Featureless AR question.

[Nick Adams]

I am going to put together a featureless AR. While the Thordsen stock looks more functional, the Hammerhead supposedly has a letter from DOJ stating it is "not a pistol grip". I do not want a paddle. I do not like the Monsterman. Has there been any clarification regarding the Throdsen? I don't want to be the test case.

[E Michael]

I believe they are g2g and are in the featureless ar pic thread.

[M1NM]

From their site. I'd prefer to see a PDF of the letter.

CALIFORNIA CUSTOMERS: California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms attests that Hammerhead is not a pistol grip and therefore legal when used on a detachable magazine semiautomatic centerfire rifle with none of the features listed in CA PC 30515(a)(1)(A-F).1

[Nick Adams]

From their site. I'd prefer to see a PDF of the letter.

CALIFORNIA CUSTOMERS: California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms attests that Hammerhead is not a pistol grip and therefore legal when used on a detachable magazine semiautomatic centerfire rifle with none of the features listed in CA PC 30515(a)(1)(A-F).1

Good point. I am going to email them and ask to see that.

[MrPlink]

The FRS turns on being a stock and not a grip at all.

I did TnE on the prototype about a year ago and at the time IIRC Thordsen had a determination letter from the Tech branch of the ATF as well as opinions of two CA attorneys that deal with firearms, but CADOJ I am not sure of.

[Oldnoob]

That looks pretty good. I'm thinking to get one and get rid of bb too.

[E Michael]

I don't like the look, seems like it would work well.

[MrPlink]

There seems to be a correlation between looking strange and working well when it comes to featureless rifles

[Nick Adams]

I don't like the look, seems like it would work well.

I don't like the look of any of them either. I don't like not being able to drop a mag to clear a malfunction. I don't like not being able to insert another mag if needed. I don't like not being able to unload and open the action for safeties sake...without a tool.

[MrPlink]

Amen

[Exile Machine]

...Hammerhead supposedly has a letter from DOJ stating it is "not a pistol grip".

There is no letter from the DOJ. You won't find a letter from the DOJ approving any CA compliance device. But we have the next best thing. We have the DOJ's assault weapons identification expert on the stand at trial in California testifying under oath that the Hammerhead is not a pistol grip and legal to use on a featureless rifle. We do reference the trial in our marketing materials but the transcripts are copyrighted by and property of the court reporter so we can't publish or otherwise distribute those. Bear in mind that we have sold the Hammerhead for over four years now in California and our claims of the legality have been thoroughly vetted. To our knowledge no one's ever been arrested for having a properly configured featureless rifle with a Hammerhead installed.

The DOJ agent and trial in question is Frank Navarro, CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms Special Agent, in the case of People vs. Haack and Haack, California County of Tulare Superior Court, 3 November 2010.

[strongpoint]

Featureless AR question.

the Hammerhead supposedly has a letter from DOJ stating it is "not a pistol grip".

there is no letter; the claim is based on courtroom testimony by a DOJ firearms specialist. give me a bit and i'll dig up the case.

The FRS turns on being a stock and not a grip at all.

a speculative argument that the latter can't be a portion of the former.

I did TnE on the prototype about a year ago and at the time IIRC Thordsen had a determination letter from the Tech branch of the ATF as well as opinions of two CA attorneys that deal with firearms, but CADOJ I am not sure of.

i doubt BATFE would issue a letter stating anything substantive about something that's no longer relevant at the federal level, and the state DOJ refuses to make such determinations. if it did, and if thordo had such a letter, it would be front and center on his website.

ETA: i remember now that i've read those letters, and i was right -- the federal letter basically says "we have no relevant information for you," and the state letter boils down to "go fish."

plink and i have danced this dance before, and there's no reason to do so again. i just wanted to put the counter-argument out there for OP's benefit.

[LBDamned]

IIRC Thordsen's site (and/or thread in Commercial Sales) addresses the legality by indicating multiple attorneys stated it absolutely does not meet the definition of a pistol grip.

I'm too lazy to get the link and post... anyone else can do it just as easily.

[Nick Adams]

There is no letter from the DOJ. You won't find a letter from the DOJ approving any CA compliance device. But we have the next best thing. We have the DOJ's assault weapons identification expert on the stand at trial in California testifying under oath that the Hammerhead is not a pistol grip and legal to use on a featureless rifle. We do reference the trial in our marketing materials but the transcripts are copyrighted by and property of the court reporter so we can't publish or otherwise distribute those. Bear in mind that we have sold the Hammerhead for over four years now in California and our claims of the legality have been thoroughly vetted. To our knowledge no one's ever been arrested for having a properly configured featureless rifle with a Hammerhead installed.

The DOJ agent and trial in question is Frank Navarro, CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms Special Agent, in the case of People vs. Haack and Haack, California County of Tulare Superior Court, 3 November 2010.

Wow, thanks. I am going to go with the Hammerhead. And I will probably build up a Thordsen rifle soon. But I am seriously impressed by Exile's quick response and will recommend them.

[strongpoint]

The DOJ agent and trial in question is Frank Navarro, CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms Special Agent, in the case of People vs. Haack and Haack, California County of Tulare Superior Court, 3 November 2010.

exile beat me to it. there's a long thread about the case here in which the haacks' attorney says:

I used the opportunity to show Navarro the Monsterman Grip and some others and got him to agree they did not constitute a pistol grip under the definition.

"some others" apparently includes the hammerhead.

IIRC Thordsen's site (and/or thread in Commercial Sales) addresses the legality by indicating multiple attorneys stated they think it absolutely does not meet the definition of a pistol grip.

FTFY. attorneys don't get to make that determination on their own; representing matters as if they do is dangerous. if someone gets the wrong answer from a judge and jury, it's not the attorneys who will lose their freedom.