Another option for featureless

[SURVIVOR619]

ar15spur.com

Another cool innovation in the face of infringements.

[MiddleKingdom]

Would an AR equipped as such be CA legal?

[Rosereader]

The grip is above the trigger guard so yeah, it should be "not a pistol grip or thumbhole stock". Since the law only details what one cannot have.

Seems like it would be uncomfortable though.

[SURVIVOR619]

Might be able to better wield control compared to a fin or the hammerhead? Never used any of them myself...

[SURVIVOR619]

Those with large hands might find that protrusion bothersome...?

[strongpoint]

Another option for featureless

If you can get the web of your thumb below the top of the trigger, it's a pistol grip as defined by law.

Also, this is a dupe of a dupe of a dupe (at least).

[MudCamper]

It is a pistol grip per California law. It is a feature. Not legal on a non-fixed build.

[mabilis_matulis]

Might be uncomfortable..

[Cal Liberty]

Thought it looked to good to be true.

Guns are like chips, you can't stop at just one!

[Chaos47]

The grip is above the trigger guard so yeah, it should be "not a pistol grip or thumbhole stock". Since the law only details what one cannot have.

Seems like it would be uncomfortable though.

Wrong.
It has nothing to do with below the trigger guard it has to do with below the top of the exposed part of the trigger.

So no these are not legal in CA for a featureless build.

They were made with NY law in mind not CA's.

[barrage]

So, based off this thread, would it be safe to say that removing the grip all together and shooting an AR with the exposed metal would qualify as a pistol grip since the web of your hand wouldn't be above the trigger?

[Fate]

This style of detent retainer is old school featureless. There is no pistol style grasp involved. Web of hand measurement is predicated by the need for a pistol style grasp. There is nothing being grasped by fingers.

It is CA legal.

[Mr. Gillious]

You know what, that would be PERFECT for someone who lost their middle finger, ring finger, and pinky finger

[strongpoint]

Another option for featureless

So, based off this thread, would it be safe to say that removing the grip all together and shooting an AR with the exposed metal would qualify as a pistol grip since the web of your hand wouldn't be above the trigger?

In theory -- it meets the statutory definition, but it would be a strange case to prosecute (not to mention a strange way to configure a rifle, unless you were trying to invite attention). Maybe you would be in the clear, but would you want to rest your fate on a California judge and jury making a subtle distinction in your favor in a trial on AW charges?

This style of detent retainer is old school featureless. There is no pistol style grasp involved. Web of hand measurement is predicated by the need for a pistol style grasp. There is nothing being grasped by fingers.

It is CA legal.

Good to hear! Since 11 CCR 5469(d) mentions nothing about "fingers" when defining "a pistol style grasp" (only the location of "the web of the trigger hand" relative to "the top of the exposed portion of the trigger"), you must know of some bit of case law that definitively establishes such a grip as legal, or DOJ testimony confirming that the BOF believes that to be the case. Can you tell us what case you're referring to?

I point out that the argument that an AFG is potentially a pistol grip pivots on the fact that one can grasp it in a way identical to how the AR-15 Receiver Spur must be grasped. Remember that "no one has ever been charged" is NOT the same thing as "definitely legal."

[Fate]

The AFG allows fingers to be wrapped around it when the triangle end is grasped. Same cannot be said for this. I suppose one could grind off the spur if it satisfied one's comfort level.

As I mentioned, this type of grip was used before Monsterman grips/fins or U15 grips on featureless rifles. I will also refer to the CA AW guide published in 2001 that shows an AR with this grip. http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...s/awguide.pdf?


These types of mods were being run to comply with the Roberti Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (mostly after Kasler v. Lockyer in 2000 and Harrot v. Kings County in 2001) and the Federal AWB of 1994. This page is an example in the section talking about "series" or types. So an AR with a listed receiver even in the features-compliant configuration was being shown as an AW. It wasn't shown as having illegal features.

Sadly many new guys were not around back then and only parrot what they read without understanding historical development of featureless builds.