PDA

View Full Version : Why are Forend pistol grips Illegal?


DemocracyEnaction
02-24-2012, 9:48 PM
Why are pistol grips illegal on the forend of an AR-15? Is this even true?
I'm sure this has been asked before but I am curious of the reasoning if there is one.:confused:

Fate
02-24-2012, 9:58 PM
Why are pistol grips illegal on the forend of an AR-15? Is this even true?
I'm sure this has been asked before but I am curious of the reasoning if there is one.:confused:
On a semi automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable mag, yes. In CA it triggers assault weapon status. AR-15s with a bullet button are exempt from this.

As to "why"...because scary looking things on things that go boom scare our would-be masters.

DemocracyEnaction
02-24-2012, 10:06 PM
That's what I thought. Some senator saw a movie where cops got wasted with an AR with a forend grip.

Humboldt
02-24-2012, 10:11 PM
Because people vote for democrats

SoCalSon
02-24-2012, 10:11 PM
That's what I thought. Some senator saw a movie where cops got wasted with an AR with a forend grip.

LOL, if that's true. Then that is a lame excuse to ban it. People can still grip other part of the rifle for support.

DemocracyEnaction
02-24-2012, 10:26 PM
What about a horizontal grip? HA HA!

Oneaudiopro
02-24-2012, 11:07 PM
Why are pistol grips illegal on the forend of an AR-15? Is this even true?
I'm sure this has been asked before but I am curious of the reasoning if there is one.:confused:

Liberals never have a sense of reason or logic..........sad but true.

hammerhead_77
02-24-2012, 11:15 PM
Hey, cool thought! What if I put a TangoDown grip on the 9 o'clock rail? that isn't a vertical pistol grip. Sho is gangsta, tho.

Meplat
02-24-2012, 11:29 PM
Why are pistol grips illegal on the forend of an AR-15? Is this even true?
I'm sure this has been asked before but I am curious of the reasoning if there is one.:confused:

Besides the reasons already listed, presumably because someone thinks it would make the weapon easier to control in full auto or rapid fire.

Even if true, if shooting is legal, what difference does it make how fast you do it? Other than possibly saving innocent lives?

Lugiahua
02-25-2012, 1:55 AM
Don't let them watch Terminators...or soon they will ban laser sight or ACOG...:D

mag360
02-25-2012, 2:06 AM
because they were trying to ban the ak and the ar and coming up with features that exist on them. If they could get rid of the features maybe the gun would be banned.

Chaos47
02-25-2012, 2:11 AM
What about a horizontal grip? HA HA!


Hey, cool thought! What if I put a TangoDown grip on the 9 o'clock rail? that isn't a vertical pistol grip. Sho is gangsta, tho.

The laws language is forward pistol grip, not vertical so no go on a featureless build.
As stated on magazine locked weapons you can have features

Penal Code 12276.1.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

CaliforniaLiberal
02-25-2012, 3:00 AM
Why are pistol grips illegal on the forend of an AR-15? Is this even true?
I'm sure this has been asked before but I am curious of the reasoning if there is one.:confused:


It's because these guns have no other purpose than to kill people. A forearm pistol grip allows you to spray fire from the hip, thereby killing large numbers of people quickly.

As opposed to using the sights and actually aiming accurately.


I am always tickled by questions about the purpose or reasoning of California Gun Laws.

This is based on the fallacious assumption that CA Gun Laws are carefully thought out and reasoned. Just imagine what laws would be like if they were subject to reasoned, wise debate before being passed.

Carnivore
02-25-2012, 3:46 AM
It's because these guns have no other purpose than to kill people. A forearm pistol grip allows you to spray fire from the hip, thereby killing large numbers of people quickly.

As opposed to using the sights and actually aiming accurately.


I am always tickled by questions about the purpose or reasoning of California Gun Laws.

This is based on the fallacious assumption that CA Gun Laws are carefully thought out and reasoned. Just imagine what laws would be like if they were subject to reasoned, wise debate before being passed.

Yep and you forgot to mention that we all know that if you make it illegal that will stop all madmen from ever using it for that purpose. That is why making laws against killing people worked so well. OH and how dare you try to bring up reason or logic when it comes to making laws, it is all about keeping the children safe.

OleCuss
02-25-2012, 5:10 AM
So far as the logic goes? I don't think it is exactly "what looks scary".

Much of our state would just like all firearms to go away unless they are directly controlled by the government (owned and used by LEO, military, and perhaps certain training regimes).

They sort of accept the idea that hunting is legitimate - or at least that the politics won't yet allow its elimination. This means that a rifle or shotgun which looks like the ones they've seen on TV for deer hunting or quail hunting is marginally acceptable. Preferably single-shot, wooden stock, and an optical sight.

If your rifle is black, if it has "furniture" on it then you really aren't planning to use it for hunting. Your real interest is either in killing people or in looking like you are going to kill people.

There are similar arguments for handguns. That sort of comes down to the idea that Olympic-style handgun competitions are legitimate and they may have to accept handguns that look sort of like those carried by LEO. But they have a greater distaste for handguns than they have for rifles and shotguns and really have greater difficulty seeing handgun ownership as having a legitimate purpose.

Now this goes back to a more fundamental worldview. That worldview is that the government must and will protect you from all ills.

Admittedly I'm not fully nuancing that worldview.

But when you believe that the government must and will protect you from all ills and that the individual is far less trustworthy than is the government, then the only legitimate reason someone can have in order to possess a firearm is in a governmentally sanctioned event - such as wildlife harvests as endorsed or mandated by the government.

There is no real sympathy for the concept of self-defense as that is a police function.

So if a rifle looks to them like it is intended to shoot deer or a shotgun is intended to be used in taking quail or waterfowl or the like - then it is distasteful but legitimate.

A firearm which looks like it is intended to be used for self-defense purposes against predators of the two-legged variety, then they view that firearm's purpose as illegitimate.

If you accept the premise that the government is solely and completely responsible for your safety and well-being, then their intended position on EBR's and related furniture is actually pretty logical. Note that CGF/CGN in particular has frustrated their intentions on EBR's so what we have today is not their plan.

These guys are not stupid. They are not overly given to emotion.

They are ill-informed on firearm issues and they have a political philosophy/worldview which I don't share. But if one understands that they are essentially anti-libertarian and rather poorly informed/educated as well as being in a politically dominant but still somewhat constrained political/legal environment, then they actually make a certain amount of sense.

Quiet
02-25-2012, 5:31 AM
Don't let them watch Terminators...or soon they will ban laser sight or ACOG...:D

Well they definitely watched the first Terminator movie, because every long gun used in the first Terminator movie ended up on the Roberti-Roos (make/model) AWB list.

Chaos47
02-25-2012, 5:36 AM
Don't try to apply logic to it...

This thread needs more barrel shroud!!!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iIgGzjVNEAk/TSp3C58Vr9I/AAAAAAAAFg8/79D3HpMcQ-g/s1600/barrel+shroud.jpg

sd_shooter
02-25-2012, 5:57 AM
http://www.toonpool.com/user/997/files/who_is_john_galt_guru_513115.jpg

Uxi
02-25-2012, 7:17 AM
Well they definitely watched the first Terminator movie, because every long gun used in the first Terminator movie ended up on the Roberti-Roos (make/model) AWB list.

I really wanted a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, too. :(

proclone1
02-25-2012, 8:14 AM
Well they definitely watched the first Terminator movie, because every long gun used in the first Terminator movie ended up on the Roberti-Roos (make/model) AWB list.

the real irony is that the same man who was our governor was the one using those weapons to shoot up an LA police department in the first place!!!!!!

HowardW56
02-25-2012, 10:03 AM
Why are pistol grips illegal on the forend of an AR-15? Is this even true?
I'm sure this has been asked before but I am curious of the reasoning if there is one.:confused:


They are EVIL....

And the legislature didn't like them!

Mikeb
02-25-2012, 10:10 AM
If a rifle has a forend grip and a shoulder thingy that goes up you will probably shoot everybody you see.
Plus Democrats hate ergonomics... unless they get to tell every co0mpany in the state what kind of chairs they have.
that's the way I see it
Mike

Kauf
02-25-2012, 10:16 AM
Hey, cool thought! What if I put a TangoDown grip on the 9 o'clock rail? that isn't a vertical pistol grip. Sho is gangsta, tho.

Put a right angle grip off the 9 oclock rail. As in it attaches horizontally but then turns vertical immediately after attaching. Someone could engineer it i'm sure :D

Muscles Glasses
02-25-2012, 11:14 AM
They are evil and allow super accurate rapid fire from the hip!!!

Munk
02-25-2012, 11:15 AM
If it's on a pistol; the forward pistol grip makes it an AOW, as a handgun is a gun meant to be fired 1 handed, while a gun with a forward grip is "intended" for two handed usage.

On a rifle, the others covered it pretty well: It's Evil.

diggersdarling
02-25-2012, 11:31 AM
Short answer: because it is cool and practical and only the government can have cool and practical stuff.

TheFlyingAfrican
02-25-2012, 11:50 AM
are foreend pistol grips on a 'pistol' AR legal?
that section states
Penal Code 12276.1.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

m03
02-25-2012, 11:52 AM
are foreend pistol grips on a 'pistol' AR legal?
that section states
Penal Code 12276.1.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

If you register it as an AOW, then yes, but then it's no longer a pistol.

SanPedroShooter
02-25-2012, 11:57 AM
So far as the logic goes? I don't think it is exactly "what looks scary".

Much of our state would just like all firearms to go away unless they are directly controlled by the government (owned and used by LEO, military, and perhaps certain training regimes).

They sort of accept the idea that hunting is legitimate - or at least that the politics won't yet allow its elimination. This means that a rifle or shotgun which looks like the ones they've seen on TV for deer hunting or quail hunting is marginally acceptable. Preferably single-shot, wooden stock, and an optical sight.

If your rifle is black, if it has "furniture" on it then you really aren't planning to use it for hunting. Your real interest is either in killing people or in looking like you are going to kill people.

There are similar arguments for handguns. That sort of comes down to the idea that Olympic-style handgun competitions are legitimate and they may have to accept handguns that look sort of like those carried by LEO. But they have a greater distaste for handguns than they have for rifles and shotguns and really have greater difficulty seeing handgun ownership as having a legitimate purpose.

Now this goes back to a more fundamental worldview. That worldview is that the government must and will protect you from all ills.

Admittedly I'm not fully nuancing that worldview.

But when you believe that the government must and will protect you from all ills and that the individual is far less trustworthy than is the government, then the only legitimate reason someone can have in order to possess a firearm is in a governmentally sanctioned event - such as wildlife harvests as endorsed or mandated by the government.

There is no real sympathy for the concept of self-defense as that is a police function.

So if a rifle looks to them like it is intended to shoot deer or a shotgun is intended to be used in taking quail or waterfowl or the like - then it is distasteful but legitimate.

A firearm which looks like it is intended to be used for self-defense purposes against predators of the two-legged variety, then they view that firearm's purpose as illegitimate.

If you accept the premise that the government is solely and completely responsible for your safety and well-being, then their intended position on EBR's and related furniture is actually pretty logical. Note that CGF/CGN in particular has frustrated their intentions on EBR's so what we have today is not their plan.

These guys are not stupid. They are not overly given to emotion.

They are ill-informed on firearm issues and they have a political philosophy/worldview which I don't share. But if one understands that they are essentially anti-libertarian and rather poorly informed/educated as well as being in a politically dominant but still somewhat constrained political/legal environment, then they actually make a certain amount of sense.

Fair enough. I would disagree with you on one point. I think in many cases they are stupid, and they are given to emotion.

I mean what do we really now about a guy like KDL? That he had enough union backing and money to get elected?

Maybe I should replace the word 'stupid' with arrogant. I wont deny that some of them have the native intelligence that many craven and cowardly, but somewhat higher up on the food chain, animals have.

Imagine a monkey taunting a tiger.

HBrebel
02-25-2012, 12:01 PM
On a semi automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable mag, yes. In CA it triggers assault weapon status. AR-15s with a bullet button are exempt from this.

As to "why"...because scary looking things on things that go boom scare our would-be masters.

BEST ANSWER I HAVE HEARD IN A LONG LONG TIME! :43:

Irish Gunner
02-25-2012, 1:11 PM
Quote: There is no real sympathy for the concept of self-defense as that is a police function.

Reality: Supreme court ruled. Forgot decision. LEOS are not responsible for your defense!

Brianguy
02-25-2012, 2:26 PM
It's almost as lethal as the shoulder thing that goes up

ClarenceBoddicker
02-25-2012, 5:45 PM
The blueprint for the Republican George ("Dookie") Deukmeajian 5/24/1989 CA AWB (yes he is the one ultimately responsible for that law, he could have chose not to sign it into law), was the 3/14/ & 4/5 1989 George H ("read my lips, no new taxes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w)) Bush/ATF "sporting" reclassification/importation ban. IIRC the CA Legislature also used the Gun Digest book of Assault Weapons for their list of named weapons. There was also a typo or something like a rifle or 2 that didn't make it into that edition, so it didn't make it on the '89 ban. I guess all the gun experts in the Legislature forgot about it & some older guns not in the book like the HK-41.

A forward grip on a pistol was "banned" (requires a NFA AOW $5 registration or $200 making tax & registration) in the NRA supported 1934 National Firearms Act. ATF defines a handgun/pistol as being used with one hand. Somehow to the ATF if you add a 2nd vertical grip to a handgun that is under 26" long, that is now a AOW. You can add a horizontal grip with no issues. I wonder what the ATF calls the MAC-10/11/12 front strap? Is it a very short sling or a vertical grip?

bohoki
02-25-2012, 5:58 PM
same reason as nunchucks

223556
02-25-2012, 6:06 PM
On a semi automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable mag, yes. In CA it triggers assault weapon status. AR-15s with a bullet button are exempt from this.

As to "why"...because scary looking things on things that go boom scare our would-be masters.

+1
Couldnt have said it any better lol

Kharn
02-25-2012, 6:51 PM
Because the Steyr AUG has one, and its the most-hated black rifle out there.

The Gleam
02-25-2012, 7:01 PM
It's almost as lethal as the shoulder thing that goes up

These would be the palm thing that goes down. Otherwise known as how Ms. McCarthy describes a flash-hider.

mag360
02-25-2012, 7:02 PM
can you have an AOW pistol in CA? If that 10day carry license exempton goes away might make a very expensive trip to ebr works. Muahaha.

hawkeye
02-25-2012, 10:00 PM
http://www.toonpool.com/user/997/files/who_is_john_galt_guru_513115.jpg

What the F$%$ is that supposed to even mean?

I'm reading a sort of interesting thread, and "boom!" thread diarrhea.

curtisfong
02-25-2012, 10:05 PM
What the F$%$ is that supposed to even mean?

I'm reading a sort of interesting thread, and "boom!" thread diarrhea.

If you don't comprehend the reference, calling "diarrhea" is a bit premature.

I guess it could be worse. You could be a vapid Randian.

ke6guj
02-26-2012, 12:01 AM
can you have an AOW pistol in CA?

provided that it isn't a CA AW pistol, yes you can.

motorhead
02-26-2012, 12:56 PM
because they contain evil black rifle ju-ju. by attaching you make the weapon evil.

ja308
02-27-2012, 12:37 PM
The blueprint for the Republican George ("Dookie") Deukmeajian 5/24/1989 CA AWB (yes he is the one ultimately responsible for that law, he could have chose not to sign it into law), was the 3/14/ & 4/5 1989 George H ("read my lips, no new taxes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w)) Bush/ATF "sporting" reclassification/importation ban. IIRC the CA Legislature also used the Gun Digest book of Assault Weapons for their list of named weapons. There was also a typo or something like a rifle or 2 that didn't make it into that edition, so it didn't make it on the '89 ban. I guess all the gun experts in the Legislature forgot about it & some older guns not in the book like the HK-41.

A forward grip on a pistol was "banned" (requires a NFA AOW $5 registration or $200 making tax & registration) in the NRA supported 1934 National Firearms Act. ATF defines a handgun/pistol as being used with one hand. Somehow to the ATF if you add a 2nd vertical grip to a handgun that is under 26" long, that is now a AOW. You can add a horizontal grip with no issues. I wonder what the ATF calls the MAC-10/11/12 front strap? Is it a very short sling or a vertical grip?

Interestingly George Deukmajian is responsible for the 89 Roberti / Roos AW ban ? Both roberti and roos were democrats !

I checked the time frame for that period and discovered The liberal democratic assembly had 50 and the repubs had 30 .
The senate side had 24 liberal democrats and repubs had 16 .

Now if you like the democratic party , thats fine. But by going back 3decades and attempting to mislead us is something only a humanist would find acceptable.

Why not accept the democratic party writes the restrictive gun laws and passes them . Sometime's ,too often a rino signs them into law.

It is suggested folks interested in restoring or preserving 2A rights ,use many of the groups w ho give letter grades to politicians ,based on voting and or questionaires .

BoxesOfLiberty
02-27-2012, 12:51 PM
Hey, cool thought! What if I put a TangoDown grip on the 9 o'clock rail? that isn't a vertical pistol grip. Sho is gangsta, tho.

If you really want gangsta, put the tangoDown grip on the 9 o'clock and an Aimpoint on the 3 o'clock...

BoxesOfLiberty
02-27-2012, 1:01 PM
These would be the palm thing that goes down. Otherwise known as how Ms. McCarthy describes a flash-hider.

Not to be confused with a collapsible stock, or in McCarthy's words "the bullet thing that goes in".

Uxi
02-27-2012, 1:17 PM
Interestingly George Deukmajian is responsible for the 89 Roberti / Roos AW ban ? Both roberti and roos were democrats !

I checked the time frame for that period and discovered The liberal democratic assembly had 50 and the repubs had 30 .
The senate side had 24 liberal democrats and repubs had 16 .

Now if you like the democratic party , thats fine. But by going back 3decades and attempting to mislead us is something only a humanist would find acceptable.

Why not accept the democratic party writes the restrictive gun laws and passes them . Sometime's ,too often a rino signs them into law.

It is suggested folks interested in restoring or preserving 2A rights ,use many of the groups w ho give letter grades to politicians ,based on voting and or questionaires .

Bingo!

Insert clapping gif here.

wolfstar
02-27-2012, 2:44 PM
So could you have a forward grip on shotgun? Say on a keltech KSG?

repubconserv
02-27-2012, 2:53 PM
So could you have a forward grip on shotgun? Say on a keltech KSG?

yes it is a pump action. Check the Shotgun Flowchart (http://www.calguns.net/caawid/sgflowchart.pdf) for answers to more shotgun feature questions, such as the laws for semi auto vs non semi auto