Add A Pistol Grip And It's Not A Shotgun

[mrjarrell]

Or so the ATF says. (I know Indiana has it's own issues in this regard). So, what is it? If, according to the ATF, it's not a shotgun there are very few things it CAN be. There's some speculation that they're destructive devices. Personally, I think it's still a shotgun, no matter what, but the ATF won't care what I think. Regardless, there's apparently a can of worms out there and they need sorting.

ATF position on pistol grip 'shotguns' creates new danger - National gun rights | Examiner.com

 

[DaKruiser]

That's an interesting article. I hope they get it right, and back off saying it's not a shotgun.
Maybe they will just dump the whole NFA!

 

[ATM]

"...pistol grip in place of the buttstock..."

It's not the pistol grip. It's the absence of buttstock that changes things.

I thought we'd had this discussion before?

 

[theweakerbrother]

Sweet! I'm chopping down my 18" barrel and going to town with this puppy!

 

[indykid]

Actually it's the 1968 GCA that is the problem since it gives the US Attorney General the power to determine if a firearm meets the sporting purpose clause of the second amendment.

The 1968 GCA is so unconstitutional it is beyond belief, yet because of it there are quite a few firearms that we are not allowed to have even though the supreme law of the land says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This latest "Law of the Day" is nothing more than the continuation of ATF changing their mind at will to continue the infringement of our rights, and the idea that what is legal today might not be legal tonight.

Think of it this way, the way ATF works, tomorrow you might be a felon by decree.

The founders and writers of the great document of law would be sickened at what is happening.

 

[snowman46919]

What you have on your property or locked away in your gun safe that you enjoy in a private manner no matter how much the neighbors complain about a hand cannon is still legal though right? Nm I plead the fifth and the 2nd.

 

[chraland51]

Am I then okay if I have a pistol grip on my buttstock and the overall length of the weapon is greater than 31" or whatever the minimum length is. I thought that it was not illegal to have just a pistol grip on your shotgun as long as the overall length exceeded 31" which probably means that your barrel has to be much longer than 18.5". I seem to remember reading something like that a while back in the Indiana Code.

 

[thompal]

Am I then okay if I have a pistol grip on my buttstock and the overall length of the weapon is greater than 31" or whatever the minimum length is. I thought that it was not illegal to have just a pistol grip on your shotgun as long as the overall length exceeded 31" which probably means that your barrel has to be much longer than 18.5". I seem to remember reading something like that a while back in the Indiana Code.

Isn't there one model of Mossberg that has an 18.5" barrel and pistol grip without buttstock?

 

[G_Stines]

Or so the ATF says. (I know Indiana has it's own issues in this regard). So, what is it? If, according to the ATF, it's not a shotgun there are very few things it CAN be. There's some speculation that they're destructive devices. Personally, I think it's still a shotgun, no matter what, but the ATF won't care what I think. Regardless, there's apparently a can of worms out there and they need sorting.

ATF position on pistol grip 'shotguns' creates new danger - National gun rights | Examiner.com

I took this off the ATF website: (5) The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired
from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use
the energy of an explosive to fire through a smooth bore either a number
of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.

So, as long as the shotgun is readily capable of being converted back to being able to fired from the shoulder, it is not an issue. That way it fits in the category of being able to be remade to be intended to be fired from the shoulder. It also has to maintain the 26 inch overall length with at least an eighteen inch barrel.

 

[chraland51]

Many years ago, I bought one of those Mossberg "camp gun" set-ups with the normal wooden buttstock and forend and normal length barrel (whatever that was) and a pistol grip and an 18.5 inch barrel from Service Merchandise. I thought that the law would not allow me to use at the same time the pistol grip and the 18.5 inch barrel because it would not meet the minimum required length. That is why I eventually purchased and installed a pistol grip buttstock to make sure that I was legal with the 18.5 inch barrel. I might have been wrong. I have been before and probably will be again. I just want everyone to make sure that their set-ups are legal.

 

[snowman46919]

Isn't there one model of Mossberg that has an 18.5" barrel and pistol grip without buttstock?

It's a mossberg 500 JIC (Just in Case) and I want one badly in the marine version.

 

[mrjarrell]

That doesn't jive with the other ATF documents linked in the article. There is no mention in their recent writings of convertibility, as a way to get out of reclassifying it. This is the problem. They have multiple definitions and will use which ever suits their purpose at any given time. All the documents linked int he article came from the ATF, too. That's why we have a problem.

 

[PatriotPride]

The ATF is the problem. Plain and simple. Americans, wake up and smell the infringement.

 

[Gamez235]

Ugh..

 

[koveras225]

I wouldn't go so far as to hang this one all on the ATF, although they have their fair share of the blame, it has been a long time coming. If you go through the NFA and GCA and read the various definitions, pistol-grip shotguns start looking more and more like they've managed to slip through the cracks for the last 76 years.

For example, in both the NFA and CGA a 'Shotgun' is defined as being 'designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder'. A factory pistol-grip shotgun is neither designed nor made to be fired from the shoulder.

Nor do they meet the definition of a 'Short-Barreled Shotgun' as they are defined as a 'shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches' or 'a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches'.

Nor do they meet the definition of an 'AOW' since one of the requirements of an 'AOW' is that it must be concealable. The ATF has long held that to mean a firearm with overall length of less than 26 inches that doesn't mean one of the other various definitions and falls outside the definition of a handgun.

It really only leaves one possible definition, that of a 'Destructive Device', which a pistol-grip shotgun cannot escape due to it not actually being a 'shotgun'.

That said, it would be really @#*$&!% stupid to apply the DD definition to them after 76 years of them being considered Title I firearms.

Which is why some small part of me hopes they do it... Just imagine the backlash when the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pistol-grip shotgun owners find out they have to register each one. And then all the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers with all the inventory that would suddenly become nearly impossible to sell.

All that being why they'll most likely ignore this completely or come up with some more messed up reasoning regarding their status.

But if they were to do so, we might be looking at a clean shot straight through a major part of the NFA. The simplest, and most definitely cleanest, way to return all those pistol-grip shotguns back to Title I status would be to remove the bore diameter restriction from the NFA.

I've got this nagging little suspicion that this might have been pointed out on purpose...

 

[MattCFII]

Which is why some small part of me hopes they do it... Just imagine the backlash when the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pistol-grip shotgun owners find out they have to register each one. And then all the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers with all the inventory that would suddenly become nearly impossible to sell.

The manufactures and distributors probably wouldn't have a hard time with it. All it would take is a longer stock screw and a regular stock, parts they probably both have on hand and at a minimal cost to them. The pistol grip and screw would be a loss, but probably around $5 each or less. I believe these days of the 3 main U.S. manufactures of shotguns, Mossberg is the only one that sells a factory pistol grip. I also bet half the people that bought the pistol griped version won't find out or fight it. A pistol grip shotgun is either an inexperienced new owner saying "gee that looks cool and it will take up less space in the closet" or it is the relatively rare, more advanced shotgunner that has learned to deal with the issues that come with just a pistol grip and decided they can use it effectively for a purpose.

The ATF is will probably create their own loop hole since they get to interpret the most of the laws they deal with. I can see where this could be Alexander cutting the Gordian knot solution to NFA. But they won't allow that to actually happen, especially with Traver being the new head of the ATF, possibly in a recess appointment. We should be making all kinds of noise to Congress and BHO about Traver, he can do more gun "legislation" from the appointment due to how he has the power to interpret law than do most judges can from the bench.

 

[Leadeye]

I wonder where the old High Standard 10B fits in this?

 

[slars1327]

mmmmmmmmmmmm

I think the nagging suspicion is CORRECT it will be something used later 4 an excuse to get into peoples homes etc and SEE whats going on. The govt is always looking for ways to collect info and gain power over its people.

I wouldn't go so far as to hang this one all on the ATF, although they have their fair share of the blame, it has been a long time coming. If you go through the NFA and GCA and read the various definitions, pistol-grip shotguns start looking more and more like they've managed to slip through the cracks for the last 76 years.

For example, in both the NFA and CGA a 'Shotgun' is defined as being 'designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder'. A factory pistol-grip shotgun is neither designed nor made to be fired from the shoulder.

Nor do they meet the definition of a 'Short-Barreled Shotgun' as they are defined as a 'shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches' or 'a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches'.

Nor do they meet the definition of an 'AOW' since one of the requirements of an 'AOW' is that it must be concealable. The ATF has long held that to mean a firearm with overall length of less than 26 inches that doesn't mean one of the other various definitions and falls outside the definition of a handgun.

It really only leaves one possible definition, that of a 'Destructive Device', which a pistol-grip shotgun cannot escape due to it not actually being a 'shotgun'.

That said, it would be really @#*$&!% stupid to apply the DD definition to them after 76 years of them being considered Title I firearms.

Which is why some small part of me hopes they do it... Just imagine the backlash when the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pistol-grip shotgun owners find out they have to register each one. And then all the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers with all the inventory that would suddenly become nearly impossible to sell.

All that being why they'll most likely ignore this completely or come up with some more messed up reasoning regarding their status.

But if they were to do so, we might be looking at a clean shot straight through a major part of the NFA. The simplest, and most definitely cleanest, way to return all those pistol-grip shotguns back to Title I status would be to remove the bore diameter restriction from the NFA.

I've got this nagging little suspicion that this might have been pointed out on purpose...

 

[rambone]

Actually it's the 1968 GCA that is the problem since it gives the US Attorney General the power to determine if a firearm meets the sporting purpose clause of the second amendment.

The 2nd Amendment has a sporting clause?

 

[sparky241]

The 2nd Amendment has a sporting clause?

2nd does not have a sporting clause however the gce68 does i believe.