View Single Post
  #31  
Old 12-03-2012, 12:31 PM
Wildhawk66's Avatar
Wildhawk66 Wildhawk66 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,129
iTrader: 184 / 100%
Default

My thoughts on the legality of the FRS-15 have really been swinging back and forth the more I think about it.

As I understand it, the argument being put forward for the legality of this stock is that the FRS-15 is in fact a stock and specifically not a grip. And since the overall part is in fact a stock, not a grip, it is not subject to Penal code section 12276.1 which specifies when a standard grip should be considered an evil pistol grip. So, even though the FRS-15 may place the web of the hand below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger this section of code is not applicable as the FRS-15 is actually a stock.

I get it. This does make sense and I appreciate the fact that CGF is willing to defend the concept. On a side note, the Promag Archangel Stock for the M1A seems a perfect example of this concept as there is no question that the part is a stock with integral grip.

The more I think about it though, I am having trouble accepting that the FRS-15 is in fact a stock with an integral grip. The reason is that the FRS-15 mounts to the factory AR15 grip mounting point and not to the factory stock mounting point. To me, this makes the FRS-15 a grip with integral stock and not the other way around. As such, it seems to me that penal code 12276.1 would be back in play and an FRS-15 equipped rifle would require the use of a fix magazine as the gripping area places the web of the hand below the exposed top portion of the trigger.

I'm really interested in one of these stocks and I would like to come to a different conclusion, but my inexpert opinion at the moment is that a prosecutor would have a pretty easy time convincing a jury that the FRS-15 is actually a grip with an integral stock based on its mounting point.

Thoughts?

Last edited by Wildhawk66; 12-03-2012 at 2:42 PM..
Reply With Quote