Source for AR15 pistol grip alternative

[bwiese]

Tankerman's apparently confused on a few things...

• LACK OF DOJ APPROVAL DOES NOT INDICATE ILLEGALITY. In fact, to get the DOJ's approval they may make a vendor jump thru higher hoops than truly necessary. And the DOJ might approve something that might, in fact, be of questionable legality (GB Sales/EGSW's welded-up Colt AR15 and Bushmaster XM15 rifles that are banned by name, but DOJ has somehow approved in contravention of law).
  
  
• The FAB10 'grip' and the MonsterMan grip are NOT equivalent. You should not equate them, since they are totally different and are topologically distinct.
  
  
• The DOJ regulatory definition for pistol grip is in Calif Code of Regulation sec 5469(d) (formerly 978.20(d) before renumbering last month), is:
  
  [b]5469(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.
  
  
  
  
• The FAB10 grip may or may not be legal, given the above definition, and legality might vary depending on who's shooting it and how large/fat the shooter's hands are.
  
  
• The MonsterMan grip allows a regular conventional rifle style grasp when accessing the trigger - it does not allow a pistol-style grasp because the web of the hand is never behind the grip.
  

Do not expect any regulatory clarification or approval on anything related to OLLs by the DOJ. You have to read & understand the law/regulation yourself. The only 'clarification' the DOJ will do will be to try to further arrogate legislative powers itself (Aug 16 memo, May memo, Feb 3 Cat 4 memo, etc. etc.) The DOJ wants us to live in fear, uncertainty and doubt: it's our job to quell this and tread carefully and understand and follow the laws & regulation as they are written.

[tankerman]

Tankerman's apparently confused on a few things...

• LACK OF DOJ APPROVAL DOES NOT INDICATE ILLEGALITY. In fact, to get the DOJ's approval they may make a vendor jump thru higher hoops than truly necessary. And the DOJ might approve something that might, in fact, be of questionable legality (GB Sales/EGSW's welded-up Colt AR15 and Bushmaster XM15 rifles that are banned by name, but DOJ has somehow approved in contravention of law).
• The FAB10 'grip' and the MonsterMan grip are NOT equivalent. You should not equate them, since they are totally different and are topologically distinct.
• The DOJ regulatory definition for pistol grip is in Calif Code of Regulation sec 5469(d) (formerly 978.20(d) before renumbering last month), is:
  
  [b]5469(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.
  
• The FAB10 grip may or may not be legal, given the above definition, and legality might vary depending on who's shooting it and how large/fat the shooter's hands are.
• The MonsterMan grip allows a regular conventional rifle style grasp when accessing the trigger - it does not allow a pistol-style grasp because the web of the hand is never behind the grip.

Do not expect any regulatory clarification or approval on anything related to OLLs by the DOJ. You have to read & understand the law/regulation yourself. The only 'clarification' the DOJ will do will be to try to further arrogate legislative powers itself (Aug 16 memo, May memo, Feb 3 Cat 4 memo, etc. etc.) The DOJ wants us to live in fear, uncertainty and doubt: it's our job to quell this and tread carefully and understand and follow the laws & regulation as they are written.

Topologically distinct, almost. There is a relationship they both attach at the same point on the receiver and they both attach with a bolt. Familial
I was not trying to compare the two, that occured via the 'sales reps' in the other posts. My point was that I do not think it's prudent to give people advice on possible legal matters, when there is no precise definition of the law. One of the posts told people to run away from a competitors product. So far there has been no litmus test. I do no believe that a strong enough case could be made favor of any of these products in view of the current situation, letting the D.A.'s decide(Sounds like a warning/vieled threat).

[bwiese]

Topologically distinct, almost. There is a relationship they both attach at the same point on the receiver and they both attach with a bolt.

Interesting note but absolutely irrelevant. It's simply whether or not the web of your hand fits behind it.

There is a DOJ FD regulatory definition of what a pistol grip is. Not a good one, but it's the only standard we have. All elements of that description have to be true in order for that definition to be triggered.

The MonsterMan grip is CLEARLY legal and conforms to the parameters set by regulation. This is what a court/DA have to go by - they can't stray too far from that. However, the Shoeless Ventures FAB10 'thumbgrip' is sooooo close to the line that it may/may not be legal - as I noted above, it could be questionable for someone with fat hands.

...I do not think it's prudent to give people advice on possible legal matters, when there is no precise definition of the law.

Firstly, only an attorney can give legal advice. He won't, unless you pay him.
Secondly, this is a free-form politico-legal discussion forum. Some people like to discuss gory details of CA laws.

Secondly, there is a not-good-but-reasonably-tractable definition in the regulatory code. (This regulatory code has the force of law.) We know what it lays down, and what to avoid. The MonsterMan grip clearly does avoid this.

One of the posts told people to run away from a competitors product.

Yup, it's pretty clear to many that as far as the FAB10 grip goes:
(1) at best it's very very grey area
(2) they're kinda-sorta marketing it like it solves CA problems when, at best, it'd only be clearly legal on a fixed-mag rifle. This grip was originally marketed, as I recall, to deal with *FEDERAL* AW ban issues, not CA ones.

So far there has been no litmus test.

Yes, there has. The MonsterMan grip clearly conforms to the letter and spirit of the law (regulatory code). They didn't want the web of your hand to go behind the grip, codified it into regulatory law, and so we aren't doing that, we're using a regular rifle grasp.

I do no believe that a strong enough case could be made favor of any of these products in view of the current situation, letting the D.A.'s decide (Sounds like a warning/vieled threat).

The DAs do have to follow the regulatory code too. Otherwise, why would it exist? It's a standard that's clear in the areas the MonsterMan grip addresses, and the MonsterMan grip can in no way be regarded as a pistol grip.

[A DA can 'indict a ham sandwich' so there's always the risk of getting to that stage, even with a conventionally-stocked Mini14. If you don't want any risk, curl up in a ball in a closet.]

[tankerman]

Bwiese, while I do appreciate your point of view, not all DA's are concern with what is stated in the law i.e. medical marijuana siezures and of course the lawsuits against firearms industry were supposed to stop which they did not, even the DFG on the day before dove season decided to include a species of dove that is considered invasive by their own definition in your bag limit, making it a violation even though it contradicts the law. Perhaps you do not understand the definition of 'litmus test'. There has been no test.
Free form politico discussion not a legal advice column

[AxonGap]

[mailman]

either get a good SRB , the billet ones, or buy a cheap grip and saw it off to be an SRB

[nosewitdot]

thats what i planned to do...are there any mythalogical .99 cent pistol grips out there that i can practice on?