted of a criminal charge under the CA AW laws for having these specifically configured rifles?

BTW, I am not sugesting that anyone market these pieces of plastic, I'm simply asking whether anyone thinks these configurations allow for a "pistol style grasp", because if they don't, then it doesn't appear that the CA DOJ CCR is being violated.

ohsmily
03-05-2006, 9:35 PM
"pistol style grasp" is NOT the language or definition the DOJ uses in analyzing exemplars of pistol grips. They (in their own letters) look at whether the web of the hand can be used to grasp and fire the rifle below the action or if there is any provision to do so. BOTH of the above examples clearly meet that definition and are not in compliance with SB23.

The diagram above with the yellow line is indeed correct for determining whether something is a pistol grip in the eyes of the CA DOJ.

10TH AMENDMENT
03-05-2006, 9:43 PM
]]"pistol style grasp" is NOT the language or definition the DOJ uses in analyzing exemplars of pistol grips[/COLOR]. [/B] They (in their own letters) look at whether the web of the hand can be used to grasp and fire the rifle below the action or if there is any provision to do so. BOTH of the above examples clearly meet that definition and are not in compliance with SB23.

The diagram above with the yellow line is indeed correct for determining whether something is a pistol grip in the eyes of the CA DOJ.

Interesting. Where did you hear this?

blacklisted
03-05-2006, 9:53 PM
978.20 (e) Pistol Grip that Protrudes Conspicuously Beneath the Action of the Weapon

This term was originally defined as "any component that allows for the grasp, control, and fire of the firearm where the portion grasped is located beneath an imaginary line drawn parallel to the barrel that runs through the top of the exposed trigger" and noticed during the initial comment period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000). This definition was subject to broad interpretation primarily due to the wording "any component." The definition was accordingly initially revised by replacing "any component" with "a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp." The Department believes that the concept of a "pistol style grasp" is generally understood by persons affected by the regulations. This revision: "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp below the top of the exposed trigger" was noticed to the public during the first 15-day notice period (May 10 through May 30, 2000). Subsequent comments resulted in additional modifications. To further clarify the criteria that establishes a "pistol style grasp" and its relationship to a grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, the condition "in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" was added to the definition. The revision also reflects a change from "top of the exposed trigger" to "top of the exposed portion of the trigger" because as one contributor pointed out, the former would mean the upper portion of a trigger, a part of which is exposed, with the balance hidden from view in the receiver of the firearm. The final revised definition: "Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" was noticed during the second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). Although additional comments were received, no comments were received during the second 15-day comment period that warranted additional revisions to the definition.


I think that both of these would be considered pistol grips, because the web of the hand would be in that position. Sure, the fingers can be in that position in standard rifles, but they don't have the grip as a component.

ohsmily
03-05-2006, 10:01 PM
Well, it looks like "pistol style grasp" and the web of the hand language are both used...BUT...the web of the hand description is the basis for their determinations, so if your hand can fit there to grasp the weapon and fire it, you are out of luck. This is bye bu-bye (I think) or some other member, made those brackets that don't allow for a grip there, but still hold the safety selector detent in.

10TH AMENDMENT
03-05-2006, 10:03 PM
Aside from case law that interprets the Penal Code, this is the only authority that the DOJ can use to charge and put an individual on trial for violating CA AW laws:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

Article 2. Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons
978.20 Definitions

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

(b) "flash suppressor" means any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.

(c) "forward pistol grip" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger.

(d) "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

(e) "thumbhole stock" means a stock with a hole that allows the thumb of the trigger hand to penetrate into or through the stock while firing.

According to the Penal Code and the CCR, a device cannot be defined as a pistol grip unless it is a "pistol grip" that "allows for a pistol style grasp".

ohsmily
03-05-2006, 10:13 PM
OK, I agree with your post 10th Am, and it looks like you agree with me that the above examples are pistol grips according to the law. If I were the DA, I would have an easy time of making a demonstration to show that the above examples allow for a pistol STYLE grasp where the web of the shooting hand is below the top of the exposed trigger (the yellow line). The DOJ has interpreted grips like the above as pistol grips before. Local DAs will feel likewise...

BUT, perhaps I can get us a concrete answer sometime in the future, at least for SD county (I have an interview on Wednesday to intern for the SD DA's office. Of course it is just an interview and not a job offer at this point, but we'll see).

shopkeep
03-06-2006, 1:14 AM
Grip substitutes really enter a big grey area. Bu-Bye has already proved that they can be fired both while holding the stock (hence without a doubt lawful) AND from the below the imaginary line position. This is why they REALLY need to do away with pistol grips as an Assault Weapon characteristic because it's just too damn vague.

artherd
03-06-2006, 3:07 AM
"pistol style grasp" is NOT the language or definition the DOJ uses in analyzing exemplars of pistol grips.

Hate to do this to ya bud, but DOJ does use "Pistol Style Grasp" this in both CCR sec 978.20, and here:

(what we really need is for "Pistol Style Grasp" to be furthur defined... (or for cpc12276 to be repealed in entireity :D )

http://www.cdglobal.net/DOJ/barrett-thumb-grip.jpg

Wish I had a pic of the grip in question, and note that ultimately ONLY THE COURTS make law, and DOJ's been found to be wrong by them before.

saki302
03-06-2006, 4:01 AM
I do not believe either of the grips are 1. conspicuously portruding and 2. allow for a pistol style grasp' of the weapon.

I personally think they are not pistol grips, but you will be paying for the lawyer to make the court tell you I am right :D

-Dave

10TH AMENDMENT
03-06-2006, 5:57 AM
Ben:

You definitely rise much earlier in the morn than I! 3:07 a.m. sure beats my meager 5:00 a.m. any day.

That letter was going to be in the next reply that I posted today as I continue to build my case. ;)

I literally woke up this morning thinking that it would be great to have a pic of the "thumb hold" grip exemplar that Chuck sent in for the DOJ's opinion.

osmily:

BTW, I totally disagree with your position. And FWIW, I am supremely confident that you would be proven conclusivly wrong with the DOJ's "allows the fingers to wrap firmly around the grip" opinion letter rendered on 12/17/03, Judicial notice of the relevant PC and CCR sections, and my expert's in-court evidentiary demonstration of what a "pistol style grasp" actually means according to the DOJ's written opinion in response to a Public Record Act request from an Officer of the court.

Shopkeep:

I was also going to point out the video demonstration by bu-buy wherin he clearly demonstrates that operation of a non-AW AR with his SRB can be accomplished with the web of the trigger hand positioned below the "imaginary line". I was also going to point out that this apearantly totally comports with the law because there is absolutely no "pistol style grasp" being employed or even possible according to the DOJ letter to Chuck.

10TH

Builder
03-06-2006, 11:38 AM
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/pistolgrip.htm

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 12:04 PM
So why is it that you all believe that even if the DOJ gives you a letter saying something is legal, that you should still worry about being prosecuted for using it.

If you get a DOJ saying something is legal (like we all did buying these AR lower recievers, I dont hear everyone saying "the DA is going to prosecute you for buying these lower recievers even though the DOJ says it is ok"), then I would consider it legal.

10TH AMENDMENT
03-06-2006, 12:18 PM
So why is it that you all believe that even if the DOJ gives you a letter saying something is legal, that you should still worry about being prosecuted for using it.

If you get a DOJ saying something is legal (like we all did buying these AR lower recievers, I dont hear everyone saying "the DA is going to prosecute you for buying these lower recievers even though the DOJ says it is ok"), then I would consider it legal.


Out of the mouths of newbies is wisdom perfected! :D

10TH

blacklisted
03-06-2006, 12:37 PM
I think most people here are just tired of trying to figure out whether or not something is legal or "legal" due to conflicting opinions, poorly written law (some of it looks like it was written by a third grader in an ESL class), and the DoJ refusing to even give an opinion on certain items. It's insanity, and it is exactly what they want. In my opinion, all this stuff is somewhat irrelevant at this time, because these lowers will be listed soon. When this happens, and if the DoJ tries to act on their memo, then we will have bigger things to worry about. That would also be a good time to work out an alternative grip, and to prove that the fixed mag kits are good.

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 1:05 PM
Out of the mouths of newbies is wisdom perfected! :D

10TH

Very lame man.... Your just pretending you have more insight into this. Everyone can read the laws for themselves. You just think that everythings illegal no matter how many people tell you it is.

You just keep on thinking that....and in the mean time I'll be out shooting my 30rd mags on the range for the 5th time this month

10TH AMENDMENT
03-06-2006, 1:19 PM
Very lame man.... Your just pretending you have more insight into this. Everyone can read the laws for themselves. You just think that everythings illegal no matter how many people tell you it is.

You just keep on thinking that....and in the mean time I'll be out shooting my 30rd mags on the range for the 5th time this month

whonosewhose:

I think you have me wrong here, friend. I'm 100% with you on your position. Go back and read all of my replies in this thread, you and I are on the same page.

Don't be offended by the term "newbie", I actually meant it to be a term of endearment. I was conveying the idea that the wisdom in your reply (as a new member here) was more valuable than the rest of the senior members replies combined. My little quip about your reply was actually a generous compliment! ;)

10TH

bwiese
03-06-2006, 1:21 PM
Whoseonfirst...

Here's the issues and how you have to judge the severity, etc.

The 58 DA thing is sometimes far more relevant, sometimes not...

The possession of off-list lower receivers is not subject to interpretation as long as the lower ain't on the list by make/model. (We'll leave features configuration separate for now.) It is well-protected by the Harrott decision. The '58 DA' stuff there is not quite boilerplate, but you're on secure ground with a major CA Supreme Court decision.


The fixed magazine thing has no court decision backing it up, but it is clear-cut. The CCR 978.20 definition of detachable magazine is well-defined. When use of a regular tool or tools is required (i.e., stay away from bullet tips) and the mag cannot be removed/replaced "normally" in normal course of rifle operation, it is not a detachable mag. (Thus, we have the "tools plus time" mantra.) So fixed magazines obey this DOJ regulatory law in the converse; there is a clear delineation between fixed and detachable mags. They may not like it but it's clean and clear.

Keeping the fixed mag limited to 10rd or less keeps you from violating the alternate definition of an AW, a semiauto centerfire rifle w/fixed mag of over 10 rounds.

While the DOJ, if asked, might make "58 DA" noises and even complain that "it's not approved", the language is clear enough about what is/is not a detachable magazine.


Now, the pistol grip definition is murky enough that someone with fat hands might 'break the line'. Anytime you have something where the web of the hand can go other than around the stock, you're open for trouble. And the problem here is that - if you're using a detachable magazine - you're not just fighting the pistol grip definition, you're fighting the definition of AW, and you're on felony manufacturing ground - along with transport and possession charges too.

You may be 'safe' in Kern county unless Iggy of DOJ is reading this. I think this is a very very grey area. It is far far far less clearcut than the fixed vs detachable mag definition. And I would not travel with this at all into another county - perhaps that DA needs to put some meat on the table for an upcoming election.

This definition is wide enough that 58 DAs could interpret it differently and could even make a DOJ person look silly on the stand. I believe the judge could then make a finding that something was, or was not, a pistol grip - and if regarded as a pistol grip, you then have an (illegal) AW.

Sheriff's letters, etc won't make one damned bit of difference. Only a letter from your DA beforehand would count - in that county only. (And not necessarily from DOJ-driven prosecution in another court.

Now, you do have a bit of a saving way out in that the DOJ exemplar standards are in a letter as opposed to a formal regulatory definition.

I'm not even saying you're wrong; I'm saying you're "at risk", and you could spend quite a few bucks staving off a felony prosecution.




If I were using an off-list lower I'd have either a fixed 10rd mag OR cover the grip boss with bent sheetmetal to cover and retain the selector detent pin.

10TH AMENDMENT
03-06-2006, 1:52 PM
whonosewhose:

Just to make it clear, I am with you regarding your observations in this post that if the law is clear (as in the examples that Bill has described above), and the DOJ has stated their position agreeing with the law, then people should conduct their business accordingly with confidence without begging for their further permission.

However, I am not endorsing the Fab 10 device that you have discussed in detail in your own post because I am not yet confident myself that it is copacetic.

10TH

Top Cat
03-06-2006, 9:35 PM
Anyone have a complete printable copy of the letter to Mr. Michel regarding the Barrett attachment? Thanks.

whonosewhose
03-07-2006, 1:00 AM
I appreciate your guys opinions and comments made in this post and the other huge post that was closed regarding it.


I actually reinstalled my fixed mag kit (which you can see from the pic of it that I posted) for any type of inspection I have done by the local DA.

I am going to pursue the local DA letter for my local county. I dont have any reason to ever leave the county with it, so at least that will serve my local purpose.

If I am not able to get one, i think it is likely I will just leave it home now that I've had a good time shooting it and getting to try it out. I am waiting like the rest of you for the ban and registration to start....that is the much bigger concern over the pistol grip stuff...

DrMUR
03-07-2006, 9:28 PM
It's awesome how there is a possibly this is a "Pistol Grip" by CA DOJ standards.

http://www.fabten.com/ATF%20Grip_cutout-RGB_Web%20(1).jpg

Maybe ShoeLess Ventures should work on a new Colt 1911 type pistol. Call it the FAB-1911 (http://members.cox.net/apako/FAB_1911.jpg) or something. :p

kantstudien
03-07-2006, 9:40 PM
Anyone notice in the DOJ link that an SKS with fixed 10 round magazine with a pistol grip is an "assault weapon" :rolleyes:

One thing I don't get about their "line" they draw: Even if you have a normal rifle stock, most of your hand is still under that line, as well as most of the stock. So the only thing keeping it legal is the fact that one's thumb is above that line, but this is possible even with "assault" configured rifles. So if you kept your thumb above the line even when using an "assault" configuration, you should technically be "legal" (other than the "conspicuous" part, whatever the F that means). Si o no?

onley11
03-07-2006, 9:51 PM
That link is FUNNY!
Nice photoshop work, btw.
It's awesome how there is a possibly this is a "Pistol Grip" by CA DOJ standards.

http://www.fabten.com/ATF%20Grip_cutout-RGB_Web%20(1).jpg

Maybe ShoeLess Ventures should work on a new Colt 1911 type pistol. Call it the FAB-1911 (http://members.cox.net/apako/FAB_1911.jpg) or something. :p

Chaingun
03-08-2006, 8:06 AM
The DOJ seems concerned with the web or the flap of skin between the thumb and finger to be above the imaginary line. The FAB grip is either doing that or close to it.

So what happens when someone fires a mini14 with the web of the hand below the imaginary line, have they just created a pistol style of grip and can they be charged a felony for AW manufacture?

bwiese
03-08-2006, 8:27 AM
The DOJ seems concerned with the web or the flap of skin between the thumb and finger to be above the imaginary line. The FAB grip is either doing that or close to it.

So what happens when someone fires a mini14 with the web of the hand below the imaginary line, have they just created a pistol style of grip and can they be charged a felony for AW manufacture?


That's the risk with this grip: once you have an item that meets the definition of pistol grip, then the gun becomes a by-features AW.

Someone with meaty/fleshy hands could 'qualify' it...

Run, don't walk, away from this FAB10 grip.

Chaingun
03-08-2006, 9:10 AM
That's the risk with this grip: once you have an item that meets the definition of pistol grip, then the gun becomes a by-features AW.

Someone with meaty/fleshy hands could 'qualify' it...

Run, don't walk, away from this FAB10 grip.

The case I'm making is with the mini-14 with a standard wood stock. Using one's imagination, grasp the trigger guard and fire the rifle. The web of the hand is below the line, and by definition it's a pistol style grip leading to that unwanted AW manufacturing felony.

bwiese
03-08-2006, 9:33 AM
The case I'm making is with the mini-14 with a standard wood stock. Using one's imagination, grasp the trigger guard and fire the rifle. The web of the hand is below the line, and by definition it's a pistol style grip leading to that unwanted AW manufacturing felony.

Yes, but in that case the web of the hand is not really around any entity serving as a pistol grip. The triggerguard won't count.

Below underlining is mine; the CCR 978.20 definition is
"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

For this definition to be operative, there has to be 'something' there other than the regular stock. That is, the web of the hand fits between (i.e, kinda under and ahead of) the stock and (kinda behind/above) the grip. That is, the "line concept" doesn't apply if it's a regular rifle stock.

10TH AMENDMENT
03-08-2006, 11:20 AM
Most revelant though, according to the DOJ, in order to be "a grip" at all, the fingers of the hand must be able to be wrapped around the conspicuously protruding part of "the grip".

In other words, the positioning of the web of the hand is irrelevant to the definition of what "a grip" is unless the fingers can be wrapped around a conspicuously protruding device.

Hence, a device is "a grip" if, and only if the fingers of the hand can be wrapped around the device so as to provide the operator with a "pistol style grasp".

10TH

7.62MM
03-08-2006, 7:02 PM
All I can say is that 10Th has the best Avatar !!!!! I need that pic for my office or a T shirt.

artherd
03-12-2006, 2:42 AM
All I can say is I belive 10th Ammendment is correct, and not just because his opinion jives with mine! ;)

That said, I'll probally wait around for a DOJ opinion letter (I helped put the gears in motion to get one already, it's only a matter of time.) before I actually grab one of these grips and put it on my gun.

I do expect DOJ to be more than a little recicitent to give us something that basically blasts their whole category-4 nonsense, and furthur enables us to shoot these as plain 'ol long-guns with 100-round BetaC-mags. :D

If they delay and refuse to respond for long enough, I am just going to get my attorney to review the damn thing, and go shooting with it.

I won't have my rights abbrogated or illegally restricted by a bunch of pencil-pushers who suddenly grow a silence vow in violation of their charter.

Turbinator
03-12-2006, 9:31 AM
All I can say is that 10Th has the best Avatar !!!!! I need that pic for my office or a T shirt.

I'm ignorant. What is the avatar a picture of? Looks kinda like Gray Davis with two handguns.

Turby

10TH AMENDMENT
03-12-2006, 12:58 PM
Turby:

I think that this picture was taken from a televised press conference held by
Davis when he signed SB-23 into law.

He was brandishing either two Tec-9's or two Kimmel 9's. He is demonstrating what a "pistol style grasp" looks like when one holds a Tec-9 by its magazine!

10TH

CalExile
03-12-2006, 4:49 PM
"pistol style grasp" is NOT the language or definition the DOJ uses in analyzing exemplars of pistol grips. They (in their own letters) look at whether the web of the hand can be used to grasp and fire the rifle below the action or if there is any provision to do so. BOTH of the above examples clearly meet that definition and are not in compliance with SB23.

The diagram above with the yellow line is indeed correct for determining whether something is a pistol grip in the eyes of the CA DOJ.

I still can't believe it has come to this. There should not be a need for a discussion this ridiculous. WHAT THE HELL IS THE ELECTED/APPOINTED LEADERSHIP THINKING? As our country become more politically polarized it will be critical for like-minded people who support an individual's right to defend themselves to become much tighter. I understand the goal of the anti-gunners is the complete eradication of guns, but the genie is out of the bottle...

artherd
03-12-2006, 4:52 PM
Wow, had no idea it wasn't a photochop, awesome.
Turby:

I think that this picture was taken from a televised press conference held by
Davis when he signed SB-23 into law.

He was brandishing either two Tec-9's or two Kimmel 9's. He is demonstrating what a "pistol style grasp" looks like when one holds a Tec-9 by its magazine!

10TH

10TH AMENDMENT
03-12-2006, 6:53 PM
All I can say is that 10Th has the best Avatar !!!!! I need that pic for my office or a T shirt.

Here you are, 7.62MM:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c142/solascriptura1984/62229d03.jpg

Right click on it and save it to your hard drive.

(Note how he is gripping those by their magazines.)