PDA

View Full Version : POP QUIZ!! Is this rifle California legal?


Ryan HBC
07-20-2006, 2:22 AM
I just felt like the chopped pistol grip issue needed to get hashed out again, and I would like to get some opinions. See the pictures, place your vote. This rifle has no flash hider, tele stock, or forward grip. The 30 rounder was legally aquired before Y2K. The only part in question is the chopped grip.

http://65.88.176.10/ryan/pics/grip.jpg

http://65.88.176.10/ryan/pics/grip2.jpg

I would also like to include a copy of a letter from the DOJ that was posted by another calguns member.

http://65.88.176.10/ryan/pics/letter.jpg

bwiese
07-20-2006, 2:44 AM
There has been some noise from DOJ - can't remember details - about cut-down pistol grips still perhaps being no-no.

Why not get an SRB, or one of those grip setback bracket thingies sold in Brownells, that retains the detent? (Alternatively, you could probably trim the detent spring and thread the selector detent hole and retain it with a setscrew...)

Plan B is to use the MonsterMan wedge grip which is not described by the 978.20 definition of pistol grip.

Mudvayne540ld
07-20-2006, 2:48 AM
I dont think it protrudes Conspiciously beneath the weapons action....... Plus I dunno about you.... but no way could I get all my fingers on that.

Though the "web" of the hand thing is kinda sketchy.....

I say Gray

anotherone
07-20-2006, 3:18 AM
Unless your county's DA was in need of a gun control conviction in an election year, you would probably be safe with that grip. It's unlikely the DOJ will ever hassle anyone over a sawed-off grip or other grey area items, they've made it clear they'd rather let the 58 DAs figure that out.

Skammy
07-20-2006, 3:56 AM
I voted Legal because of the Barrett letter

I'll be doing it soon myself for a HK clone

Chaingun
07-20-2006, 7:53 AM
I'd say legal BUT what about one of those 38 DAs ;)

GGM who really knows, which is why I have the MonsterMan Grip

tenpercentfirearms
07-20-2006, 9:05 AM
Is everybody here insane? Does anyone think, for one second, that 12/12 jury members is going to believe that a sawed off pistol grip is a "conspicously protruding pistol grip"?!?!In a liberal county they might.

Now just reading 978.20 I would vote that it is illegal because you can grasp with the web of your trigger hand below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger. HOWEVER, the Barrett letter does throw in that crazy part about it not being applicable because only the thumb and one finger can grasp it and not the rest of the fingers. The only question you have to ask yourself is where in the law does it say anything about the rest of the fingers? Would the DOJ letter keep you out of trouble? Remember, the 58 DAs don't have to agree with them.

This state is so screwed up.

10TH AMENDMENT
07-20-2006, 9:09 AM
Blackrazor:

It's good to hear from you again.

FWIW, I believe you are absolutely right in your pronouncements.

The DOJ sure has people spooked, haven't they?!?

Their own regs say that people affected by those regs re. pistol grips generally know what a pistol grip is. They have issued clear opinion letters to duly constituted officers of the court defining what a "pistol style grasp" is. Yet, people are still unsure if configurations such as that illustrated above falls within the definition of a "conspicuously protruding grip".

If the configuration in the illustration posted above constitutes a "conspicuously protruding grip that allows for a pistol style grasp", then Sarah Brady was just elected as president of the NRA!

Unbelievable!!!

Is everybody here insane? Does anyone think, for one second, that 12/12 jury members is going to believe that a sawed off pistol grip is a "conspicously protruding pistol grip"?!?! There is NO WAY that even the most overzealous prosecutor would try to bring this to trial. Just imagine how stupid it would look.

The people who think a sawed off pistol grip is somehow still a pistol grip remind me of the people who said the DSA receiver was definitely illegal two years ago. With paranoia this far gone, it's a miracle many of you feel safe walking down the street (unless, of course, you have a letter from the DOJ saying it's OK).

dbol
07-20-2006, 9:26 AM
Is everybody here insane? ... There is NO WAY that even the most overzealous prosecutor would try to bring this to trial. Just imagine how stupid it would look.

Agree 100%. While nothing is going to prevent some idiot cop from hassling you and possibly seizing your OLL rifle, no prosecutor would bring this to trial.

For those of you who think this is a grey area, a few minutes looking up the words "conspicuous" and "protrude" in a dictionary should be instructive. Those words aren't legal terms of art, they mean exactly what they say.

vonsmith
07-20-2006, 9:30 AM
I have always believed that this type of non-grip was legal. It doesn't matter where the web of the hand is. It does not allow a "pistol style grasp" by any stretch of my imagination. My only reluctance to fully support the idea is that I believe the DOJ is on the warpath right now. I think they might maliciously hassle someone with this style "web support" given an excuse to do so. I say "hassle" because I don't think any prosecutor would have a snowball's chance in Hades of convincing even the most ardent liberal that it allows a pistol style grasp.

It would be nice to have a letter from the DOJ specifically supporting the sawed off grip idea. My guess is the DOJ wouldn't agree in defiance of all logic just to prevent AR owners from "getting away with something". Geez this makes it sound like the DOJ is petty or something. Unfortunately their past performance supports this notion, IMHO. I thought they were supposed to be on the side of law-abiding citizens?


=vonsmith=

dbol
07-20-2006, 9:56 AM
Their own regs say that people affected by those regs re. pistol grips generally know what a pistol grip is.

This is a point that very few people here seem to appreciate. The administrative record behind the 978.20 regs explains that a definition of "pistol style grasp" was not included in those regs because people who would be affected by the regs would also be able to identify a pistol style grasp.

Everytime the masses here mindlessly post "oh yah, tat's a pistol grip" in a discussion of a sawed-off pistol grip, the FAB-10 grip, or some random nub, our rights are weakened. Because of the administrative record of the 978.20 regs, the opinions of normal gun owners are central to the determination of what constitutes a pistol grip. The determination of what constitutes a pistol grip at trial would likely not be made based on the testimony of experts alone, but could include input like transcripts of discussions occurring here at calguns.net, a place where informed gun owners come to exchange thoughts.

It's something we should all think about before posting.

mailman
07-20-2006, 10:18 AM
I Think Everything That We Are All Doing Is Somewhat "grey"

tenpercentfirearms
07-20-2006, 10:19 AM
The determination of what constitutes a pistol grip at trial would likely not be made based on the testimony of experts alone, but could include input like transcripts of discussions occurring here at calguns.net, a place where informed gun owners come to exchange thoughts.Give me a break. Where do you come up with this idea? Like the prosecution is even going to touch transcripts from calguns.net. LOL. "Yes your honor, I would like to introduce a completely anonymous Internet discussion where a poster using an anonymous name stated this is a pistol grip. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, don't worry what the law says, calguns.net members know more about the law than the law does." Come on now.

You see the reason I disagree with this flow of "this isn't even debatable" is because I am only looking at CCR 978.20(d). If all you read is CCR 978.20(d), you have to wonder exactly what a pistol style grasp is? The DOJ says it is all the fingers, but again, that is in a DOJ lettered response, which doesn't always mean it is fact. The regulations make no mention of all the fingers, just the web of the trigger hand. And if the web of the trigger hand is below the top of the exposed trigger, it is a pistol grip, if it allows for a pistol style grasp. Again, if someone has a very clear definition of what a pistol style grasp is that is clearly laid out in CCR, I would like to see it.

You see, it seems that many people here suddenly have faith in the system. They think everyone knows what a pistol style grasp is. They seem to think that a jury of liberal Californian's will know what a pistol style grasp is. I have no such faith. I live in Kern County where I am fairly certain Ed Jagels wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole, but if I didn't live in Kern County I would not risk it. The other thing to take into consideration is the DOJ loves to take people's property "for further evaluation" and they don't give it back for a long time. It simply isn't worth the risk for me.

And it is true, I make money selling the MonsterMan Grip, so you might view me as a biased opinion. That might be. However, it is certainly clear with a MonsterMan Grip that your web is above that all important line at the top of the exposed trigger. I see the $35 as a good way to insure you are in compliance and heck it is really a pretty decent grip. However, even then the DOJ can still try and claim it "protrudes conspicuously from the bottom of the action". And that really is the thing that irks me about the DOJ. They don't have to follow the law. They can just do what they want and make us fight to get our property back.

This state just isn't right. All this time and energy wasted on this bull crap when they could be fighting real crime.

mblat
07-20-2006, 10:29 AM
It is legal, and you can still be procecuted for it...

C9X19
07-20-2006, 10:37 AM
How did you get a RRA lower? Aren't those on the ban list?

kenc9
07-20-2006, 10:52 AM
As the CCR 978.20 reads it makes several points of conditions that need to be met to be an illegal grip.

1) It protrudes conspicuously below the top of exposed trigger line. Fail
2) It allows for a pistol style grasp between the web and trigger finger. Fail
3) The grasp allows the fingers to wrap firmly around the grip. Pass

These standards are not, if any of these conditions are met, they all have to be met.

dbol
07-20-2006, 11:04 AM
Give me a break. Where do you come up with this idea? Like the prosecution is even going to touch transcripts from calguns.net. LOL. "Yes your honor, I would like to introduce a completely anonymous Internet discussion where a poster using an anonymous name stated this is a pistol grip. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, don't worry what the law says, calguns.net members know more about the law than the law does." Come on now.

As an practicing attorney in California, I can assure you that the use of Internet discussion transcripts to determine the opinion of the public or of a hypothetical reasonable person (or in this case a reasonable gun owner) is not beyond the realm of possibility. In a case where the discussion predated the "offense," there would be little reason to suspect manipulation of the discussion.

As for anonymous, I seriously doubt many people here are taking precautions to safeguard their IP address, much less simply avoiding posting identifiable personal details.

You see the reason I disagree with this flow of "this isn't even debatable" is because I am only looking at CCR 978.20(d). If all you read is CCR 978.20(d), you have to wonder exactly what a pistol style grasp is? The DOJ says it is all the fingers, but again, that is in a DOJ lettered response, which doesn't always mean it is fact. The regulations make no mention of all the fingers, just the web of the trigger hand. And if the web of the trigger hand is below the top of the exposed trigger, it is a pistol grip, if it allows for a pistol style grasp. Again, if someone has a very clear definition of what a pistol style grasp is that is clearly laid out in CCR, I would like to see it.

Per the administrative record of the 978.20 regulations, the DOJ actively decided not to define "pistol style grasp" because gun owners know what constitutes a "pistol style grasp." Due to this, the DOJ effectively left the determination of what constitutes a "pistol style grasp" to the average CA gun owner. Based on the lack of a definition and the DOJ's reason for not including one, the central issue in an AW trial (predicated on a rifle configuration as above) would be whether or not a normal CA gun owner would think the grasp afforded by a sawed-off pistol grip is a "pistol style grasp."

The administrative record of the 978.20 regulations is here:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.htm

thedrickel
07-20-2006, 11:07 AM
Probably got it before the ban took effect, which is also why the muzzle (read: flash supressor) has been cropped from the picture.

RRA LAR-15 is NOT listed by MAKE & MODEL. End of story. If it's not listed by make AND model it is fair game. So get on the horn to Colt and Bushy and Armalite and whoever else you want and ask them to name up some new models for us.

vonsmith
07-20-2006, 11:14 AM
As the CCR 978.20 reads it makes several points of conditions that need to be met to be an illegal grip.

1) It protrudes conspicuously below the top of exposed trigger line. Fail
2) It allows for a pistol style grasp between the web and trigger finger. Fail
3) The grasp allows the fingers to wrap firmly around the grip. Pass

These standards are not, if any of these conditions are met, they all have to be met.
I disagree with your application of "if" and "all" in this case.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/pistolgrip.htm]DOJ[/url]
Firearms Division

Senate Bill 23 Assault Weapon "Pistol Grip" Information

To implement recent assault weapon legislation, the Department of Justice has proposed regulations to define assault weapon characteristics. Under the proposed regulations, the proposed definition for "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."

I've looked at and analyzed the DOJ text above carefully. My interpretation is that if the web of the trigger hand is below the top of the exposed trigger AND it allows a "pistol style grasp", then it is illegal. If just one or neither condition is met then it is technically legal. For extra assurance most people here prefer to meet both conditions as a safeguard against an ambitious DA. It surprises me that the wording chosen presumably by some DOJ lawyer is so poor.

That's the engineer in me talkin'.


=vonsmith=

dbol
07-20-2006, 11:26 AM
If I were the DOJ, I would be afraid to bring a case like this to trial, mostly because the defendent would be aquitted. Such a case would start up a whole storm of controversy as to what actually constitutes a "pistol grip". And when the total lack of a legal defintion of a pistol grip is discovered, there is a good chance that this section of the law will be struck down for being too vague (just as the "series" definition was struck down years ago).

Bingo.

(darn too short filter...)

thmpr
07-20-2006, 11:26 AM
The FAB10 ShoeLess Ventures grip is another option but there are mixed views on this design. ATF approved and yet to be approved by the DOJ. FAB10 is waiting on the DOJ comments on the PG since last year December. The DOJ did not comment on its legality for over 6 months. Is there a response time limit? Six months is way to long. But according to FAB10, they have sold and still being sold to CA.

vonsmith
07-20-2006, 11:47 AM
I find it both interesting and disturbing that at the moment I wrote this the poll indicated that ~44% of the people here aren't sure and think that it is a "gray" area legally. That's the largest category of all followed by ~39% who believe it is legal. Another ~15% think it is illegal. This really is excellent empirical proof that the law is not comprehensible to the average person. If anything, the people here on the forum ought to have a better grasp of the law than the average citizen.

Interesting.


=vonsmith=

SemiAutoSam
07-20-2006, 12:14 PM
I like Bills idea of a shortened spring and the hole threaded to accept a setscrew anyone know what size that hole is ?

Using this path then there will be no question that there is not a grip at all.

not even a modified grip just a bare receiver where a grip once was.

bwiese
07-20-2006, 12:34 PM
Folks, the DOJ will not be taking this stuff to trial. This would be a 58 DA case.

I've always felt that the pistol grip definition was one of the worst in 978.20, and edge condition violations could be triggered by someone with a fat hand.

A jury does not determine this (just overall guilt) - a judge could make a finding of law that it is or isn't a PG. It may well be appealable and winnable.

Given the cheapness of alternatives, if I were going gripless, I'd go either (1) SRB (2) the Brownells's grip offset adapater or (3) MonsterMan wedge non-grip.

grammaton76
07-20-2006, 12:41 PM
I voted "gray area", but only because malicious-prosecution-bait was not an option.

C9X19
07-20-2006, 12:45 PM
Probably got it before the ban took effect, which is also why the muzzle (read: flash supressor) has been cropped from the picture.
If you got it before the ban, why would you want to build it in a CA-legal manner?

xenophobe
07-20-2006, 1:07 PM
It is legal, and you can still be procecuted for it...

Does ANYONE remember the vendor that hit all the local Bay Area shows in 2001/2002 that used to have the SP89's, HK911's, FALs, ARs and other assault weapons that had the pistol grips sawed off?

I don't know if there were any convictions, or if the company stopped, but that dealer got HAMMERED by the DOJ.

No, I'm not talking about internet gossip or making this up either.

bwiese
07-20-2006, 1:17 PM
Does ANYONE remember the vendor that hit all the local Bay Area shows in 2001/2002 that used to have the SP89's, HK911's, FALs, ARs and other assault weapons that had the pistol grips sawed off?

I don't know if there were any convictions, or if the company stopped, but that dealer got HAMMERED by the DOJ.


Care to elaborate on 'Hammered'??

I recall this guy.

If he had ARs before Jun 28 2001, even grip free, he'd be in trouble. And the DOJ probably didn't understand Harrott for a few months after...

A few months ago at Cow Palace there was a gripless HK911, no FH, regular fixed stock.

xenophobe
07-20-2006, 1:27 PM
Care to elaborate on 'Hammered'??

All we heard at the shop is that he got wrapped up right after it happened. No specific details, and if I had any, I'd have forgotten them by now.

Ryan HBC
07-20-2006, 1:49 PM
Because, if it turns out that the sawed off grip is somehow still a pistol grip, he won't have broken the law (since a registered gun is a legally possessed AW anyway).

The RRA lower was aquired as a normal OLL. The RRA listing gets a little tricky, but they only list complete rifles if I recall correctly. They are widely available, I got a few from DD's.

I realize that if these pictures are indeed of an illegal assult weapon, I could be self incriminating. I just couldn't picture this poll working without the visual aid. If the DOJ comes and arrests me for the chopped grip, I will let you all know. =)

I don't think I am going to change the configuration of the rifle. The only thing that this thread can really prove is that the gun laws in this state are practically comical.

AxonGap
07-20-2006, 3:10 PM
It is all about semantics. We find ourselves in a position we never would have dreamed of over a year ago. I remember when the very mention of an open mag-well was like suggesting you go swimming in freshly chummed shark infested waters. Yet here we are, legally purchased within the state, an open mag-well AR. The features list is quite clear when it comes to pistol grips. It is just that, “pistol” grip. How much simpler can that be? The bottom line is, they don’t want you to build that open mag-well lower into a “fully functional” AR-15. When I say fully functional, I mean the way the firearm was designed by Eugene Stoner to be handled. A pistol grip allows the marksman to wield the rifle in an ergonomic fashion per the rifles design features (gas operated w/ spring buffer). Take that away and you have a firearm that has been incapacitated per its intended design. CA AW law has “literally” defeated itself by its own means and the only thing the DOJ can do until the laws are amended is to hang in legal limbo. Semantics such as “web of the hand” and other verbiage that was originally intended to simply describe a “pistol grip” are being used as coercive rhetoric to quell the OLL influx. Ask yourselves these questions and formulate your own law-abiding conclusions:

1) Has anyone ever been arrested and/or had their Ca legal AR w/ a sawed off pistol grip confiscated by the law on the premise that it was an assault-weapon?

2) Has anyone ever been arrested and/or had their Ca legal AR w/ a fixed magazine (using the Prince50 kit, etc.) confiscated by the law on the premise it was an assault-weapon?

3) Does the law explicitly state (as explicitly as what it considers a pistol grip) that a modified or sawed-off pistol grip (whereas its original characteristic to achieve a “pistol style grasp” has been nullified) is against the law or circumvents it?

4) Do you understand the CA DOJ’s motives behind the coercive rhetoric regarding OLL’s and the fact that we are in total legal possession of what it by definition tried to ban as assault weapons? (this is why local law enforcement has done very little to enforce this, unless of course your doing something incredibly stupid w/ it)

5) Are you thoroughly enjoying that CA legal tack driver that you built yourself?

10TH AMENDMENT
07-20-2006, 3:38 PM
Query for old El Rojo:

As a FFL holder, would your objective definition of what constitutes a "pistol style grasp" mean a device wherin all or any of the last three fingers on the human hand can wrap around and grip?

You see the reason I disagree with this flow of "this isn't even debatable" is because I am only looking at CCR 978.20(d). If all you read is CCR 978.20(d), you have to wonder exactly what a pistol style grasp is? The DOJ says it is all the fingers, but again, that is in a DOJ lettered response, which doesn't always mean it is fact. The regulations make no mention of all the fingers, just the web of the trigger hand. And if the web of the trigger hand is below the top of the exposed trigger, it is a pistol grip, if it allows for a pistol style grasp. Again, if someone has a very clear definition of what a pistol style grasp is that is clearly laid out in CCR, I would like to see it.

bwiese
07-20-2006, 3:47 PM
Query old El Rojo:

As a FFL holder, would your objective definition of what constitutes a "pistol style grasp" mean a device wherin all or any of the last three fingers on the human hand can wrap around and grip?

10th...

You're right in general. However the description is murky enough I can see this going to court. IMHO the pistol grip definition is far less well-crafted than the 'detachable mag' definition.

We're trying to save people from $10K legal fees, not win cases.

10TH AMENDMENT
07-20-2006, 3:55 PM
dbol:

I think the prosecution would have some serious problems getting statements from this board admitted into evidence over the defendants's hearsay objections. Can't think of any legitimatly applicable exceptions, exemptions or non-hearsay reasons that the court would entertain to let them in.

Not saying it would be impossible, just saying it would be highly unlikely IMHO.

As an practicing attorney in California, I can assure you that the use of Internet discussion transcripts to determine the opinion of the public or of a hypothetical reasonable person (or in this case a reasonable gun owner) is not beyond the realm of possibility. In a case where the discussion predated the "offense," there would be little reason to suspect manipulation of the discussion.

tenpercentfirearms
07-20-2006, 6:05 PM
A couple of comments. First, the fact that we are having this debate at all shows exactly how worthless these laws are. We can't even agree on it. I think the more the DOJ messes around, the more likely we are going to get a favorable court case some day that says, "This is way too confusing, SB-23 is now repealed!" I can dream can't I?

I really don't care what I consider a pistol grip, I only care what the law says. And it is true that the law says we all know what a pistol grip is. :confused: The problem is we don't. And again when it boils down to it, this entire process is absurd. Here we are arguing about what is and what is not a pistol grip from a very vague law and is anyone going to be harmed or killed over this? This state is definitely screwed up.

I stand by what I said earlier, 978.20(d) mentions nothing about the fingers or anything like that. It just says a pistol style grasp ( :confused: ) and the web of the trigger hand below the top of the exposed trigger. A SRB has the web part down, but is it a pistol style grasp? The DOJ has said in the Barrett letter no, but I don't trust them anymore. They like to take things and make you fight to get them back.

M. Sage
07-20-2006, 7:27 PM
I didn't read any posts before hitting reply...

I'd say by the letter that this is an illegal rifle. It says that the thumbhole/pistol grip (gawd, that's a horrible, inaccurate term.. I keep imagining a 1911 or Redhawk grip glued to a rifle...) lets the web of your hand hold below the top of the trigger... which that sawed grip looks like it would.

Alright, I read back through, but I still vote you could get hosed. Why?

'Cause the DOJ are the ones who get to write the definitions (which is rediculously illegal...) Give 'em time, they'll just define a pistol grip/thumbhole stock to their own advantage.

Also, all it takes is a bad (gun noob) jury...

OT: Why are they worried about something allowing a "pistol-style" grip? Are you going to shoot your rifle one-handed!? I don't think these people have ever even seen a real gun before...

10TH AMENDMENT
07-20-2006, 9:35 PM
10%:

You might not care what you consider a pistol grip, but considering you are the authorized dealer for that "MonsterGrip", and a licensed firearns dealer, the DOJ might care what you consider a pistol grip some day. That's why they included the provision in their regs that those affected by the regs generally know what constitutes a "pistol style grasp".

Again, for our benefit, do you consider what I described in my inquiry to you a device "that allows for a pistol style grasp"?

Also, do you consider the "MonsterGrip" a device "that allows for a pistol style grasp"?

Is there any difference between the two specifically in respect to what constitutes "a pistol style grasp"?

I really don't care what I consider a pistol grip, I only care what the law says. .

Jicko
07-20-2006, 11:33 PM
Just make your own! $3... but this is NO WAY a pistol grip... if the SRB is OK, this IS ok...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34691

tenpercentfirearms
07-21-2006, 1:12 AM
Just make your own! $3... but this is NO WAY a pistol grip... if the SRB is OK, this IS ok...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34691
The problem is none of it is "ok". None of this has DOJ approval.

MonsterMan
07-21-2006, 1:55 AM
I believe that the SRB and my grip do not fall under the "pistol grip" definition. The SRB doesn't even give you anything to hold onto. It only keeps the spring in. The difference is my grip puts the web between your index finger and thumb above the "line". My grip also does not allow the thumb to wrap around the other side of the reciever, it is forced to stay on the same side as the palm of the hand like a regular rifle grasp (unlike a pistol grip). Since the thumb is forced above the trigger finger (keeping the web above the line), it takes it a little farther away fitting the pistol grip definition. Now, it is a protruding grip. But fortunatly the law only say's that a protruding "pistol type grip" was a no-no.

Now as far as a cut down pistol grip is concerned, it does give you something to hold onto and grasp. Sure, we don't consider it a pistol grip, but it is a grip of some sort that does allow the web to drop below the line. I also agree that an average person would look at a cut down grip and not consider it a protruding "pistol grip". Now that doesn't mean that a lawyer couldn't convince them otherwise. There is nothing in the law that clarifies what a "pistol type grasp" is. But there is a sneaky little part of it that says that the web of the hand cannot be below the top exposed part of the trigger. So with that, a lawyer could convince 12 jurors that it is a illegal grip (since there is nothing in the law to clarify otherwise). Or maybe they couldn't. It's all a big mess. Until they clarify the laws, it is up to each of us as to how we configure our rifles. Some are more daring than others. How much do you wish to spend in legal fees just to prove you are right?

Remember I am not a lawyer, but this is what I have come to believe after doing some research into the matter. Everyone uses a cut down grip, SRB or my MonsterMan Grip at their own risk. It is up to you to research your options, read & understand the laws and to use what you feel is best for you.

MonsterMan

MonsterMan
07-21-2006, 9:29 AM
978.20 Definitions

"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." end quote.

What is considered a "pistol grip" is not as clearly defined. But the web is clearly stated that it cannot rest below the line. All I am saying it is up to each individual to choose what they feel is most comfortable with. How far are they willing to push and risk being "a felon". Again I do not think a cut down grip is a "pistol grip". I am just saying because it is not clearly defined in the definitions as to what a "pistol grip" clearly is (or isn't), that it is not as safe to run your rifle that way. If a anti-gun DA wants to bring you down and you have a CA legal ar, he or she will go after you, they may win or loose, but again, how much is it worth to you to find out?

MonsterMan

tenpercentfirearms
07-21-2006, 9:30 AM
I assume you are not considering the CCR law and merely refering to it as "regulation"? Anyone care to comment how "irrelevent" CCR would be in your trial?

Trust me, I am not afraid to follow the law. I know I don't need the DOJ's permision to do what is clearly legal. However, I won't pretend that "everyone" knows what a pistol style grasp is and that an SRB or cut off pistol grip clearly does not allow a pistol style grasp. The law is simply not that clear. Again, just in case this conversation makes it to court :rolleyes:, sure I don't consider it a pistol style grasp, but will your liberal jury agree? Is it worth it to spend the thousands of dollars just to find out? Those are questions you need to ask yourself.

Builder
07-21-2006, 10:10 AM
A pistol style grip....
Take a 1911a pistol and turn it upside down while holding on to the grip. You can still hold on to and have full control of the gun.
Take an AR with a pistol grip and turn it upside while holding on to the pistol grip. You can still hold on to and control the gun.
Take an AR with an SRB or sawed off pistol grip and turn it upside down while holding on to the...... oops there it goes. This is not like a pistol style grip.
Builder

10TH AMENDMENT
07-21-2006, 11:28 AM
MonsterMan:

The law absolutely does not say that only a” pistol type grip" is a "no-no"

The law says:

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:

(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.

The law only refers to "a grip" that protrudes and allows for a pistol style grasp. That includes any grip that conspicuously protrudes. That includes yours considering you admit that yours is a "protruding grip".

There is no way that any intelligent DA is going to give the green light to a Deputy DA to file charges for attaching a completely sawed off pistol grip to an OLL. DA's are very intelligent and professional in their approach to their duties. None that I have ever known would foolishly risk the professional chastisement that would surely come from most judges for wasting the court's time and resources in bringing such charges because there isn't even the slightest genuine issue of material fact on the fundamental element of "protruding grip".

This would be MSJ'd right out of court and would likely open up the prosecutor's office for a successful malicious prosecution COA that would settle out before the answer was even filed.


The difference is my grip puts the web between your index finger and thumb above the "line". My grip also does not allow the thumb to wrap around the other side of the reciever, it is forced to stay on the same side as the palm of the hand like a regular rifle grasp (unlike a pistol grip). Since the thumb is forced above the trigger finger (keeping the web above the line), it takes it a little farther away fitting the pistol grip definition. Now, it is a protruding grip. But fortunatly the law only say's that a protruding "pistol type grip" was a no-no.MonsterMan

10TH AMENDMENT
07-21-2006, 11:35 AM
Builder:

Outstanding use of demonstrative evidence.

Are you actually Gerry Spence in real life?!?

Just to add, I would like to see someone take two rubber training Berettas and cut the grip off of one of them. Then I would like him to hand the two to the Judge during the MSJ hearing and ask him to engage a "pistol style grasp" on each of them. Then I would like him to ask for the court's ruling on whether there is any genuine issue of material fact on the issue of whether the OLL rifle in question has a "conspicuously protruding grip" attached to it or not.

A pistol style grip....
Take a 1911a pistol and turn it upside down while holding on to the grip. You can still hold on to and have full control of the gun.
Take an AR with a pistol grip and turn it upside while holding on to the pistol grip. You can still hold on to and control the gun.
Take an AR with an SRB or sawed off pistol grip and turn it upside down while holding on to the...... oops there it goes. This is not like a pistol style grip.
Builder

bwiese
07-21-2006, 11:49 AM
The CCR 978.20 regulatory definition of pistol grip has the force of law.

If an object fits that definition and is mounted on a semiautomatic centerfire rifle w/detachable magazine, then the statutory 12276.1 definition of AW is triggered.

I dislike the regulatory pistol grip definition. It's not nearly as clear/well-written as the 'detachable magazine' definition - at least for items approaching a pistol style grasp. Anything accomodating the web of the hand being split by the centerline of the rifle should be avoided: some folks' attempts might be tenously legal for a skinny hand but someone with a fat hand could go below the trigger line, etc. Don't rely on how close you think you can come to this definition: get the general idea and stay somewhat away from it.

HOWEVER, all that being said, it is clear that the MonsterMan grip does NOT constitute a 978.20 pistol grip, but instead allows an ordinary rifle-style grasp.

I would not expect DOJ approval or lack of approval - or, perhaps, even a response at this point. DOJ has been slapped around enough that just about anything involving AR/AK stuff or AW stuff will likely just get a quote of the relevant laws and a near-supine "58 DAs may think otherwise".

Lack of DOJ approval in no way means illegality.

With the current 978.20 wording, there is NO way a DA could make the case with a MonsterMan grip. (Sure, some loopy one may try but that's a risk even with an M1A and a muzzle brake he might confuse w/flash hider, or a DA not initially understanding Harrott and still thinking an AR is an AR is an AR...)

I think y'all know how cautious I am, and I'd have ZERO issues with a MonsterMan grip. (In fact, way way less than using a cutoff grip as an SRB.)

vonsmith
07-21-2006, 11:54 AM
Well now, if you hold an AR with a pistol grip and turn it upside down isn't the web of your hand now above "the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing". Isn't it legal based on how you are firing it?

Just thought I'd muddy the water even more. :D


=vonsmith=

MonsterMan
07-21-2006, 1:09 PM
MonsterMan:

The law absolutely does not say that only a” pistol type grip" is a "no-no"


The law only refers to "a grip" that protrudes and allows for a pistol style grasp. That includes any grip that conspicuously protrudes. That includes yours considering you admit that yours is a "protruding grip".

You are correct there, I ment a grip that allowed a "pistol style grasp" was a no-no.

My grip is a protruding grip, but it does not allow a "pistol style grasp" nor does it allow the "web between index finger and thumb" to rest below top exposed part of the trigger while firing. I am confident that my grip does not fit the "pistol grip" definition.


MonsterMan

10TH AMENDMENT
07-21-2006, 1:57 PM
I totally disagree. Your "MonsterGrip" argueably does allow for a certain degree of a "pistol style grasp". I would say far more than anything that the completely sawed off pistol grip that is attached to the OLL rifle illustrated in this post could possibly allow for.

Anyone could easilly hold a rifle with your MG attached to it and fire the weapon with one hand. That is glaringly obvious to me at least. However, having said that, I still know, (not "believe") that your grip is not illegal according to the DOJ regs. Why? Because it is not "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."

Remember, 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. There is absolutely no conspicuously protruding device whatsoever in the illustration above, thus there is absolutely nothing to grasp. Also remember that a "pistol style grasp" is irrelevant unless the web of the hand is below the top of the exposed trigger while firing the rifle. That is why Monte Carlo style stocks, which inargueably contain a pistol grip that allows for a pistol style grasp, are deemed by the DOJ to be completely legal when attached to semi-automatic, centerfire rifles with the ability to accept detachable magazines. (And these stocks absolutely permit the operator to fire the rifle with one hand.)

Actually, your MG looks like a device that converts an A-2 stock to a Monte Carlo type stock.

Hence, a device is an assault weapon pistol 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".

Therefore, just as it does not matter that your MG could argueably allow for a "pistol style grasp" because the web of the hand is not below the top of the exposed trigger while firing, so also the placement of the web of the hand is irrelevant with a completely sawed off pistol grip as pictured because there is no way that said grip allows for a "pistol style grasp", (regardless of whether "pistol style grasp" is not specifically defined because there is absolutely nothing to be grasped since the pistol grip has been completely sawed off.)


You are correct there, I ment a grip that allowed a "pistol style grasp" was a no-no.

My grip is a protruding grip, but it does not allow a "pistol style grasp" nor does it allow the "web between index finger and thumb" to rest below top exposed part of the trigger while firing. I am confident that my grip does not fit the "pistol grip" definition.


MonsterMan

MonsterMan
07-21-2006, 2:55 PM
I totally disagree. Your "MonsterGrip" argueably does allow for a certain degree of a "pistol style grasp".

Anyone could easilly hold a rifle with your MG attached to it and fire the weapon with one hand. That is glaringly obvious to me at least.

I think anyone could fire a regular rifle with one hand, depending on the weight of the rifle. Does that mean that all rifles have a certain degree of "pistol style grasp"? Just because you can fire it with one hand doesn't mean anything.

All I am saying is that there is enough to warrant to staying away from a cut down grip. First: the DOJ said it was bad (not that it makes it law, but enough to be leary of it), second: it does allow the web to be below the line, third: you are grasping something, whether it considered a grip or not is the issue. Why chance it if there are better alternatives that are a little more out of the grey area.

I personally don't think a cut down grip is a grip, but it isn't up to me. All I am saying is be carefull. If you want to go gripless, go with a SRB or cut your grip down enough so all it does is hold in the spring and doesn't allow you anything to "grasp". As touchy as this subject is, I would hate for someone to be the first test case.

To just tell everyone that it is perfectly fine to go with a cut down grip is unresponsible. People need to know that there are risks in their choices. They need to read the laws and choose what they feel comfortable with. Even with my grip, while I feel it complies with the law, I tell everyone that they use at their own risk and it is not DOJ approved.

If you want a grip, try mine or make your own. Just make sure your web doesn't fall below the line or let your thumb wrap around like a pistol. The DOJ approved a grip very similar to mine a while back called the "tumor grip". It wasn't the most attractive thing (not that mine is) but in all functionality it was the same as mine.

MonsterMan

10TH AMENDMENT
07-21-2006, 3:10 PM
I have never told anyone to go with a cut down grip...ever. For that matter, I have never told anyone here to go with your "MonsterGrip" or bu-buys SRB device...ever. I have never advised anyone on this board about anything in respect to legal matters regarding their firearms...ever.

Get your facts straight. I have never been "un"responsible in this regard...ever!

Just wanted to clarify that for you there, MonsterMan.

To just tell everyone that it is perfectly fine to go with a cut down grip is unresponsible.MonsterMan

vonsmith
07-21-2006, 3:16 PM
I totally disagree. Your "MonsterGrip" argueably does allow for a certain degree of a "pistol style grasp". I would say far more than anything that the completely sawed off pistol grip that is attached to the OLL rifle illustrated in this post could possibly allow for.
Perhaps, but less than grasping a typical rifle stock around the area directly behind the receiver. That's the way I carry most of my traditionally stocked (non-AR) rifles now.

Anyone could easilly hold a rifle with your MG attached to it and fire the weapon with one hand. That is glaringly obvious to me at least.
You can hold a typical rifle one-handed around the area directly behind the receiver and fire it too. Of course you can't aim it worth a squat.

However, having said that, I still know, (not "believe") that your grip is not illegal according to the DOJ regs. Why? Because it is not "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."

Remember, 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. There is absolutely no conspicuously protruding device whatsoever in the illustration above, thus there is absolutely nothing to grasp. Also remember that a "pistol style grasp" is irrelevant unless the web of the hand is below the top of the exposed trigger while firing the rifle. That is why Monte Carlo style stocks, which inargueably contain a pistol grip that allows for a pistol style grasp, are deemed by the DOJ to be completely legal when attached to semi-automatic, centerfire rifles with the ability to accept detachable magazines. (And these stocks absolutely permit the operator to fire the rifle with one hand.)
I agree 110%. The text in green above is the key to the whole thing. However this point is lost on many people. I've tried explaining it, but I don't think people get it. Perhaps not even the DOJ. The officially wording is poorly written.

Hence, a device is an assault weapon pistol 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".
I don't think this can be defined as a stand-alone definition. Wrapped around how much? How many fingers? Which fingers? I can wrap my fingers around the area of the stock directly behind the receiver on all of my rifles. That area is the stock and not a pistol grip. There is a huge gray area between what is obviously not a PG, and what obviously is. I can't think of any possible approach of defining a pistol grip to a legal certainty. There are too many variables affecting the cosmetics of a firearm in relation to the mechanics of the human body.

Therefore, just as it does not matter that your MG could argueably allow for a "pistol style grasp" because the web of the hand is not below the top of the exposed trigger while firing, so also the placement of the web of the hand is irrelevant with a completely sawed off pistol grip as pictured because there is no way that said grip allows for a "pistol style grasp", (regardless of whether "pistol style grasp" is not specifically defined because there is absolutely nothing to be grasped since the pistol grip has been completely sawed off.)
I agree. I doubt the DOJ would agree. There are too many intermediate configurations possible. If the DOJ published something in an attempt to clarify this I think they fear someone will uncover a loophole. And they would be right. The DOJ's PG text and reasoning is inherently flawed. Ultimately I believe it is indefensible.

Thanks for making some important points clear. With that said, I'm still going with MonsterMan's grips because I think it's the safest, most conservative approach.


=vonsmith=

10TH AMENDMENT
07-21-2006, 3:29 PM
Vonsmith:

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your arguments and perspectives on this issue in the past. Generally very well reasoned indeed!

How do you like the fit and function of MonsterMan's MG? I could be wrong, but it looks to me that it would feel a bit awkward.

MonsterMan
07-21-2006, 3:37 PM
there is no way that said grip allows for a "pistol style grasp"[/COLOR][/U][/I][/B]


This statement is what I was refering too. It could give false securities to the noobies who don't know any better and choose to go this route. It should read "in my opinion there is no way that said grip (cut down grip) allows for a "pistol style grasp" but the DOJ could have their own views on the matter".

MonsterMan

10TH AMENDMENT
07-21-2006, 3:37 PM
blackrazor:

After taking another close look at the device at issue here, and then looking at the posted pic of the "MonsterGrip", I couldn't agree with you more.

It seems to me that the theory that "the lesser is swallowed up by the greater" has a textbook application here.

I just felt like the chopped pistol grip issue needed to get hashed out again, and I would like to get some opinions. See the pictures, place your vote. This rifle has no flash hider, tele stock, or forward grip. The 30 rounder was legally aquired before Y2K. The only part in question is the chopped grip.

http://65.88.176.10/ryan/pics/grip.jpg

http://65.88.176.10/ryan/pics/grip2.jpg

I would also like to include a copy of a letter from the DOJ that was posted by another calguns member.

http://65.88.176.10/ryan/pics/letter.jpg

10TH AMENDMENT
07-21-2006, 3:41 PM
No, it should not. It is not my opinion, it is a fact.

The DOJ itself has said through its Deputy AG's that a "pistol style grasp" does not exist if the thumb of the hand is the only digit in contact with a device attached to a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

This statement is what I was refering too. It could give false securities to the noobies who don't know any better and choose to go this route. It should read "in my opinion there is no way that said grip (cut down grip) allows for a "pistol style grasp" but the DOJ could have their own views on the matter".

MonsterMan

vonsmith
07-21-2006, 3:45 PM
Vonsmith:

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your arguments and perspectives on this issue in the past. Generally very well reasoned indeed!

How do you like the fit and function of MonsterMan's MG? I could be wrong, but it looks to me that it would feel a bit awkward.
Thanks for the kind words, very rare hereabouts.

I haven't built up my AR's far enough yet to try the MG out. I think they will work fine though. Nothing will be as ergonomic as the original PG. I like the extra ounce of legal protection that the MG offers, that is, the web of the hand is above the imaginary line (trigger).

I see blackrazor doesn't agree. I think the sawed off PG is technically and logically legal. I think in time it will be generally accepted and ignored by the DOJ and DA's. I hope brave individuals blaze this path. I cannot. My job depends a lot on having a spotless legal record. It's not worth it to me to be a test case for the DOJ. Am I paranoid? You betcha.


=vonsmith=

Ryan HBC
07-21-2006, 4:18 PM
I would just like to stir the pot by adding this little bit of evil-ness:

http://65.88.176.10/ryan/pics/side2.jpg

MonsterMan
07-21-2006, 4:28 PM
Sorry, but I just don't see how the Monstegrip could possibly be considered legally "safer" than the sawed off PG. That just doesn't make any sense, especially from a "conspicously protruding" standpoint (which the monstergrip certainly is). It seems more likely to me that it is in Monsterman's best interest to convince people that his grip his legal while the cheaper sawed off PG is somehow "less legal".

I don't claim my grip is safer than any other grip. I don't think a standard pistol grip is anymore dangerous than a regular rifle stock. But that's what I think. As far as it's legality goes, I make no claims that it is legal. I tell everyone that it is not doj approved or dissaproved and to use at their own risk, it is up to them to use it or not. As far as it's protrudingness, it does protrude but it is a "rifle" type grasp and it does not allow the web of the hand to drop below the line while firing. So far no one has said anything against it's legality. Some opinions have been heard but nothing that has made me doubt it. My grip is not very expensive, so it doesn't seem to me that it would make sense to dance in the grey(er) part of the law when there are less grey options.

I made my grip for myself so I would have something there to hold onto rather than nothing. I tried the cut down grip and didn't like the feel of the firmless grasp I had. I think the safest and most accurate way to shoot is with the most control of the rifle. When shooting with this grip, it is no different feeling really than shooting any other rifle stock (except the thumb can't wrap up and over the top, it stays on the ambi safety).

As far as selling my grips, they kinda have taken over my life in the last few months. All I do is work and make grips. I have a wife and kid, so you know I hear about it from them. Between you and me, the work isn't really worth the monitary compinsation. I raised the price and that helped out a little, but not much. I am highly allergic to the resin that they are made out of. I break out in hives and have asthma attacks if I breath the fumes (i didn't have asthma, I developed it from this material). I have almost stopped making these things a few times. The only reason I make them is because so many people contact me telling me how much they like them and how they appreciate that someone made it. I do it for them. I could stop now and not look back. If the orders slow down, then I will probably stop. But for now I will continue.

Thanks
MonsterMan

10TH AMENDMENT
07-21-2006, 10:20 PM
That my friend, is beautiful eye candy!

I would just like to stir the pot by adding this little bit of evil-ness:

http://65.88.176.10/ryan/pics/side2.jpg

tenpercentfirearms
07-21-2006, 11:35 PM
Sorry, but I just don't see how the Monstegrip could possibly be considered legally "safer" than the sawed off PG. That just doesn't make any sense, especially from a "conspicously protruding" standpoint (which the monstergrip certainly is). It seems more likely to me that it is in Monsterman's best interest to convince people that his grip his legal while the cheaper sawed off PG is somehow "less legal".
What I don't understand is how you guys are putting so much faith into the DOJ's Barrett letter that issues their opinion on what constitutes a "pistol style grasp". If there were no Barrett letter, then you would have to rely solely on CCR 978.20(d). You don't seem to understand the whole concept of CCR 978.20(d) and the implication of having the web of your hand below the top of the exposed part of the trigger. We have stated it numerous times and you continue to ignore it. That is what I don't understand. You act as though it doesn't even exist.

You guys seem to think that the "action of the weapon" starts at the trigger guard. Not true. CCR 978.20(d) makes it fairly clear that the action of the weapon starts at the top of the exposed portion of the trigger. Therefore, a prosecutor could argue that there is approximately 1 5/16" of "conspicuously protruding grip" on your PG cutoff. If the prosecutor can get the Barrett letter thrown out (not unfeasible considering the DOJ is not refering to any sort of penal code or CCR when they state their "pistol style grasp"), you are going to be skating on thin ice. 1 5/16" could be considered conspicuously protruding and when it is demonstrated that the web of the trigger hand is below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger, it is going to look like a pistol grip. And lets not forget if you are in a liberal county, you could very well have a liberal jury that might agree.

Now, is this likely to happen? Probably not. Will a lawyer with half a decent brain find that Barrett letter and probably successfully fight your case? Probably. How much is it going to cost you? I would probably donate my own money to a case such as this as it is gray enough and it is worth fighting.

Just be forwarned, this is not a case of "legal fact" that some people on this board are trying to claim it is. There is certainly enough gray area here that it concerns me. Everyone is free to do what they want and you don't have to spend $35 on a MonsterMan Grip if you don't want to. Take the amount of risk you are most comfortable with.

tenpercentfirearms
07-22-2006, 9:42 AM
So basically it boils down to does anyone believe that the CCR has any type of legal weight? So lets forget all of this debate we have been having and lets just hear what people think? Does the published California Code of Regulations have any legal weight? Some people on this board are claiming it does not.

Here are my two cents. From the Office of Administrative Law's (http://www.oal.ca.gov/) website, Ensuring that agency regulations are clear, necessary, legally valid, and available to the publicThey sure seem to think what they print is legally valid. I don't know about clear or necessary.

Any lawyers care to pipe in? Will the prosecution bring up CCR and if they do can you easily just get it thrown out of court as an opinion? :rolleyes:

10TH AMENDMENT
07-22-2006, 9:44 AM
What I don't understand is how you guys are putting so much faith into the DOJ's Barrett letter that issues their opinion on what constitutes a "pistol style grasp". If there were no Barrett letter, then you would have to rely solely on CCR 978.20(d). You don't seem to understand the whole concept of CCR 978.20(d) and the implication of having the web of your hand below the top of the exposed part of the trigger. We have stated it numerous times and you continue to ignore it. That is what I don't understand. You act as though it doesn't even exist.

Just be forwarned, this is not a case of "legal fact" that some people on this board are trying to claim it is. There is certainly enough gray area here that it concerns me. Everyone is free to do what they want and you don't have to spend $35 on a MonsterMan Grip if you don't want to. Take the amount of risk you are most comfortable with.

Wes:

The DOJ has issued other opinion letters in addition to the Barrett letter regarding what constitutes a "pistol style grasp". The Barrett letter is not the only time the DOJ has simillarly opined on this issue.

And contrary to your assertion, these letters would absolutely be relevant to a defense if a charge were filed against an individual relying on such letters in order to comport their conduct with the penal code. Thus, they would certainly be admitted into evidence if such a case ever went to trial, and would be admitted as an attached exhibit in any pretrial motions to dismiss the case before trial. You just don't know what you are talking about in this regard.

Further, I suspect you are referring to me in the "some people on this board are trying to claim..." comment. If that is the case, let me help you get your facts straight. This is exactly what I said in response to MonsterMan in the above post:

No, it should not. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. (Emphasis added)

The DOJ itself has said through its Deputy AG's that a "pistol style grasp" does not exist if the thumb of the hand is the only digit in contact with a device attached to a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterMan
This statement is what I was refering too. It could give false securities to the noobies who don't know any better and choose to go this route. It should read "in my opinion there is no way that said grip (cut down grip) allows for a "pistol style grasp" but the DOJ could have their own views on the matter".MonsterMan

I said nothing about "legal facts".

I said that it was not my opinion "that a "pistol style grasp" does not exist if the thumb of the hand is the only digit in contact with a device attached to a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine." I said that it was a fact that had been established through statements made by the DOJ in opinion letters that it had issued in response to inquiries regarding what constituted a "pistol style grasp".

There is a very important distinction there, friend.

FWIW I am frankly a bit surprised that people are so cocksure that this "MonsterGrip" that you are selling isn't far more risky that a completely sawed off tiny piece af plastic that is almost indiscernible on a rifle when compared side-to-side with a rifle that has a MG attached to it.

I know that I could demonstrate that the web of the hand could be placed below the top of the exposed trigger while grasping its protruding grip and firing the weapon.

tenpercentfirearms
07-22-2006, 9:59 AM
10th Amendment you sometimes only read what you want too. And contrary to your assertion, these letters would absolutely be relevant to a defense if a charge were filed against an individual relying on such letters in order to comport their conduct with the penal code.You mean this assertion I made above? "Will a lawyer with half a decent brain find that Barrett letter and probably successfully fight your case? Probably. How much is it going to cost you?" The Barrett letter is good. It helps out tremendously. If that is what the DOJ's opinion continues to be. They can afterall easily change the new letters they send out. I do not put as much faith in DOJ memos and letters as I do penal code and CCR.

Continuing along those lines it is a fact that the DOJ has sent out letters stating what they believe a "pistol style grasp" is. However I am not convinced that it is a fact what a pistol style grasp is. Again, the DOJ writes a lot of things. And it is very well concievable that the DOJ could be wrong. So if they tell us what a "pistol style grasp" is, but it is not written in the penal code or CCR, is that really what a "pistol style grasp" is? Does that mean that a "catagory 4" assault weapon is a fact as well? Or does that mean it is a "fact" that the DOJ has written about catagory 4 assault weapons? I think there is a difference that you are misrepresenting. Lets read what you said again.I said that it was a fact that had been established through statements made by the DOJ in opinion letters that it had issued in response to inquiries regarding what constituted a "pistol style grasp". So you are claiming because the DOJ wrote some letters that are not based on established definitions in penal code or CCR what they feel a definition of a pistol style grasp is, that establishes something as fact? Again, I revert back to catagory 4 assault weapons and permanently fixed magazines as evidence that the DOJ opinion's, even when in writing, can be blatently wrong or changed. Even the DOJ has told us numerous times they might be wrong and it is up to the 58 DAs to decide this thing. I personally will not treat anything not clearly laid out in CCR or penal code as fact. Again, the Barrett letters are good, they will offer you some protection. Not enough for my liking.

I know that I could demonstrate that the web of the hand could be placed below the top of the exposed trigger while grasping its protruding grip and firing the weapon.I would like to see a picture of that.

10TH AMENDMENT
07-22-2006, 10:39 AM
I would like to see a picture of that.

Hopefully that will never happen, but unfortunately for you, you just might get what you are asking for.

And you are absolutely wrong. I read everything you post. I just choose to reply to assertions that I judge to be the most erroneous, not the CYA back-up statements so you can have it both ways.;)

10TH AMENDMENT
07-22-2006, 10:41 AM
Hmm... I don't SEE a flash supressor...

That's because Blackrazor is smart enough and knows better than to put one on!

10TH AMENDMENT
07-22-2006, 10:52 AM
The Barrett letter is good. It helps out tremendously. If that is what the DOJ's opinion continues to be. They can afterall easily change the new letters they send out. I do not put as much faith in DOJ memos and letters as I do penal code and CCR.

Even if they were to foolishly reverse their established position, it is almost certain that they would still lose in court when they idiotically tried to convince a court that thin air constitutes a "conspicuously protruding pistol grip" that can be held in "pistol grasp" fashion.

They would also further look like jackasses trying to rationally explain to the court the reason they reversed their prior position. Their testimony would be thoroughly impeached with their "prior inconsistent statements".

tenpercentfirearms
07-22-2006, 10:54 AM
Hopefully that will never happen, but unfortunately for you, you just might get what you are asking for.This isn't about me. It is about us. If you can fire the MonsterMan while grasping its protruding grip (you know that sounds dirty!) below the top of the exposed trigger, everyone needs to know about it.

That is why we are having this debate, we want to keep people out of jail or having to pay for lawyers to keep themselves out of jail. So if you can do it and demonstrate an example in a picture, I encourage you to post it. If it doesn't work, why would I want to sell it? Look at my prices on a lot of things, my primary purpose isn't just to make money. This is also about us enjoying our 2nd Amendment heritage in a lawful manner.

Even if they were to foolishly reverse their established position, it is almost certain that they would still lose in court when they idiotically tried to convince that thin air constitutes a "conspicuously protruding pistol grip" that can be held in "pistol grasp" fashion.

They would also further look like jackasses trying to rationally explain to the court the reason they reversed their prior position. Their testimony would be thoroughly impeached with their "prior inconsistent statements".I agree with you. What is it going to cost financially and in time to win? Again, that is assuming a liberal jury doesn't do what they want anyway? There are a lot of variable factors in this debate. Both sides of this issue are probably doing the normal blowing the extremes out of proportion, but that is part of evaluating risks and making decisions.

10TH AMENDMENT
07-22-2006, 11:15 AM
10%:

I couldn't agree with you more on every point in your last post. (Especially that the image conjured-up by the "fire the MonsterMan while grasping its protruding grip" satement is NSFW.;))

Wes, if anyone on this board was to be wrongly charged and prosecuted for the lawful use and posession of their firearms, I would be the first to step up and contribute as much money and time as I could possibly afford...That includes you!

You a good and extremely intelligent man IMHO, and I'm with you all of the way. I have also never lost sight of the fact that you were extremely ballsy and courageous in the initial foray into the OLL phenomena. Again, MHO.

I actually have the highest degree of respect for you and what you do...but after all, someone has to try to step in and fill glen avon's shoes while he is on sabbatical!:D

10TH AMENDMENT
07-22-2006, 11:29 AM
Agree 100%. While nothing is going to prevent some idiot cop from hassling you and possibly seizing your OLL rifle, no prosecutor would bring this to trial.

For those of you who think this is a grey area, a few minutes looking up the words "conspicuous" and "protrude" in a dictionary should be instructive. Those words aren't legal terms of art, they mean exactly what they say.

And, the court would take Judicial Notice of those definitions I might add.

tenpercentfirearms
07-22-2006, 11:30 AM
I have also never lost sight of the fact that you were extremely ballsy and courageous in the initial foray into the OLL phenomena.Its amazing how many people mistake ignorance and stupidity for courage and fortitude! ;)

Wes, if anyone on this board was to be wrongly charged and prosecuted for the lawful use and posession of their firearms, I would be the first to step up and contribute as much money and time as I could possibly afford...That includes you!I am in the same boat. I will say it has to be a righteous case though. I am not going to bail someone out for shooting their brand new 30 round detachable magazine out of their OLL. Sorry. If anyone gets pinched for a MonsterMan, fixed mag kit, or even a cut off grip, it is worth taking it to court over. I have a feeling any kind of case where it is the DOJ's or local DA's interpretation over what the law says has a lot of potential for bigger change. I think if a good case makes it to the CA Supreme Court we could very well get some more Harrott type decisions where the stupidity of these laws comes into question.

The amount of time we have spend debating what a pistol grip is proof enough!

10TH AMENDMENT
07-22-2006, 1:23 PM
The amount of time we have spend debating what a pistol grip is proof enough!

I consider it as a means of "staying in shape" if you know what I'm saying!

And I totally agree with you that a case has to be righteous to be defensible. That is why I qualified my statement with the terms "lawful use and possession" of their firearms. However, that being said, it is my opinion that the current AG does not consider anyone as lawfully using or possessing their firearms, particularly the OLL's.

Cooler heads should prevail if Pochoogian wins!

MonsterMan
07-22-2006, 5:46 PM
Wow, great threads. I just wanted to add that I could fire some of my other rifles with regular stocks with my hand below the "line". It is akward, but it can be done. As well as the doj approved "tumor grip". My grip while shooting with the hand in place comfortably, thumb on safety (or not, just above index finger), the web is above the line. It's also a "rifle type grip=allowing for a rifle type grasp".

I guess you guys could say the debate is:

1: does the line even matter if the grip doesn't fit a "pistol grip" definition, allowing a pistol style grasp. (many feel that the line business is mute once the grip is not considered a pistol grip. Example "oar stock")

2: does protuding start from the bottom of reciever or the line?

3: Does the design of the grips natural placement of the web constitute placement? (noted before that many regular stock rifles can be fired with web below top exposed part of trigger, but by design the web rests above.)

Great stuff guys, lets hear more.

MM

Ryan HBC
07-22-2006, 6:10 PM
Let's say we go with popular opinion and decide that the grip in question is indeed legal. Keep that in mind and ask yourself, "What if it was 1/8" longer?"

Would an extra 1/8" make it "conspicuously protruding"? Could 1/8" make the difference between legal and felony? Realistically, it really wouldn't make a difference in the ergonomics of the rifle. Can you imagine a situation where someone was prosecuted because his grip was 1/8" too long??

Then what about 1/4", 1/2", etc?

I guess it would come down to if you could wrap your fingers around it. How big is the average finger? Can you have a longer grip if you have fatter fingers?

Would this have to be decided on a case by case basis? If so, what if one grip was considered legal, but another shorter grip was considered illegal? It could easily happen without rock solid, clear, understandable definitions.

God, I could ramble on about this all day. Seems the only conclusion we will reach is that the existing law is murky at best. Thanks for the interesting debate.

MonsterMan
07-22-2006, 7:54 PM
Hey, check this bit of info out.

1.
Comment

The definition is ambiguous because if it is possible to grasp any stock on a rifle with a detachable magazine in a manner that places the web of the
firing hand below the top of the exposed trigger when firing it would be an assault weapon.

Response

The Department disagrees with the comment. The proposed definition is not
ambiguous and although it could be physically possible for some non-pistol grip rifles to be fired with the web of the hand positioned below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger, the rifle would have to be held in an extremely abnormal manner. Such a grasp could not plausibly be considered a "pistol style grasp" by a reasonable person.
2.
Comment

The definition is vague and will be interpreted differently for different size hands because the web of larger hands will be different from the web of a
petite hand.

Response

The Department disagrees with the comment. The position where the web of the hand can be positioned while grasping a particular firearm is not affected by the size of the hand. The proposed definition based on the placement of the web of the trigger hand is the only definition considered by the Department that accurately identifies true pistol grips and excludes non-pistol grips.

3.
Comment

Anyone could take a Ruger Mini-14, install a wooden dowel that projects downward from the stock, and DOJ would have it called an assault weapon simply because the gun could be grasped by that dowel.

Response

The Department disagrees with the comment. The fact that a firearm has a pistol grip does not make it an assault weapon. The firearm must also have other characteristics specified in Penal Code section 12276.1 to be an "assault weapon". Additionally, because the proposed definition states in part, "pistol grip...means a grip that allows ...", installation of wooden dowel that did not resemble a "grip" would not fall within the Department's definition.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/attachmentc.pdf

Interesting bit of info to consider. Kinda answered some of my questions.

If they don't consider a dowel to be a "pistol grip" why do they consider that fab10 hook grip looking thing to be one?

MM

10TH AMENDMENT
07-23-2006, 7:50 PM
MM:

Just read your thread and checked out the link you posted (read it several times before).

These responses given by the DOJ pretty much ends the debate as to whether the little piece of plastic pictured above with the entire "pistol grip" portion sawed off constitutes a "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"...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." (Article 2. Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons CCR 978.20(d))

MonsterMan
07-23-2006, 8:54 PM
10th, I agree. That is why I thought it was usefull info. Wow, we actually agreed, how about that.

By reading that info, sounds like a pistol grip (as we all know what a pistol grip is, as being reasonable people) that allows for the web to be below the line, is what is illegal while going with a detachable mag. So, with that now, a cut off grip should be fine, a srb should be fine. if a dowel that protrudes down and allows the grasp and web to be below the line, I don't think it is that sketchy then. I think we are being over analytical as to the definition. All of these "memo's" and responses have made us all a little nervous. Which is what they probably want. They have said that off list lowers were illegal when I talked to them on the phone, but it doesn't mean that they are. They will tell us all kinds of stuff to scare us from buying this stuff.

(speaking of being scared.) Reminder: I am not a lawyer nor do I claim to be an expert in the laws. I make no official claims that any product I have mentioned is "legal" under the law. It is up to you read the laws and to use at own risk.:)

Stay safe everyone.

MM

10TH AMENDMENT
07-23-2006, 9:04 PM
(speaking of being scared.) Reminder: I am not a lawyer nor do I claim to be an expert in the laws. I make no official claims that any product I have mentioned is "legal" under the law. It is up to you read the laws and to use at own risk.:)

Stay safe everyone.

MM

That's OK, MM...because I'm sure you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!;)

And BTW, you and I would probably be in agreement on more things that you think!

10TH AMENDMENT
07-24-2006, 7:19 AM
If a mere 60% of the firearms enthusiasts in this state and nationwide who have had their tails between their legs would have maintained the attitude exhibited by BR for the last 20 years, it never would have been necessary to engage in these emasculated, asinine debates in the first place.

The term "Off List Lower" would never have entered into our vernacular!

It really is not too late!

Now... that's more like it. What this board needs is more positive attitude, more can do thinking, and a lot less fear. Yes, the DOJ *is* the bogeyman, and yes there will always be some risk involved when you slap them in the ace... but we've been whipping them up and down the block for some time now. I say kick them while they're down, push push push. We've made a lot of progress, but we can do more, push them further.

The last thing the DOJ wants is a bunch of people with legal AR's running around with sawed off grips, real grips in your rangeback and a boatload of "high cap" detachable mags. So, of course, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering, incompetent DOJ; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"