PDA

View Full Version : Shoeless Ventures Hook Grip


m1aowner
05-12-2006, 1:02 AM
Anybody using the hook grip? Was there a response from the DOJ on this item? I remeber reading awhile back about some guy in So Cal having one attached, and was encountered by law enforcement while shooting his AR, but was given a green light to continue, for the rifle had no pistol grip. Anybody?

http://www.fabten.com/what's_new.htm

PanzerAce
05-12-2006, 1:03 AM
Not aproved by the DOJ, so I dont think very many people are using it.

Also, check your PMs

blkA4alb
05-12-2006, 1:05 AM
Run away from it, it can be called a thumbhole stock/pistol grip. It allows for a pistol style grasp and the web of the thumb is clearly below the trigger. They say it is ATF approved, not DOJ. It can be quite misleading. You wont see one on my rifle anytime soon.

EBWhite
05-12-2006, 1:11 AM
This device clearly allows for the web of the hand to be below the top of the trigger.. Not legal in California right now...

I am coming up with a similar idea that was submitted to the DOJ. I'm waiting for a response before I make some for sale...

xenophobe
05-12-2006, 1:21 AM
Look carefully at the picture... I know the picture shows a legal hold, but the web of the hand can easily be placed below the line... making it illegal. It also allows for a 'pistol' style grip, and it also protudes conspicuously.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/407/grip1fi.jpg

dbol
05-12-2006, 9:31 AM
I know this has been discussed before and that everyone here is just trying to help out, but it's worth noting that the advice given thus far in this thread is extremely conservative.

The fabten grip is not a thumbhole stock because it is not a stock at all. The definition of thumbhole stock (from CCR 978.20(e)) is "a stock with a hole that allows the thumb ... to penetrate into or through the stock..."

I do not believe the fabten grip to be a pistol grip because I don't believe the grasp required to hold the fabten grip is a "pistol style grasp" (the last time I held a pistol at the angle of grasp required on the fabten grip, I nearly lost all my toes). In my opinion, the grasp achieved with the fabten grip is much closer to the normal grasp on a rifle than it is to the normal grasp on a pistol. Remember also that the definition of pistol grip requires both a "pistol style grasp" and the ability for the web of the trigger hand to rest below the top of the trigger.

In addition, there is considerable space between what the DOJ will grant explicit approval to and what is legal under the law.

All this said, I don't recommend that everyone use the fabten grip. The issue of how they will be treated is not settled, so proceed with caution.

dbol
05-12-2006, 9:32 AM
One final point for the board at large: when dismissing out of hand concepts like the fabten grip as illegal, think about the possible future effects of the permanent record of your comments. If a DA were prosecuting someone for an AW charge related to using a fabten grip, one of the central issues would likely be whether or not the fabten grip allows a pistol style grasp. The opinions of average gun owners could be considered relevant to such a determination and the DOJ and probably an enterprising DA know exactly where to look.

Just think about that before you type "Illegal!!!!" and hit post.

bwiese
05-12-2006, 9:39 AM
Dbol...
We'd rather have minor side effect of being over conservative than have someone busted for illegal AW.

The Fab10 grip in combination with a very vague 978.20 definition of pistol grip (not nearly as clean-cut as that for 'detachable magazine' leaves a lot in the air.

Legality could vary depending if the owner or tester had a fat hand.

YOU ALL SHOULD RUN RUN RUN AWAY FROM THE FAB10 GRIP. It doesn't get you anything in CA. If it's legal to run the FAB10 grip it's legal to run a regular pistol grip. You should not rely at all on this grip having ANY special attributes.

Jicko
05-12-2006, 9:51 AM
I believed one of us had, luckily, convinced some LEOs that the particular Fab10 grip is NOT a pistol grip.... but that can have a very different outcome to some other LEOs....

That's also an example of how all these are confusing to both the general public and to the LEs.

I believed that general consensus is that this grip is a NO-GO....

GTKrockeTT
05-12-2006, 9:56 AM
Illegal!!!!

dbol
05-12-2006, 10:08 AM
Dbol...
We'd rather have minor side effect of being over conservative than have someone busted for illegal AW.

The Fab10 grip in combination with a very vague 978.20 definition of pistol grip (not nearly as clean-cut as that for 'detachable magazine' leaves a lot in the air.

Legality could vary depending if the owner or tester had a fat hand.

YOU ALL SHOULD RUN RUN RUN AWAY FROM THE FAB10 GRIP. It doesn't get you anything in CA. If it's legal to run the FAB10 grip it's legal to run a regular pistol grip. You should not rely at all on this grip having ANY special attributes.

Bill,
You say there's a lot in the air, but then you equate the FAB10 grip to a standard pistol grip. Those two positions are inconsistent - the former says there is uncertainty, the latter concludes that the FAB10 grip is a pistol grip.

There is uncertainty as to whether the FAB10 grip is a pistol grip. I'll reiterate my recommendation that, unless they're willing and have the resources to defend themselves in court, people not use these while running a detachable mag rifle. However, the best advice for people in general is not to build up an off-list receiver into any configuration and certainly not to take any such rifle out in public.

xenophobe
05-12-2006, 3:15 PM
There is uncertainty as to whether the FAB10 grip is a pistol grip. I'll reiterate my recommendation that, unless they're willing and have the resources to defend themselves in court, people not use these while running a detachable mag rifle. However, the best advice for people in general is not to build up an off-list receiver into any configuration and certainly not to take any such rifle out in public.

I'm sorry I didn't save the picture of the Fab10 grip without someone holding it. Clearly the web of the hand can easily be placed below the line of the trigger. If you look at the picture above, a "pistol style grasp" is definied where you can wrap all of your fingers around the device. Clearly the FAB10 is illegal to me, and even being very liberal, I'd still say it's shaky ground.

The Barrett Thumb Hold device is similar in some ways, but was determined NOT to be a pistol grip, because you could not wrap any other fingers around it. The FAB10 grip can clearly be held with all of your fingers.

shopkeep
05-12-2006, 3:42 PM
I wouldn't mess with the FAB10 grip if I were you, but if you've got an excellent attorney about about $10,000 go for it!

dbol
05-12-2006, 4:40 PM
If you look at the picture above, a "pistol style grasp" is definied where you can wrap all of your fingers around the device. Clearly the FAB10 is illegal to me, and even being very liberal, I'd still say it's shaky ground.

Is the "fingers wrapping" concept only embodied in the Barrett grip letter? It certainly isn't in the statute or regulations.

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

Note that the above letter doesn't say that allowing "fingers to wrap firmly around the grip" is the only requirement of a "pistol style grasp;" I would contend that grip angle is also one of the characteristics of a "pistol style grasp." Even assuming for the sake of argument that the finger wrap capability is the only requirement of a pistol style grasp, it appears that the "firmness" requirement may not present in the FAB10 grip. While I've never personally held one, it looks like it would be difficult for an average adult hand to achieve a firm grip on that slender piece of metal, especially at the grip angle required.

Additionally, the letter is of little weight in this regard as the administrative record of 978.20(e) show that the DOJ affirmatively decided not to define "pistol style grasp." The Department believes that the concept of a "pistol style grasp" is generally understood by persons affected by the regulations. (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.htm) This means that the common definition of "pistol style grasp" that you or I as gun owners would ascribe to such term, is the meaning of such term for the purposes of the regulations. If everyone else is looking at the FAB10 grip and thinking, "wow, that's just like how I hold my pistols..." well then, I guess I've got an outlier point of view and I'll be over with the first-aid kit for your nasty case of hammer bite.

Again, I'm not saying people should be using these. I just want to make it clear that the advice offered by Bill and others is, in my view, very conservative and offered that way to help the members at large avoid encounters with uninformed LEOs. Additionally, if these discussions are ever brought into court under the guise of determining how the "common man" interprets these laws, I want to make it clear that not everyone here thinks that any nub is a pistol grip.

gidddy169
05-12-2006, 5:14 PM
Cut the tail off the grip and I would say completely legal, but that is just my opinion. Plus then it is basically just a sawed off pgrip so what's the point?

xenophobe
05-12-2006, 5:26 PM
Is the "fingers wrapping" concept only embodied in the Barrett grip letter? It certainly isn't in the statute or regulations.

No, but it's expressed in that DOJ opinion and if it were to go to court, I'm not confident that it would be ruled out.


Note that the above letter doesn't say that allowing "fingers to wrap firmly around the grip" is the only requirement of a "pistol style grasp;" I would contend that grip angle is also one of the characteristics of a "pistol style grasp." Even assuming for the sake of argument that the finger wrap capability is the only requirement of a pistol style grasp, it appears that the "firmness" requirement may not present in the FAB10 grip.


I never stated that it was the only requirement. There are multiple factors that define a pistol grip. What I am concerned about is what a jury of non-gun owners could be convinced of.

The Fab10 grip:
1) protudes conspicuously
2) can allow for the web between the thumb and forefinger to fall below the top of the trigger
3) allows for it to be grasped with the whole hand

Personally, even being very liberal about interpretations, according to California definition, it's in grey area at best, and is illegal at worst.


Again, I'm not saying people should be using these. I just want to make it clear that the advice offered by Bill and others is, in my view, very conservative and offered that way to help the members at large avoid encounters with uninformed LEOs. Additionally, if these discussions are ever brought into court under the guise of determining how the "common man" interprets these laws, I want to make it clear that not everyone here thinks that any nub is a pistol grip.

I think it is different enough that an uninformed LEO would probably let it slide if you put up a good arguement. I think there is enough room for doubt that a DA could prosecute. Do you deny this?

Jicko
05-12-2006, 5:40 PM
Forget about the fabten grip....

Use either the "official nice SRB" or just make your own non-pistol-grip...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=33847&page=3

artherd
05-12-2006, 8:43 PM
Fab-10 grip may or may need about 2" of that peg cut off.

My opinion is that this is not a 'pistol style grasp' in any event.

Tread carefully, you'll probally end up having to prove it.

EBWhite
05-12-2006, 11:22 PM
Forget about the fabten grip....

Use either the "official nice SRB" or just make your own non-pistol-grip...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=33847&page=3

Or the one i'm making. Waiting for the seal of approval from the DOJ. :D

xenophobe
05-12-2006, 11:58 PM
Umm...

I notice how you've conveniently edited the phrase defining a pistol grip. The entire phrase reads:

protudes conspicuously BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1956/grip1fi1wd.jpg

kantstudien
05-13-2006, 12:57 AM
The trigger is part of the action, why are you using the top of the trigger only? Draw the line straight across the bottom of the trigger guard. Not that it would help with that particular grip.

xenophobe
05-13-2006, 2:30 AM
The trigger is part of the action, why are you using the top of the trigger only? Draw the line straight across the bottom of the trigger guard. Not that it would help with that particular grip.

Why? What's the point? Are you not familiar with current DOJ definition?

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

Da_shotcaller
05-13-2006, 8:50 AM
Im not going to say that this HOOK is a pistol grip or not :rolleyes: . Im also not saying that this HOOK is illegal or not :D . Im not even suggesting that you can put this HOOK on you OLL. But what i'll suggest is to do a little more research especially with "PISTOL STYLE GRASP" you might be surprised what you will find ;) .

Few months ago an individual showed the same picture of this Pistol HOOK to a few co workers of mine and was also shown to other members of the same field in other areas. Boy i can still here the laughter.

Like what i said do more research on PISTOL STYLE GRASP. And if you guys want to know what was said to the individual that ask about the FAB10 grip pm me i'll tell you excactly what was said. Oh i'll be really picky on who i answer this PM for a real good reason.

Da_shotcaller
05-13-2006, 8:52 AM
Oh one more thing if you decided that you would use FAB10 on your OLL i believe you need to make the spring shorter a :rolleyes:

kantstudien
05-13-2006, 9:52 AM
Why? What's the point? Are you not familiar with current DOJ definition?

I am, but I don't give a **** what DOJ defines. Bottom of the trigger is part of the action, so why draw an arbitrary line through the mag well?

xenophobe
05-13-2006, 2:24 PM
IF you guys don't give a F about what the DOJ says, why are you even looking at this page?!?! WTF?.... just put that pistol grip on, throw in your BetaC and start blasting at whatever moves... :rolleyes:

I mean, that's probably what you're doing anyways... Not that I really care. Just don't get caught. :p

Chaingun
05-15-2006, 8:27 AM
Look carefully at the picture... I know the picture shows a legal hold, but the web of the hand can easily be placed below the line... making it illegal. It also allows for a 'pistol' style grip, and it also protudes conspicuously.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/407/grip1fi.jpg

Based on where the web between the thumb and index finger rest, I would say not legal.

To make it legal, raise the bar so the top is parallel to the red line.

Now that we have a legal form of grip, what does the DOJ think since they are the expert witness for the State?

vonsmith
05-15-2006, 8:58 AM
I believe this design is legally marginal. I don't think it matters that the web of the trigger hand is below the line. It's hard to have otherwise on this rifle. The main issue is the grip area could be loosely interpreted as being a pistol style grasp, a poor one to be sure, but possibly. One or more fingers can wrap around something and meet the thumb on the opposite side. With a lawyer's imagination that is a pistol style grasp of sorts.

The DOJ's arbitrary definitions are often very poorly written and based often on poorly written law. It's hard to define something objectively and accurately when your real goal is just to make compliance unmanageable. If someone here wants to be a test case, go ahead. I make my living off of government contracts and I'm not in a position to challenge the hand that feeds me.


=vonsmith=

vonsmith
05-15-2006, 10:34 AM
I've mentioned this before recently and no one has commented on it...

Instead of trying to force the web of the hand higher to be above the arbitrarily assigned "imaginary line", move the "imaginary line" down. Modify the trigger group so that the top exposed part of the trigger is lower. For example add a glue-on shroud on each side of the lower that covers the top 1/4" or so of the trigger. The trigger would still have the same pivot point and all internals. Do you really need that top 1/4"? Then it may be legal to use a pistol grip as long as the web of the hand is constrained to be above the new "line". Either that or the DOJ has to change their interpretation again. :D

Just a different approach to think about. :rolleyes:


=vonsmith=

Chaingun
05-15-2006, 1:36 PM
I've mentioned this before recently and no one has commented on it...

Instead of trying to force the web of the hand higher to be above the arbitrarily assigned "imaginary line", move the "imaginary line" down. Modify the trigger group so that the top exposed part of the trigger is lower. For example add a glue-on shroud on each side of the lower that covers the top 1/4" or so of the trigger. The trigger would still have the same pivot point and all internals. Do you really need that top 1/4"? Then it may be legal to use a pistol grip as long as the web of the hand is constrained to be above the new "line". Either that or the DOJ has to change their interpretation again. :D

Just a different approach to think about. :rolleyes:


=vonsmith=

That's not a bad idea, but the glue would have to be permanent which would probably be the DOJ arguing point against glue. They would want a weld.

Again what does our expert witness, the DOJ, feel about this mod that would completely piss Lockyer off?

aklover_91
05-19-2006, 12:48 AM
Look carefully at the picture... I know the picture shows a legal hold, but the web of the hand can easily be placed below the line... making it illegal. It also allows for a 'pistol' style grip, and it also protudes conspicuously.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/407/grip1fi.jpg
what if you built some material up on the top and bottom to make it so that style hold was the only one you could use?