Atf rules pistol grip shotguns as destructive device

[festus]

THIS IS STARTING TO BECOME A NIGHTMARE AS THE ATF IS INTERPRETING THE LAW SO THAT A MOSSBERG 500 WITH A CRUISER GRIP CONFIGURATION IS NOW A DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE?


SOMEBODY PLEASE SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS AND HELP US OUT



Link Removed



An interpretation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that pistol grip shotguns are not shotguns has created an unforeseen legal liability for owners of such firearms. ATF’s Nov. 2009 FFL Newsletter declared:

Certain commercially produced firearms do not fall within the definition of shotgun under the GCA even though they utilize a shotgun shell for ammunition. For example, firearms that come equipped with a pistol grip in place of the buttstock are not shotguns as defined by the GCA.

Here’s another wrinkle, from Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars:

An October 27, 2010, letter from the Firearms Technology Branch ruled that such a firearm, with a 17" barrel and 26-1/4" overall length, was not subject to the National Firearms Act.

You can click here to read the letter.
That would seem to indicate there’s no issue with violating National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) requirements, right? No worries if you own one, or want to buy one…?
Not so fast. If the pistol grip firearms are not “shotguns,” what are they?
The NFA Owners Association points us to the only “legal” definition seemingly available with which to classify these firearms (click on link for “National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended” to open up the text):

[T]aken at face value, a "pistol grip firearm" with a bore diameter larger than 1/2" in diameter is a "Destructive Device" under the NFA, unless the Attorney General determines that it is "a shotgun . . . generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes." By determining that a "pistol grip firearm" is not a shotgun, it is difficult to understand how current law would not classify such as firearm as a Destructive Device."

A “Destructive Device”?

"Any weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes." Source: 26 U.S.C, Section 5845(f).

Which means registration on the NFRTR would be required. But there’s no way to do that retroactively, is there?
Per Vanderboegh:

It appears there are only two solutions: (1) change the law to revert things as they were before ATF made the foregoing rulings, or (2) establish an amnesty period so millions of "Pistol Grip Firearms" can be lawfully registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) system.

Otherwise, he notes:

This action has apparently created millions of unregistered Destructive Devices, currently possessed by millions of law-abiding gun owners who do not realize they now illegally possess unregistered NFA firearms.

That is, depending on what ATF chooses to do next. Or what they have forced on them.
But certainly this is all hysteria and an unjustified over-reaction to some "poor wording"? Some would counsel us not to worry, broadly assuring:

There's no way these'll turn into NFA-controlled guns or suddenly become illegal.

Let’s hope such confidence is well placed, and the final word, and more authoritative than, say, the implications of ATF Ruling 95-3 (bearing in mind that per ATF, the pistol grip firearms in question are NOT shotguns, so any determination that they are “particularly suitable for sporting purposes” would be irrelevant by their own definition.)
What a confusing mess.
Tomorrow, let’s talk machine guns. Lots of machine guns. Lots of unregistered machine guns.
And ATF knows all about them.
Photo © Oleg Volk. Used with permission. Be sure and check out more of his fantastic work at OlegVolk.net.
------------
Who will wa…uh…listen to ‘The Watchmen’?
Mike Vanderboegh and I will be on Doc Bean’s show tonight to discuss this story as well as the latest in the Airsoft debacle.
Click here for The Watchmen Radio Network.
Click here to listen live, starting at 8:00 pm EST.
I hope you can join us.
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: Please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, etc.? (Also note “Share” options, below.) Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.

 

[Garand]

EDIT: LINK FIXED:
Link Removed

They do reiterate and quote from the ATF Ruling 95-3, it all was about37/38mm gas/flare guns.

I am not a lawyer nor an expert in this field, but it appears to me that they really aren't looking at a sporting Shotgun with your "Cruiser Grip" as you named it.

Anyone else have a say?

 

[sixgun_symphony]

Obama put a gun control activist in charge of the ATF.

It just goes to show that elections have consequences. Everyone that sat out the 2006 and 2008 elections to "teach the Republicans a lesson" are the ones that brought this on all of us.

 

[OldOwl]

Oddly comes at a time when MANY gun makers are jumping on the bandwagon and producing these. They all saw the conversions we were all building and realized there was a market.

All of these off the wall BS laws keep popping up because we are always on the defensive. We need some group to step up and get on the offensive, and keep the anti gun lobbyist off balance with law suits and new proposals. If they stay busy keeping up with the new legislation proposals WE make, they won't have the time and resources to dream this crap up. And this is an IDEAL time to go on the offensive when Washington, states and municipalities are looking for money.

We should start with a $100 user fee to be assessed every five years on all property owners who do not own guns to defray the cost of police protection for them.

Then we should go after the assault weapons ban. Every time a gun owner is involved in a shooting accident the circumstances should be assessed to determine whether having had an adjustable stock, flash suppressor, or any of the other items deeming a gun as an assault weapon may have contributed to preventing the accident, and bring a liability suit.

How about some national legislation so every time a driver hits a deer they are fined $100 and the money goes to the ASPCA and national conservation fund ? That's 1.5 million drivers x 100 bucks (no pun intended), you won't see the Office of management and Budget balk at that. And drivers will be BEGGING gun owners to HUNT!

Every time a crime is committed in a gun free zone, bring a liability suit.

We need to go on the offensive in a big way to stop the insanity because these lunatics just stay up nights dreaming stupid shit up all the time. We need to keep them busy, and BROKE.

 

[NavyLCDR]

THIS IS STARTING TO BECOME A NIGHTMARE AS THE ATF IS INTERPRETING THE LAW SO THAT A MOSSBERG 500 WITH A CRUISER GRIP CONFIGURATION IS NOW A DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE?


SOMEBODY PLEASE SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS AND HELP US OUT

OK. I will. FUDD. The ATF says that a pistol grip shotgun is transferred as an "other weapon" on the form 4473. That's it. That means that since it is not a shotgun or a rifle that it gets transferred to persons over 21 years of age and same state residents only. That's it.

People are confusing this with an NFA "any other weapon" which requires a tax stamp and special transfer restrictions, which is not the case here. The ATF letter in question specifically said the pistol grip shotgun was NOT an NFA firearm!

 

[NavyLCDR]

So then it would be a smooth-bore pistol? Which under NFA rules is "Any Other Weapon".

No. It is NOT controlled under NFA rules!

Here is the ATF letter:
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/testttt20001.pdf

Notice in the letter the line in Paragraph 3:

After examination, we have determined that, although it is a firearm subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), it is not a "firearm" as defined by the NFA.

The NFA defines SBRs, SBSs, machinge guns, "any other weapons", etc. Since the ATF says it is NOT a firearm as defined by the NFA, there is no special transfer paperwork, ownership paperwork, or tax stamp required by the ATF.

The only thing the ATF is saying is that a PGO shotgun is NOT a shotgun or a pistol. As such it gets classified as an "other weapon" on the form 4473 and gets transferred as a normal firearm with no special handling/paperword required. Since a PGO shotgun is NOT a shotgun, the age limit for the transfer by an FFL is 21 years old and the exception in 18 USC 922(b)(3) does not apply - it cannot be transferred to a person who resides outside the state the FFL is licensed in. The exact same is true of a stripped AR-15 lower receiver.

That's it. That's all. EVERYTHING ELSE IS FUDD!

 

[toreskha]

I don't know about you all, but every time I put the pistol grip on my 500, it suddenly becomes capable of firing explosive shells.

 

[handgonnetoter]

Well, I know from what a city cop told me that in the state of Indiana, a shotgun with just a pistol grip is considered a "handgun". I don't know if that is just a state by state thing or a Federal law though.

 

[Midwest Doc]

CCW Question

Can you carry one of these - eg. Serbu Super Shorty - with a CCW permit? I understand that these guns may be difficult to conceal.

 

[handgonnetoter]

Can you carry one of these - eg. Serbu Super Shorty - with a CCW permit? I understand that these guns may be difficult to conceal.

Beats me.

 

[billwot]

Well, I know from what a city cop told me... .

As a generalization, LEOs are a very poor source of legal advice.

 

[asaling]

Oddly comes at a time when MANY gun makers are jumping on the bandwagon and producing these. They all saw the conversions we were all building and realized there was a market.

All of these off the wall BS laws keep popping up because we are always on the defensive. We need some group to step up and get on the offensive, and keep the anti gun lobbyist off balance with law suits and new proposals. If they stay busy keeping up with the new legislation proposals WE make, they won't have the time and resources to dream this crap up. And this is an IDEAL time to go on the offensive when Washington, states and municipalities are looking for money.

We should start with a $100 user fee to be assessed every five years on all property owners who do not own guns to defray the cost of police protection for them.

Then we should go after the assault weapons ban. Every time a gun owner is involved in a shooting accident the circumstances should be assessed to determine whether having had an adjustable stock, flash suppressor, or any of the other items deeming a gun as an assault weapon may have contributed to preventing the accident, and bring a liability suit.

How about some national legislation so every time a driver hits a deer they are fined $100 and the money goes to the ASPCA and national conservation fund ? That's 1.5 million drivers x 100 bucks (no pun intended), you won't see the Office of management and Budget balk at that. And drivers will be BEGGING gun owners to HUNT!

Every time a crime is committed in a gun free zone, bring a liability suit.

We need to go on the offensive in a big way to stop the insanity because these lunatics just stay up nights dreaming stupid shit up all the time. We need to keep them busy, and BROKE.

GREAT IDEA OldOwl ... You have my vote as the organizations First President!!!:big_boss: