Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do These Allow For A Pistol Style Grasp?
Collapse
X
-
Big boy's toys; turning hydrocarbons into noise!
Liberals & children have a similar reaction of interpreting limits as confinement rather than safety.
It's a fine line between naive, ignorant, stupid, & idiot.
Tomorrow - the greatest labor saving device of today.
"Rapid adoption of large-scale societal change is a bad idea." - Howard Johnson
sigpicLife Member -
So why is it that you all believe that even if the DOJ gives you a letter saying something is legal, that you should still worry about being prosecuted for using it.
If you get a DOJ saying something is legal (like we all did buying these AR lower recievers, I dont hear everyone saying "the DA is going to prosecute you for buying these lower recievers even though the DOJ says it is ok"), then I would consider it legal.Comment
-
Originally posted by whonosewhoseSo why is it that you all believe that even if the DOJ gives you a letter saying something is legal, that you should still worry about being prosecuted for using it.
If you get a DOJ saying something is legal (like we all did buying these AR lower recievers, I dont hear everyone saying "the DA is going to prosecute you for buying these lower recievers even though the DOJ says it is ok"), then I would consider it legal.
Out of the mouths of newbies is wisdom perfected!
10THComment
-
I think most people here are just tired of trying to figure out whether or not something is legal or "legal" due to conflicting opinions, poorly written law (some of it looks like it was written by a third grader in an ESL class), and the DoJ refusing to even give an opinion on certain items. It's insanity, and it is exactly what they want. In my opinion, all this stuff is somewhat irrelevant at this time, because these lowers will be listed soon. When this happens, and if the DoJ tries to act on their memo, then we will have bigger things to worry about. That would also be a good time to work out an alternative grip, and to prove that the fixed mag kits are good.Comment
-
Originally posted by 10TH AMENDMENTOut of the mouths of newbies is wisdom perfected!
10TH
You just keep on thinking that....and in the mean time I'll be out shooting my 30rd mags on the range for the 5th time this monthComment
-
Originally posted by whonosewhoseVery lame man.... Your just pretending you have more insight into this. Everyone can read the laws for themselves. You just think that everythings illegal no matter how many people tell you it is.
You just keep on thinking that....and in the mean time I'll be out shooting my 30rd mags on the range for the 5th time this month
I think you have me wrong here, friend. I'm 100% with you on your position. Go back and read all of my replies in this thread, you and I are on the same page.
Don't be offended by the term "newbie", I actually meant it to be a term of endearment. I was conveying the idea that the wisdom in your reply (as a new member here) was more valuable than the rest of the senior members replies combined. My little quip about your reply was actually a generous compliment!
10THComment
-
Whoseonfirst...
Here's the issues and how you have to judge the severity, etc.
The 58 DA thing is sometimes far more relevant, sometimes not...- The possession of off-list lower receivers is not subject to interpretation as long as the lower ain't on the list by make/model. (We'll leave features configuration separate for now.) It is well-protected by the Harrott decision. The '58 DA' stuff there is not quite boilerplate, but you're on secure ground with a major CA Supreme Court decision.
- The fixed magazine thing has no court decision backing it up, but it is clear-cut. The CCR 978.20 definition of detachable magazine is well-defined. When use of a regular tool or tools is required (i.e., stay away from bullet tips) and the mag cannot be removed/replaced "normally" in normal course of rifle operation, it is not a detachable mag. (Thus, we have the "tools plus time" mantra.) So fixed magazines obey this DOJ regulatory law in the converse; there is a clear delineation between fixed and detachable mags. They may not like it but it's clean and clear.
Keeping the fixed mag limited to 10rd or less keeps you from violating the alternate definition of an AW, a semiauto centerfire rifle w/fixed mag of over 10 rounds.
While the DOJ, if asked, might make "58 DA" noises and even complain that "it's not approved", the language is clear enough about what is/is not a detachable magazine.
- Now, the pistol grip definition is murky enough that someone with fat hands might 'break the line'. Anytime you have something where the web of the hand can go other than around the stock, you're open for trouble. And the problem here is that - if you're using a detachable magazine - you're not just fighting the pistol grip definition, you're fighting the definition of AW, and you're on felony manufacturing ground - along with transport and possession charges too.
You may be 'safe' in Kern county unless Iggy of DOJ is reading this. I think this is a very very grey area. It is far far far less clearcut than the fixed vs detachable mag definition. And I would not travel with this at all into another county - perhaps that DA needs to put some meat on the table for an upcoming election.
This definition is wide enough that 58 DAs could interpret it differently and could even make a DOJ person look silly on the stand. I believe the judge could then make a finding that something was, or was not, a pistol grip - and if regarded as a pistol grip, you then have an (illegal) AW.
Sheriff's letters, etc won't make one damned bit of difference. Only a letter from your DA beforehand would count - in that county only. (And not necessarily from DOJ-driven prosecution in another court.
Now, you do have a bit of a saving way out in that the DOJ exemplar standards are in a letter as opposed to a formal regulatory definition.
I'm not even saying you're wrong; I'm saying you're "at risk", and you could spend quite a few bucks staving off a felony prosecution.
If I were using an off-list lower I'd have either a fixed 10rd mag OR cover the grip boss with bent sheetmetal to cover and retain the selector detent pin.Last edited by bwiese; 03-06-2006, 1:26 PM.
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA
CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
sigpic
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.Comment
- The possession of off-list lower receivers is not subject to interpretation as long as the lower ain't on the list by make/model. (We'll leave features configuration separate for now.) It is well-protected by the Harrott decision. The '58 DA' stuff there is not quite boilerplate, but you're on secure ground with a major CA Supreme Court decision.
-
whonosewhose:
Just to make it clear, I am with you regarding your observations in this post that if the law is clear (as in the examples that Bill has described above), and the DOJ has stated their position agreeing with the law, then people should conduct their business accordingly with confidence without begging for their further permission.
However, I am not endorsing the Fab 10 device that you have discussed in detail in your own post because I am not yet confident myself that it is copacetic.
10THComment
-
I appreciate your guys opinions and comments made in this post and the other huge post that was closed regarding it.
I actually reinstalled my fixed mag kit (which you can see from the pic of it that I posted) for any type of inspection I have done by the local DA.
I am going to pursue the local DA letter for my local county. I dont have any reason to ever leave the county with it, so at least that will serve my local purpose.
If I am not able to get one, i think it is likely I will just leave it home now that I've had a good time shooting it and getting to try it out. I am waiting like the rest of you for the ban and registration to start....that is the much bigger concern over the pistol grip stuff...Comment
-
Anyone notice in the DOJ link that an SKS with fixed 10 round magazine with a pistol grip is an "assault weapon"
One thing I don't get about their "line" they draw: Even if you have a normal rifle stock, most of your hand is still under that line, as well as most of the stock. So the only thing keeping it legal is the fact that one's thumb is above that line, but this is possible even with "assault" configured rifles. So if you kept your thumb above the line even when using an "assault" configuration, you should technically be "legal" (other than the "conspicuous" part, whatever the F that means). Si o no?Comment
-
That link is FUNNY!
Nice photoshop work, btw.
Originally posted by DrMURIt's awesome how there is a possibly this is a "Pistol Grip" by CA DOJ standards.
Maybe ShoeLess Ventures should work on a new Colt 1911 type pistol. Call it the FAB-1911 or something.Comment
-
The DOJ seems concerned with the web or the flap of skin between the thumb and finger to be above the imaginary line. The FAB grip is either doing that or close to it.
So what happens when someone fires a mini14 with the web of the hand below the imaginary line, have they just created a pistol style of grip and can they be charged a felony for AW manufacture?Comment
-
Originally posted by ChaingunThe DOJ seems concerned with the web or the flap of skin between the thumb and finger to be above the imaginary line. The FAB grip is either doing that or close to it.
So what happens when someone fires a mini14 with the web of the hand below the imaginary line, have they just created a pistol style of grip and can they be charged a felony for AW manufacture?
That's the risk with this grip: once you have an item that meets the definition of pistol grip, then the gun becomes a by-features AW.
Someone with meaty/fleshy hands could 'qualify' it...
Run, don't walk, away from this FAB10 grip.
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA
CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
sigpic
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.Comment
Calguns.net Statistics
Collapse
Topics: 1,851,769
Posts: 24,964,610
Members: 352,885
Active Members: 6,802
Welcome to our newest member, lg01.
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 3743 users online. 141 members and 3602 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment