CA law does not say a pistol grip is an "evil feature". It says "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously BENEATH THE ACTION
of the weapon. (PC 30515)
The word "conspicuously" means clearly or obviously. The whole point of the bullpup design puts the pistol grip and trigger ahead of the action and NOT beneath it.
The action is the mechanism or bolt that handles the ammunition, i.e. loads, locks, fires, and extracts the cartridges.
In a Tavor the pistol grip/trigger is NOT clearly or obviously beneath this area.
One might then argue that the pistol grip in a Tavor is actually a "forward pistol grip", PC 30515. However, a forward pistol grip is called such because it is used by your forward most hand. If you do not specifically add a forward grip to your Tavor, then I do not see how this applies.
IWI added the maglock to the CA compliant Tavors, which is great because it leaves no doubt to the legality of the weapon. But given the recent legislation, could you consider it featureless (of course you also would need the 4.65" muzzle break to meet the 30" requirement)
So call it featureless and remove the maglock?
Please don't beat me up, but I would be interested in your feedback...I know...I know...good luck explaining this to the leo, da, or judge. Maybe I am just grasping at straws.
of the weapon. (PC 30515)
The word "conspicuously" means clearly or obviously. The whole point of the bullpup design puts the pistol grip and trigger ahead of the action and NOT beneath it.
The action is the mechanism or bolt that handles the ammunition, i.e. loads, locks, fires, and extracts the cartridges.
In a Tavor the pistol grip/trigger is NOT clearly or obviously beneath this area.
One might then argue that the pistol grip in a Tavor is actually a "forward pistol grip", PC 30515. However, a forward pistol grip is called such because it is used by your forward most hand. If you do not specifically add a forward grip to your Tavor, then I do not see how this applies.
IWI added the maglock to the CA compliant Tavors, which is great because it leaves no doubt to the legality of the weapon. But given the recent legislation, could you consider it featureless (of course you also would need the 4.65" muzzle break to meet the 30" requirement)
So call it featureless and remove the maglock?
Please don't beat me up, but I would be interested in your feedback...I know...I know...good luck explaining this to the leo, da, or judge. Maybe I am just grasping at straws.
Comment