KRISS System & California Legality

[saki302]

you are not reading the ruling close enough- does the pistol grip PORTRUDE CONSPICUOUSLY BELOW THE ACTION ? Being a PG may be irrelevant if it doesn't portrude based on the way the law is worded.

On the Kriss, I say no portrusion.

On the 1919- no one argued it wasn't a rifle 4-5 years ago, the 'not a rifle' argument only came up very recently with people nutty enough to argue an SBR 1919 is legal, or toy with a .50BMG M2. That argument still may not fly- it sure looks like a rifle to me in some configs (A6)- I wouldn't push it that far.

-Dave

[aplinker]

And you haven't bothered to read the definition of a PG. That is a PG.

Iit really has nothing to do with the action, but the trigger guard:

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.

you are not reading the ruling close enough- does the pistol grip PORTRUDE CONSPICUOUSLY BELOW THE ACTION ? Being a PG may be irrelevant if it doesn't portrude based on the way the law is worded.

On the Kriss, I say no portrusion.

On the 1919- no one argued it wasn't a rifle 4-5 years ago, the 'not a rifle' argument only came up very recently with people nutty enough to argue an SBR 1919 is legal, or toy with a .50BMG M2. That argument still may not fly- it sure looks like a rifle to me in some configs (A6)- I wouldn't push it that far.

-Dave

[ohsmily]

you are not reading the ruling close enough- does the pistol grip PORTRUDE CONSPICUOUSLY BELOW THE ACTION ? Being a PG may be irrelevant if it doesn't portrude based on the way the law is worded.

On the Kriss, I say no portrusion.

It is you who needs to read closer.

First of all, it is PROtrusion/PROtrude

Second, read the definition that clarifies what the first statement "conspicuously protrudes below the action of the weapon" actually means:

(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.

You can't ignore the section in bold. THAT is the definition. Is it possible to grip the KRISS in a way to satisfy that definition, yes --> pistol grip.

[NSR500]

It is you who needs to read closer.

First of all, it is PROtrusion/PROtrude

Second, read the definition that clarifies what the first statement "conspicuously protrudes below the action of the weapon" actually means:


You can't ignore the section in bold. THAT is the definition. Is it possible to grip the KRISS in a way to satisfy that definition, yes --> pistol grip.

IMO... The Debate is, "Where the grip is in respect to the Action of the KRISS".

If you look at how the definition is worded, then:

Pistol Grip + Below Action = AW

Pistol Grip + Anywhere but below the Action = Non-AW???

[ohsmily]

IMO... The Debate is, "Where the grip is in respect to the Action of the KRISS".

If you look at how the definition is worded, then:

Pistol Grip + Below Action = AW

Pistol Grip + Anywhere but below the Action = Non-AW???

No, I believe the question is "can you grip the gun in such a way that the web of the trigger hand between the thumb and index finger be placed below the top of the exposed trigger while firing." If yes, then it is a pistol grip.

[NSR500]

No, I believe the question is "can you grip the gun in such a way that the web of the trigger hand between the thumb and index finger be placed below the top of the exposed trigger while firing." If yes, then it is a pistol grip.

Gotcha...

[dragonbait1a]

But the action is infront of the grip?

What about the 1919 type grips? You can put the web of your hand below trigger but the grip is behind the action? If a 1919 with a shoulder stock is legal then it seems that the KRISS (since the action resides before the grip) should be legal too?

But I don't mind being wrong it'd explain why more guns don't have the grip behind the action (besides weight)

RGB

[aplinker]

The 1919 comes down to not being a rifle (it has no stock), so the inclusion of a PG is moot as the SB23 AW definition begins with, "a semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and any of the following features:"

What about the 1919 type grips? You can put the web of your hand below trigger but the grip is behind the action? If a 1919 with a shoulder stock is legal then it seems that the KRISS (since the action resides before the grip) should be legal too?

But I don't mind being wrong it'd explain why more guns don't have the grip behind the action (besides weight)

RGB

[saki302]

I think he is referring to the 1919A6, which does in fact have a stock (and bipod).

IMO, it doesn't matter what the DOJ's interpretation is- the web of the hand garbage is in there to clarify the legality of gripless designs in ARs and AKs.
To me, it's pretty clear what the actual law says WITHOUT their clarification:
"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"
So if it does not protrude at all below the ACTION, it's not a CONSPICUOUSLY PROTRUDING pistol grip. Read carefully, the law does not ban pistol grips in and of themselves, ONLY conspicuously portruding ones. Yes, they worded it stupidly and left a loophole.
I believe the actual wording of SB23 does not include the web of the hand thing- that is the DOJ clarification added later. Yes, it's iffy, but so was Harrott's at first.

Does the AR15 PG protrude conspicuously below the action? Of course. does the Kriss? I say no- the action goes all the way to the bottom of the mag well, which is in-line with the bottom of the PG- in fact, it portrudes LESS than the 1919A4, and you CANNOT grip it with any part of your hand below the action (and have your hand still on the pistol grip)..

And if we are to use the 1919 is not a rifle argument- what if you put a 16" barrel on the Kriss, added a tripod mount (hole) in the bottom, and had no stock? Same as the 1919, no?

-Dave

[aplinker]

The problem with your logic is that it violates the clear definition they give for a PG, which would make it an assault weapon. You can't pick and choose parts of penal code.

I think he is referring to the 1919A6, which does in fact have a stock (and bipod).

IMO, it doesn't matter what the DOJ's interpretation is- the web of the hand garbage is in there to clarify the legality of gripless designs in ARs and AKs.
To me, it's pretty clear what the actual law says WITHOUt their clarification:
"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"
So if it does not protrude, it's not a CONSPICUOUSLY PORTRUDING pistol grip. Read carefully, the law does not ban pistol grips in and of themselves, ONLY conspicuously portruding ones. Yes, they worded it stupidly and left a loophole.

Does the AR15 PG portrude conspicuously below the action? Of course. does the Kriss? I say no- the action goes all the way to the bottom of the mag well, which is in-line with the bottom of the PG.

-Dave

[saki302]

But they did not ban any pistol grip, only a "conspicuously portruding pistol grip'. I am not picking or choosing anything- just taking the statement as a whole. It seems the only picking and choosing is going on when others assume ANY pistol grip is illegal. The law does NOT say that.
The DOJ does not have the authority to add to the law at their whim. Read the ACTUAL text of the law, then talk to me about picking and choosing.

The actual text of SB23 says nothing about web of the hand:

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weaponto cause to project
intransitive verb
: to jut out from the surrounding surface or context <a handkerchief protruding from his breast pocket>

[mymonkeyman]

But they did not ban any pistol grip, only a "conspicuously portruding pistol grip'. I am not picking or choosing anything- just taking the statement as a whole. It seems the only picking and choosing is going on when others assume ANY pistol grip is illegal. The law does NOT say that.
The DOJ does not have the authority to add to the law at their whim. Read the ACTUAL text of the law, then talk to me about picking and choosing.

The actual text of SB23 says nothing about web of the hand:

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

You cannot read the text of (1) without acknowledging the statement which follows after pistol grip.

If you were hell-bent on the web-of-the-hand DOJ addition, the Kriss design's trigger can be EASILY moved downwards 1/2" also to achielve the cockeyed 1919 grip.

Everyone seems to have so easily forgotten the initial reason for the 1919A4's legality- it had NOTHING to do with not being a rifle- that's a recent argument to try and justify SBRs and .50BMGs. I should know, I was there for the original round. There should be a letter out there stating the legality of the 1919A4 PG, I remember seeing it a few years back- if you find it, you will see my point..

-Dave

What people fail to realize is that ""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" is not from some DOJ letter or interpretation.

That definition is from a DOJ promulgated regulation which means it has the force of law.

The 1919 original approval was because they said it did not allow for a "pistol style grasp." As I recall it had nothing to do with the below the action / web of the hand definition.

[saki302]

If it's part of the actual regulation, why is the web-of-the-hand text not in the actual LEGAL text of SB23? The DOJ cannot interpret and issue corrections as they see fit, not legally anyways (See AR/AK series fiasco).

And as I said above, the trigger can be easily moved down 1/2" placing it clearly below the web of the hand.

That's all I have to say on this- you believe what you want.

What people fail to realize is that ""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" is not from some DOJ letter or interpretation.

That definition is from a DOJ promulgated regulation which means it has the force of law.

The 1919 original approval was because they said it was not a "pistol style grip." As I recall it had nothing to do with the web of the hand definition.

[aplinker]

Moving the triggerguard down wouldn't change the fact that you could still hold the web of your hand beneath it.

I do understand your point - that you feel the definition, not being in the penal code, calls into question its enforceability. I, however, see that as a massive uphill battle. You would not only need to face an entrenched definition, but also then show how the KRISS doesn't fit the definition in the penal code (which it still does).

If it's part of the actual regulation, why is the web-of-the-hand text not in the actual LEGAL text of SB23? The DOJ cannot interpret and issue corrections as they see fit, not legally anyways (See AR/AK series fiasco).

And as I said above, the trigger can be easily moved down 1/2" placing it clearly below the web of the hand.

That's all I have to say on this- you believe what you want.

[saki302]

BINGO!

Note the letter says nothing about web-of-the hand

Yes, I do agree about the uphill battle part

http://img476.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kalye7.jpg

-Dave