Tweet
So I happened to come across this article and I was just curious on your guy's opinion on it. for those too lazy to read:
It's essentially saying that Pistol Grip Only (PGO) firearms (in this case, a Mossberg 500) with shortened barrels are legal and are not considered NFA items (given a specific configuration).
How is this possible? By using the given specific definition of what defines a shotgun, and by having it in the PGO configuration from the start. What this does is have the firearm in question not become classified under that specific definition, thus excluding it from those respective laws/regulations (in this case, not "technically" being a shotgun).
Of course, still being a firearm, it has to still conform to NFA rules.
Now personally, I probably wouldn't want something like this anyways, but I was just curious if this would fly over here in California.
Of course, looking at the flow-chart it wouldn't pass as a shotgun. But what if it weren't classified as one, as suggested in the article? What if from the start, the weapon was made without the intention to fire from the shoulder, and of course couldn't be made into a configuration which allowed that? Could it technically still be called a "shotgun" even though it doesn't meet the specific definition of one? Thoughts?
It's essentially saying that Pistol Grip Only (PGO) firearms (in this case, a Mossberg 500) with shortened barrels are legal and are not considered NFA items (given a specific configuration).
How is this possible? By using the given specific definition of what defines a shotgun, and by having it in the PGO configuration from the start. What this does is have the firearm in question not become classified under that specific definition, thus excluding it from those respective laws/regulations (in this case, not "technically" being a shotgun).
Of course, still being a firearm, it has to still conform to NFA rules.
Now personally, I probably wouldn't want something like this anyways, but I was just curious if this would fly over here in California.
Of course, looking at the flow-chart it wouldn't pass as a shotgun. But what if it weren't classified as one, as suggested in the article? What if from the start, the weapon was made without the intention to fire from the shoulder, and of course couldn't be made into a configuration which allowed that? Could it technically still be called a "shotgun" even though it doesn't meet the specific definition of one? Thoughts?
Comment