Featureless Accessory Legality

[Midtown Gunner]

http://www.afmo.com/Sixell-Innovations-Never-Quit-Grip-p/six_neverquitgrip.htm

Since it doesn't extend the mag well or create a grip as defined by California law, this would be legal, correct?

[Josh3239]

Yes. Though the super conservative folk probably will say no.

[jokat989]

simple question. do you want to be the test case?

[joelogic]

Even if it's legal, everyone high speed knows its cooler to hold far out on the handguard.

[Josh3239]

simple question. do you want to be the test case?

That is shockingly reminiscent of when OLLs and the bullet button first came out. How "forward pistol grip" is defined is very clear. If one is so worried about being a test case, gardening might be a much better hobby.

[Thordo]

The Mako Group has a letter from BATFE stating that their magwell grip does not meet the criteria for a "forward pistol grip" as applied to an AR pistol.

http://makodefense.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/mwgletter.jpg

One can only guess what CA would say about it, but as josh3239 said:
"If one is so worried about being a test case, gardening might be a much better hobby. "

Thordo

[MrPlink]

Legal or not, it is fugly!

I honestly could not see this triggering AW status though.

[Midtown Gunner]

Thanks, Thordo.

[rero360]

Even if it's legal, everyone high speed knows its cooler to hold far out on the handguard.

Its not a matter of looking cool, having your support hand further out is plain old better from a kinesiology look. It simply makes for faster and more accurate transitions from one target to another. Now if one is simply shooting at a single stationary target with no time limitations or other stressors, then being more bladed to the target while having your support arm tight in to the body makes sense, gives you a nice stable position for extended periods of time.

Point is, from a practical point of view, each has its place and there is no point in poopooing one or the other for any reason.

With all that said, I personally avoid gripping the magwell, special grips attached to it or not, simply because I want to keep all my fingers on the off chance that I experience a kaboom while shooting. I've seen too many magwells bulge out and or rupture to run that risk.

[strongpoint]

How "forward pistol grip" is defined is very clear.

care to document that? to my knowledge, nothing in either PC, CCR or case law clearly defines the phrase in question.

that's not to say that i think a magwell grip would qualify; i don't believe it would.

The Mako Group has a letter from BATFE stating that their magwell grip does not meet the criteria for a "forward pistol grip" as applied to an AR pistol.
http://makodefense.files.wordpress.c.../mwgletter.jpg

all due respect to thordo (whose disclaimer i have elided), but it should be underscored that an opinion from the federal BATFE bears little to no relevance on how a california statute is interpreted.

(why does mako defense have an office in alaska?)

[saki302]

It's not anything close to a grip. It's a rubber condom for the mag well.
I have big hands, and I can't come close to holding a mag well like a pistol grip.

Either way, no thanks.

-Dave

[Toast]

If that is considered a pistol grip then a 10/30 mag would be too. I don't think it should be an issue.

[MakoDefense]

Keep in mind that the ATFE was very clear about the fact that the letter we have only applies to our particular grip. They may not support you if you went to court using our letter to justify another grip.

Secondly, for anyone considering these products in CA, the letter from ATFE only covers the ATFE's classification of an AR pistol with the grip mounted, and does not necessarily affect what CA may or may not consider legal. Please check carefully with a legal expert in CA to ensure that anything you do is legal at the state level.

Finally someone mentioned that there may be an issue in CA with extending a magwell? If this is the case, our grip could possibly be considered by CA to extend the magwell, since the bottom is flared for reloads. This may be something to check.

Just wanted to make this clear so that no one gets in trouble thinking that our letter covers them. I am not an expert on CA law, of course.

[MakoDefense]

(why does mako defense have an office in alaska?)

Why would we want to live anywhere else?

[stix213]

I think it is legal, but I'd hold back until seeing others run it without drama personally.