Reclassify AR/AK Pistols as AOW?

[Oh Shoot]

Among BHO's recently mentioned new firearm regulations, which haven't gone beyond smoke and mirrors hints thus far, most discussion to date have focused on expanded interpretation of the mental health provision (which would almost certainly include misuse of same), but this one, proposed in 2005 by ATF is also among them.
 
Main thing is that wording would ban all pistols not having a permanently fixed stock, making AR and AK type into AOWs.
 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-07/pdf/05-6932.pdf#page=1

 

One change is to pistol definition in CFR 479.11 by adding one significant word:
 
"The term pistol means:
(a) A weapon originally designed, made,and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand,and having—
(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of,or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)."
 
The problem with the word "fixed" is that the ATF proposal also states:
 
"The term ‘‘fixed’’ has been added to paragraph (a)(2) of the regulatory definition to clarify that weapons with a short stock permanently affixed at an angle to the bore can be classified as ‘‘pistols"."
 
And of course AR and AK pistol "stocks" (used in this section of both the USC and CFR to mean what we generally call "grips") are not permanently attached by being part of the receiver/frame as with most conventional handgun designs, and indeed held on by only an easily removable screw.
 
- OS

Edited June 7, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[Someotherguy]

I read this yesterday, seemed to help clarify things a bit for me :)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/is-the-atf-really-trying-to-classify-ar-pistols-as-nfa-items/

[Oh Shoot]

I read this yesterday, seemed to help clarify things a bit for me :)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/is-the-atf-really-trying-to-classify-ar-pistols-as-nfa-items/

 

That's certainly the benign interpretation (which is unusual for TTAG).

 

He totally leaves out their blatant actual statement of intent included in the "source documentation" -- again, "The term ‘‘fixed’’ has been added to paragraph (a)(2) of the regulatory definition to clarify that weapons with a short stock permanently affixed at an angle to the bore can be classified as ‘‘pistols"."

 

- OS

[Pete123]

I read this yesterday, seemed to help clarify things a bit for me :)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/is-the-atf-really-trying-to-classify-ar-pistols-as-nfa-items/

 

I think the author of this article may be correct.  I read the source document.  I interpret the word "fixed" to mean that the pistol will have a stock - the part with the grips that we hold onto.  All the pistols I can think of have a "fixed stock at an angle and below the bore"

 

I got an email from the NRA today entitled, "Stop Obama's Planned Gag Order on Firearm-Related Speech"  Of course, they urgently want me to send money.  I've learned that I have to check emails like this from the NRA for truth.  I have found that they mis-characterize or tell bold face lies to get us to send money.

 

I found and read the source document.  The document wasn't easy to read and I'm not sure exactly what it said.  It certainly didn't say anything about a gag order on firearm related speech.  As best I could tell, it's meant to keep information about weapons systems out of the hands of the bad guys.

 

It's also possible that it is wolf in sheep's clothing.  However, they shouldn't be saying things like, "gag order on ....."  

 

It really irritates me that I can't trust the NRA to be honest about when there is really an issue.

 

I'm grateful for the NRA.  We have the gun freedom's that we have in large part because of them.  I may get a Lifetime membership while they are $500.

 

While grateful, I will call them out on their BS.

[btq96r]

I have no doubt that if AR/AK pistols had been around and in widespread use during the passing of the NFA laws, they would have been caught up in them.  They aren't "pistols" or "handguns" as is traditionally known, and I can absolutely see how ATF hates the ambiguity of them.  Throw in the foreign imports like CZ's Scorpion and the issue is even more visible. 

 

The SIG Brace debacle was just the start, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they ever just defined pistol under USC as having ammo fed from either a rotating chamber or a magazine that is inserted into the grip.  Might as well get it out of the way and be done with it.

[Rhodewarrior]

I read this yesterday, seemed to help clarify things a bit for me :)

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/is-the-atf-really-trying-to-classify-ar-pistols-as-nfa-items/

The part that reads "without manual reloading" in section 'b' sounds like it targeting all semi-autos. Am I reading too deep into the wording?  I don't manually reload my pistols, they reload themselves. :shrug:

Edited June 8, 2015 by Rhodewarrior

[mikegideon]

That's certainly the benign interpretation (which is unusual for TTAG).

 

He totally leaves out their blatant actual statement of intent included in the "source documentation" -- again, "The term ‘‘fixed’’ has been added to paragraph (a)(2) of the regulatory definition to clarify that weapons with a short stock permanently affixed at an angle to the bore can be classified as ‘‘pistols"."

 

- OS

 

Yep. And a flash hider can be permanent with a little magic. Seems like you could pin/weld/epoxy a grip about as easily.

[Oh Shoot]

Yep. And a flash hider can be permanent with a little magic. Seems like you could pin/weld/epoxy a grip about as easily.

 

Oh, if needed, if this were the only new requirement, there would of course be any number of workarounds ... probably folks would start making lowers with a grip frame cast in, like maybe 1911 style or something. Just need a set screw channel to hold safety detente/spring. Select your own grip panels, cool. ;)

 

Would all just be a huge headache and mean more money one way or the other needed to have one. Like the whole administration, just another step in the exact opposite direction of the way things need to go.

 

- OS

Edited June 8, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[mikegideon]

I'm kinda like btq96. I have never really viewed them as pistols either. More like sbr's without a stock. I know folks like having them. But, their capabilities are much closer to a rifle than a pistol. For one thing, they're not under powered.

[ehull20000]

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) AR pistols rock.  

 

Check out the lowers at the following link.  

 

http://www.gwacsarmory.com  

 

All they have to do is alter the mold to omit the stock, but leave the receiver extension and boom legal AR-15 pistols even if they spend political capita on a reclassification, which means we might be able to get something for nothing.  American ingenuity supporting freedom wins again.

 

I suspect we would see many similar products come to market to fill the market demand.  

 

Also, the value of pre-change AR pistols could skyrocket just like pre-dealer sample machine guns.  

 

"We", the responsible firearms owners community, should still probably prevent "them", the emotionally biased anti-gun community, from gaining any ground.  Furthermore, it might be good defense to demand an end to the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts.  The 1994 act was allowed to end, why not the other three?    

[btq96r]

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) AR pistols rock.  

 

Check out the lowers at the following link.  

 

http://www.gwacsarmory.com  

 

All they have to do is alter the mold to omit the stock, but leave the receiver extension and boom legal AR-15 pistols even if they spend political capita on a reclassification, which means we might be able to get something for nothing.  American ingenuity supporting freedom wins again.

 

I suspect we would see many similar products come to market to fill the market demand.  

 

Also, the value of pre-change AR pistols could skyrocket just like pre-dealer sample machine guns.  

 

"We", the responsible firearms owners community, should still probably prevent "them", the emotionally biased anti-gun community, from gaining any ground.  Furthermore, it might be good defense to demand an end to the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts.  The 1994 act was allowed to end, why not the other three?    

 

Even if they make those in "pistol" configuration, they would be caught up under an administrative change in the law.  Also, I don't think there would be a grandfather clause in such a change.  AR pistols would be categorized as Rifles or Any Other Weapon and there would be a grace period to submit a Form 1 or swap in a 16" or above barrel.

 

The NFA (1934), GCA (1968), and FOPA (1986) were all "permanent" legislation, meaning they have to be repealed by an act of Congress, or overturned by the courts.  The AWB in 1994 had a 10 year sunset provision, which was the only reason they got it added to the overall bill it was passed with.

[Oh Shoot]

Even if they make those in "pistol" configuration, they would be caught up under an administrative change in the law.  Also, I don't think there would be a grandfather clause in such a change.  AR pistols would be categorized as Rifles or Any Other Weapon and there would be a grace period to submit a Form 1 or swap in a 16" or above barrel.

 

No, they would be fine under this particular possible change in CFR, even assuming the "permanently affixed" interpretation stood. It will take more than this to change the whole classification of all of them (see below).
 

The NFA (1934), GCA (1968), and FOPA (1986) were all "permanent" legislation, meaning they have to be repealed by an act of Congress, or overturned by the courts.  The AWB in 1994 had a 10 year sunset provision, which was the only reason they got it added to the overall bill it was passed with.

Yes, but we're only talking about a change to CFR, not to USC. The CFR is the explanation in real world terms for the USC, and the gun related parts are already fraught with more "interpretation" than most -- no legislation is required to "re-interpret" them, just the appropriate proceedure from the department of enforcement, as is the case here.

 

I really think this one may not fly. After all, this isn't even BHO's incentive, just some already existing low hanging fruit he could grab as he swings for the fence on anti-gun stuff over the next 500 days.

 

What I think could really get traction in this area is a "re-interpretation" of the "designed, made, and intended to fire ...when held in one hand" part in the USC handgun/pistol definition. Don't think there's time in the rule change procedure for BHO to get this done (I could be wrong), but it's certainly something Hillary would have plenty of time to run through the channels and get implemented.

 

- OS

Edited June 14, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

No, they would be fine under this particular possible change in CFR, even assuming the "permanently affixed" interpretation stood.

 

How do you figure?

[Oh Shoot]

How do you figure?

 

Because the "short stock" (grip) is an integral part of the frame of the weapon, same as any other conventional handgun, 1911 or Glock or whatever.  Can't get more "permanently affixed" than that.

 

- OS

Edited June 14, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

Because the "short stock" (grip) is an integral part of the frame of the weapon, same as any other conventional handgun, 1911 or Glock or whatever.  Can't get more "permanently affixed" than that.

 

- OS

 

Makes sense, as long as that style stays under the radar.

 

I still think the ultimate hammer yet to drop is redefining pistol as being a single shot, rotating cylinder, or slide action.  ATF has to hate anything not a traditional handgun getting away with being a pistol under the law.

[Oh Shoot]

Makes sense, as long as that style stays under the radar.

 

I still think the ultimate hammer yet to drop is redefining pistol as being a single shot, rotating cylinder, or slide action.  ATF has to hate anything not a traditional handgun getting away with being a pistol under the law.

 

That will take legislation,  to change the definition in the USC. Things like the change to CFR in this thread, or the "one handed use" would not, as they are the "interpretative rules" for the actual words used in the USC, and adding stuff like "single shot, rotating cylinder, slide action" is quite the stretch since none of those terms of course appear there.

 

Then again, though, get enough commies in the right high places in agreement, I guess anything's possible. Once it's in the CFR, unless the actual congress or the courts overturn it, those rules do stand.  After all, as far as this conversation goes, "fixed" ain't in the USC definition, let alone "permanently affixed".

 

- OS

Edited June 14, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[rmiddle]

That will take legislation,  to change the definition in the USC. Things like the change to CFR in this thread, or the "one handed use" would not, as they are the "interpretative rules" for the actual words used in the USC, and adding stuff like "single shot, rotating cylinder, slide action" is quite the stretch since none of those terms of course appear there.

 

Then again, though, get enough commies in the right high places in agreement, I guess anything's possible. Once it's in the CFR, unless the actual congress or the courts overturn it, those rules do stand.  After all, as far as this conversation goes, "fixed" ain't in the USC definition, let alone "permanently affixed".

 

- OS

 

That might just be enough of a reason to force the Republican leadership into actually doing something since it could cost a larger number of 'there" voters to go to jail and loss the right to vote.

 

Thanks

Robert

[ehull20000]

That's a good point.