User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 5:55:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does not say "permanently affixed to the weapon" The stock angled to bore configuration affixment is permanent. The "stock angled to bore" manner of mounting is permanent it cannot not be affixed parallel to the bore, it can only ever be affixed angled to the bore. You are reading it like this: There is no and so that mean the angle of affixment in relation to the bore is permanent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So? AR and AK grips are not permanently affixed in any way, so I fail to see your point. - OS It does not say "permanently affixed to the weapon" The stock angled to bore configuration affixment is permanent. The "stock angled to bore" manner of mounting is permanent it cannot not be affixed parallel to the bore, it can only ever be affixed angled to the bore. You are reading it like this: The term "fixed" has been added to paragraph (a)(2) of the regulatory definition to clarify that weapons with a short stock permanently affixed AND at an angle to the bore can be classified as "pistols." Best of luck with the syntactic hair splitting on that one, achieves Twinkie Defense stature IMNSHO. Edit to add after reading Bob's post: This is just ATF's statement about what the change in the CFR means. Hell, the CFR itself is only an "explanation" (interpretation) of the USC put in "down to earth terms". So parsing ATF's exact diction regarding the change in this proposal isn't even necessarily all that pertinent in the first place, at least until they publish it on site as a condition of enforcement, similar to the Mad Max open letter. Point being, they are of course being cagy by NOT actually putting such wording in the CFR, so they can "interpret at will" as time goes by. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 6:04:09 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is the issue. There are revolvers with grips that can be removed, leaving only a tang with hammer spring in them. And auto pistols which can trade out the lower grip completely because the lock works fall out and drop into another. Those are no more permanently attached than a AR grip - in the meaning of permanent like a flash hider on a 14.5" barrel. What the ATF may also be going for are AR buffer tube attachments to weapons that don't use them in any other capacity other than to mount the Brace. That was another reason the ATF posted the open letter on Friday night prior to SHOT - to kill interest in all the Braces coming out for other guns that didn't use a buffer tube. Requiring the Brace to be fixed makes them toast - because if you fix the Brace it makes it an SBR. Especially the folding buffer tube adapters. Is that specific point true, or not? If it aint, ok, what IS the point of the change? And, if it is, then the change is exactly what would be expected - to kill the Brace. The change isn't about the AR pistol, it's about ANY pistol - which includes all those others which are springing up in the market. I see this as the same misdirected arguments as the discussion on "You can't hold a pistol with two hands any more!" Not. The focus keeps shifting back to how the grip is attached. If the grip screw doesn't fix it, then just how are we able to hang on to the dangly piece of polymer? It's fixed. The Brace isn't - and the Brace is the much larger issue for the last 30 months on the ATF's agenda. I'm quite willing to be wrong - but it doesn't yet make anyone else right. It remains to be seen. Just as much as the word "stock" doesn't mean "buttstock," the same can be said - it doesn't mean "grip." And both a buttstock and grip are included in the definition. BUT - pistols are not by definition supposed to have a buttstock - they all have had grips, and the ATF has rarely intruded on how those are formed or attached. They have almost no track record defining them in the past five years - but the Brace has certainly been a hot topic, generating thousands of letters. They are suddenly going to ignore it in a wide ranging plan to increase gun control, as if they no longer care? I don't see them backing down or walking away with their tail between their legs. Again, I don't think this has anything to do with arm braces. The term "stock" in the context of a pistol has been long established to refer to what we now call a "grip." With a traditional rifle, for example, the grip was really just a part of the stock where you put your hand. So, when defining a pistol, it was natural to call the grip a "short stock." In contrast, most modern rifles have separate a grip and buttstock, but in order to maintain consistent terminology, they can both be referred to as "stocks." The same is true for pistols with regard to the grip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 6:13:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best of luck with the syntactic hair splitting on that one, achieves Twinkie Defense stature IMNSHO. Edit to add after reading Bob's post: This is just ATF's statement about what the change in the CFR means. Hell, the CFR itself is only an "explanation" (interpretation) of the USC put in "down to earth terms". So parsing ATF's exact diction regarding the change in this proposal isn't even necessarily all that pertinent in the first place, at least until they publish it on site as a condition of enforcement, similar to the Mad Max open letter. Point being, they are of course being cagy by NOT actually putting such wording in the CFR, so they can "interpret at will" as time goes by. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It does not say "permanently affixed to the weapon" The stock angled to bore configuration affixment is permanent. The "stock angled to bore" manner of mounting is permanent it cannot not be affixed parallel to the bore, it can only ever be affixed angled to the bore. You are reading it like this: The term "fixed" has been added to paragraph (a)(2) of the regulatory definition to clarify that weapons with a short stock permanently affixed AND at an angle to the bore can be classified as "pistols." Best of luck with the syntactic hair splitting on that one, achieves Twinkie Defense stature IMNSHO. Edit to add after reading Bob's post: This is just ATF's statement about what the change in the CFR means. Hell, the CFR itself is only an "explanation" (interpretation) of the USC put in "down to earth terms". So parsing ATF's exact diction regarding the change in this proposal isn't even necessarily all that pertinent in the first place, at least until they publish it on site as a condition of enforcement, similar to the Mad Max open letter. Point being, they are of course being cagy by NOT actually putting such wording in the CFR, so they can "interpret at will" as time goes by. - OS That, I agree with. It is unclear, probably intentionally so. Still, words mean things, and for the time being, the explanation in the proposal is all we have to interpret the change. If the proposal is adopted, it will undoubtedly require further clarification in order for people to figure out if they were made into felons or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 6:30:46 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best of luck with the syntactic hair splitting on that one, achieves Twinkie Defense stature IMNSHO. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So? AR and AK grips are not permanently affixed in any way, so I fail to see your point. - OS It does not say "permanently affixed to the weapon" The stock angled to bore configuration affixment is permanent. The "stock angled to bore" manner of mounting is permanent it cannot not be affixed parallel to the bore, it can only ever be affixed angled to the bore. You are reading it like this: The term "fixed" has been added to paragraph (a)(2) of the regulatory definition to clarify that weapons with a short stock permanently affixed AND at an angle to the bore can be classified as "pistols." Best of luck with the syntactic hair splitting on that one, achieves Twinkie Defense stature IMNSHO. - OS There is no hair splitting. The regulatory definition doesn't say the grip is to be permanently affixed to the weapon to be a pistol period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 6:41:22 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no hair splitting. The regulatory definition doesn't say the grip is to be permanently affixed to the weapon to be a pistol period. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So? AR and AK grips are not permanently affixed in any way, so I fail to see your point. - OS It does not say "permanently affixed to the weapon" The stock angled to bore configuration affixment is permanent. The "stock angled to bore" manner of mounting is permanent it cannot not be affixed parallel to the bore, it can only ever be affixed angled to the bore. You are reading it like this: The term "fixed" has been added to paragraph (a)(2) of the regulatory definition to clarify that weapons with a short stock permanently affixed AND at an angle to the bore can be classified as "pistols." Best of luck with the syntactic hair splitting on that one, achieves Twinkie Defense stature IMNSHO. - OS There is no hair splitting. The regulatory definition doesn't say the grip is to be permanently affixed to the weapon to be a pistol period. I agree. But that will be the interpretation they will seek to enforce, evidenced by their preliminary statement in the proposal which does use the term "permanently". There is nothing in USC or CFR that says actually shooting a legal configuration in a certain way changes its classification either -- which was ATF's original stand on the brace. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 7:19:22 PM EDT
[#6]
OMG! you are all trying sooooo damn hard to make unclear a perfectly clear sentance. You must take the entire sentence in context not just Stock or permanently or fixed.
"a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)" How many things on a pistol can meet the criteria in that sentence? ONE, the thing we all call the grip. What else on a pistol is designed to be gripped by one hand? How does the meaning of this entire sentence become suddenly so unclear with the simple addition of the word fixed which only modifies the short stock? The real kicker is that if it is adopted it will not be published until next April 1st. That is when Title 27 codes are published. So if it's not there now, and it's not as of 6/4/15, it won't be this year at all. It's not law until it's published and given a effective date. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 7:58:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're focusing on the single word "affixed" and then applying the modifier "permanently" to it and only it. But that's not what the text says. If "affixed" and "at an angle to the bore" were intended as a two-part test, it would have been clearer to word as "permanently affixed and at an angle to the bore". Instead, a more natural reading is to allow "permanently" to modify the entire phrase after it - [permanently] [affixed at an angle to the bore]. This means that the state of being affixed at an angle to the bore must be permanent. By this reading, the affixing itself need not be permanent, so long as angle to the bore is permanent. This interpretation also fits with the choice of the phrase "a short fixed stock" in the proposed reg, as opposed to "a short permanently attached stock." Drawing an analogy to buttstocks, a buttstock does not have to be permanently installed to the receiver in order to be "fixed." It only needs to be incapable of movement or articulation while installed. (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). (b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. Black text = current definition (emphasis added) Red text = proposed changes The term fixed is defined in the wording of the proposal which will leave no doubt as to the intent of the proposal as worded. "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." (emphasis added). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 8:33:28 PM EDT
[#8]
What's nice is that we can argue the points. It's going to be the final determination of the ATF whatever, and there's only arguing with them after that.
Taking the grip point of view - there were a lot of new pistol grips out there in 2005, and the pics of the derringer folding grip highlights that view. There's always been concern that a wallet holster makes the pocket gun in it more AOW than it is to the ATF. Not to forget the latest item in "is that a gun?"contest, the Bondhus CL380. Given the grip interpretation it's in line, which is not good. This all may be a moot point in the future - under the proposed ITAR regs, this discussion could be considered illegal. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/06/foghorn/obamas-proposed-changes-to-itar-regulations-might-make-gun-reviews-3d-printed-gun-diagrams-illegal/ So, taking a cue, we do need to take a chill pill. The reality won't be as bad as our imagination makes it. No disassembly videos? Really? There's gonna be lawsuits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 9:17:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that's exactly how it IS worded. (a) A weapon originally designed, made,and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) fromone 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 begripped by one hand and at an angle to andextending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapondisguised to look like an item other than afirearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, beltbuckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, orany gun that fires more than one shot,without manual reloading, by a singlefunction of the trigger. Black text = current definition (emphasis added) Red text = proposed changes The term fixed is defined in the wording of the proposal which will leave no doubt as to the intent of the proposal as worded. "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." (emphasis added). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're focusing on the single word "affixed" and then applying the modifier "permanently" to it and only it. But that's not what the text says. If "affixed" and "at an angle to the bore" were intended as a two-part test, it would have been clearer to word as "permanently affixed and at an angle to the bore". Instead, a more natural reading is to allow "permanently" to modify the entire phrase after it - [permanently] [affixed at an angle to the bore]. This means that the state of being affixed at an angle to the bore must be permanent. By this reading, the affixing itself need not be permanent, so long as angle to the bore is permanent. This interpretation also fits with the choice of the phrase "a short fixed stock" in the proposed reg, as opposed to "a short permanently attached stock." Drawing an analogy to buttstocks, a buttstock does not have to be permanently installed to the receiver in order to be "fixed." It only needs to be incapable of movement or articulation while installed. (a) A weapon originally designed, made,and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) fromone 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 begripped by one hand and at an angle to andextending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapondisguised to look like an item other than afirearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, beltbuckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, orany gun that fires more than one shot,without manual reloading, by a singlefunction of the trigger. Black text = current definition (emphasis added) Red text = proposed changes The term fixed is defined in the wording of the proposal which will leave no doubt as to the intent of the proposal as worded. "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." (emphasis added). That's the proposed update to the CFR. My post was discussing the background and rationale text in order to understand what the term "short fixed stock" means. Section (a)(2) above describes two attributes of a short fixed stock that must be present to meet the definition of pistol, and it does so in precisely the way I would expect for a two-part test. The short fixed stock (whatever else it may be) must be designed to be gripped by one hand AND it must be at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). This does not define all attributes that constitute a short fixed stock - it only addresses two that must be present on a pistol. Additionally, the presence of the word "and" in the CFR does not insert itself into the rationale where it does not already exist. In fact, taking the rationale and the proposed update together reinforces the case that the word "fixed" was added to exclude a short stock that may be positioned or rotated to be parallel to the bore, not to require that the short stock be permanently installed to the receiver. The attribute of angle to the bore is what is referenced in the rationale, despite already existing in the CFR. It would not make sense to include that if the primary concern was permanently affixing the short stock period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/7/2015 9:45:30 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to forget the latest item in "is that a gun?"contest, the Bondhus CL380. Given the grip interpretation it's in line, which is not good. That's exactly the kind of thing that I think they're targeting. It doesn't "look like a gun", so the ATF wants to call it an AOW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 7:05:03 AM EDT
[#11]
It's very likely the term "fixed" is being added to exclude firearms such as folding pen guns from being considered pistols. If I recall correctly, a pen gun is an AOW if it fires in the straight pen configuration, but others such as the Stinger, which would only fire once the "stock" was folded down as a pistol grip, were considered pistols.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 9:55:47 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the proposed update to the CFR. My post was discussing the background and rationale text in order to understand what the term "short fixed stock" means. Section (a)(2) above describes two attributes of a short fixed stock that must be present to meet the definition of pistol, and it does so in precisely the way I would expect for a two-part test. The short fixed stock (whatever else it may be) must be designed to be gripped by one hand AND it must be at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). This does not define all attributes that constitute a short fixed stock - it only addresses two that must be present on a pistol. Additionally, the presence of the word "and" in the CFR does not insert itself into the rationale where it does not already exist. In fact, taking the rationale and the proposed update together reinforces the case that the word "fixed" was added to exclude a short stock that may be positioned or rotated to be parallel to the bore, not to require that the short stock be permanently installed to the receiver. The attribute of angle to the bore is what is referenced in the rationale, despite already existing in the CFR. It would not make sense to include that if the primary concern was permanently affixing the short stock period. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're focusing on the single word "affixed" and then applying the modifier "permanently" to it and only it. But that's not what the text says. If "affixed" and "at an angle to the bore" were intended as a two-part test, it would have been clearer to word as "permanently affixed and at an angle to the bore". Instead, a more natural reading is to allow "permanently" to modify the entire phrase after it - [permanently] [affixed at an angle to the bore]. This means that the state of being affixed at an angle to the bore must be permanent. By this reading, the affixing itself need not be permanent, so long as angle to the bore is permanent. This interpretation also fits with the choice of the phrase "a short fixed stock" in the proposed reg, as opposed to "a short permanently attached stock." Drawing an analogy to buttstocks, a buttstock does not have to be permanently installed to the receiver in order to be "fixed." It only needs to be incapable of movement or articulation while installed. (a) A weapon originally designed, made,and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) fromone 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 begripped by one hand and at an angle to andextending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapondisguised to look like an item other than afirearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, beltbuckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, orany gun that fires more than one shot,without manual reloading, by a singlefunction of the trigger. Black text = current definition (emphasis added) Red text = proposed changes The term fixed is defined in the wording of the proposal which will leave no doubt as to the intent of the proposal as worded. "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." (emphasis added). That's the proposed update to the CFR. My post was discussing the background and rationale text in order to understand what the term "short fixed stock" means. Section (a)(2) above describes two attributes of a short fixed stock that must be present to meet the definition of pistol, and it does so in precisely the way I would expect for a two-part test. The short fixed stock (whatever else it may be) must be designed to be gripped by one hand AND it must be at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). This does not define all attributes that constitute a short fixed stock - it only addresses two that must be present on a pistol. Additionally, the presence of the word "and" in the CFR does not insert itself into the rationale where it does not already exist. In fact, taking the rationale and the proposed update together reinforces the case that the word "fixed" was added to exclude a short stock that may be positioned or rotated to be parallel to the bore, not to require that the short stock be permanently installed to the receiver. The attribute of angle to the bore is what is referenced in the rationale, despite already existing in the CFR. It would not make sense to include that if the primary concern was permanently affixing the short stock period. That's not an unreasonable interpretation. They could have explained it better. It makes more sense given the impossible challenge of enforcing the other interpretation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 9:59:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's exactly the kind of thing that I think they're targeting. It doesn't "look like a gun", so the ATF wants to call it an AOW. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not to forget the latest item in "is that a gun?"contest, the Bondhus CL380. Given the grip interpretation it's in line, which is not good. That's exactly the kind of thing that I think they're targeting. It doesn't "look like a gun", so the ATF wants to call it an AOW. That thing, Bondhus CL380, is already an AOW under the current law. What a stupid gun. It's only an ounce heavier than a P3AT plus you get 5 less shots and it's only $800. Yikes, what a joke. I'm wondering if they want to make the palm pistol an AOW. http://www.palmpistol.com/ I'm not sure the palm gun isn't a pistol even with their improved definition. I think the Stinger Pen Gun would definitely become an AOW. http://pengun.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 12:02:21 PM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 12:20:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryYeah, because the law is only for lawyers. Surprisingly, it's actually written in English most of the time, you should try reading it. I've got news for you. Lawyers are not experts on policy. What they do is present experts to make a plausible argument. It's the experts who make policy (even though they may be crap experts, think all politicians and their sycophant lackeys like Paul Gruber). The laws are often written as a piece in a puzzle. The new piece has to fit in the old puzzle and if you don't understand the old stuff, the new stuff may not look correct. It's actually very tough to modify laws without creating an unforeseen problem. What we're doing and what others are doing is attempting to identify those problems. When you think about it, what the internet came accomplish as a think tank is very interesting. Before you'd just have smart people and small secret organizations sitting around driving policy. Now everyone gets to have an opinion. It's a different time. Laws aren't just for lawyers any more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 6:11:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Its does not matter fighting over the terms definition. The fact is that the ATF and Obama admin are trying to change the language so the ATF can classify AR pistols as a NFA item. I am contacting my representatives in the senate and house in order to get them to stop this from happening. I suggest everyone else do the same and tell their friends too.
The Democrats are going to cause the whole NFA to repealed because we are not going to take this crap anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 7:51:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That thing, Bondhus CL380, is already an AOW under the current law. What a stupid gun. It's only an ounce heavier than a P3AT plus you get 5 less shots and it's only $800. Yikes, what a joke. After closer inspection, I think you may be right. It does have a short "stock" designed to be held in a single hand and which must be extended at an angle to the bore to fire the gun, but the flip-up portion does not protrude "below the bore" (instead, it is above the bore), so it may not qualify as a pistol. I thought that there was a matching piece that flipped up beneath the gun to grip with your middle finger, but there does not appear to be. The pengun is a very good example of a "non-AOW" that would be affected by adding the word "fixed" to "short stock". Also, I don't know who would buy either one of them, especially for $800. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 8:48:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Wait! It does have a stock, HA! It's not conventional but I suppose under the current law it'd pass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 8:56:00 PM EDT
[#19]
These are the only short fixed stocks that are grips that I know of...
You fellas are quite one dimensional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 8:58:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Ultimately if the idea is banning everything but the above, the backlash should be quite severe. AR/AK pistols are everywhere now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 9:31:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the proposed update to the CFR. My post was discussing the background and rationale text in order to understand what the term "short fixed stock" means. Section (a)(2) above describes two attributes of a short fixed stock that must be present to meet the definition of pistol, and it does so in precisely the way I would expect for a two-part test. The short fixed stock (whatever else it may be) must be designed to be gripped by one hand AND it must be at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). This does not define all attributes that constitute a short fixed stock - it only addresses two that must be present on a pistol. Additionally, the presence of the word "and" in the CFR does not insert itself into the rationale where it does not already exist. In fact, taking the rationale and the proposed update together reinforces the case that the word "fixed" was added to exclude a short stock that may be positioned or rotated to be parallel to the bore, not to require that the short stock be permanently installed to the receiver. The attribute of angle to the bore is what is referenced in the rationale, despite already existing in the CFR. It would not make sense to include that if the primary concern was permanently affixing the short stock period. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You're focusing on the single word "affixed" and then applying the modifier "permanently" to it and only it. But that's not what the text says. If "affixed" and "at an angle to the bore" were intended as a two-part test, it would have been clearer to word as "permanently affixed and at an angle to the bore". Instead, a more natural reading is to allow "permanently" to modify the entire phrase after it - [permanently] [affixed at an angle to the bore]. This means that the state of being affixed at an angle to the bore must be permanent. By this reading, the affixing itself need not be permanent, so long as angle to the bore is permanent. This interpretation also fits with the choice of the phrase "a short fixed stock" in the proposed reg, as opposed to "a short permanently attached stock." Drawing an analogy to buttstocks, a buttstock does not have to be permanently installed to the receiver in order to be "fixed." It only needs to be incapable of movement or articulation while installed. (a) A weapon originally designed, made,and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) fromone 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 begripped by one hand and at an angle to andextending below the line of the bore(s). (b) The term shall not include any weapondisguised to look like an item other than afirearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, beltbuckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, orany gun that fires more than one shot,without manual reloading, by a singlefunction of the trigger. Black text = current definition (emphasis added) Red text = proposed changes The term fixed is defined in the wording of the proposal which will leave no doubt as to the intent of the proposal as worded. "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." (emphasis added). That's the proposed update to the CFR. My post was discussing the background and rationale text in order to understand what the term "short fixed stock" means. Section (a)(2) above describes two attributes of a short fixed stock that must be present to meet the definition of pistol, and it does so in precisely the way I would expect for a two-part test. The short fixed stock (whatever else it may be) must be designed to be gripped by one hand AND it must be at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). This does not define all attributes that constitute a short fixed stock - it only addresses two that must be present on a pistol. Additionally, the presence of the word "and" in the CFR does not insert itself into the rationale where it does not already exist. In fact, taking the rationale and the proposed update together reinforces the case that the word "fixed" was added to exclude a short stock that may be positioned or rotated to be parallel to the bore, not to require that the short stock be permanently installed to the receiver. The attribute of angle to the bore is what is referenced in the rationale, despite already existing in the CFR. It would not make sense to include that if the primary concern was permanently affixing the short stock period. (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at a fixed angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). So we go to the declaratory in the proposal; "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" Merriam Webster defines the word Affix as " 1: to attach (something) to something else 2: to attach in any way : add, append <affix a signature to a document>" The Stock cannot be permanently attached or affixed to an angle. It can be affixed at an angle but it must be affixed to something tangible. An angle is a measurement, you cannot attach a solid object to a measurement. Therefore we must conclude that the attachment must be to another object. While that object is not identified, the attachment must be permanent and at an angle to and extending below the bore. Of course that brings up a whole other can of worms. The majority of modern pistols have a removable barrel. As such the stock cannot be permanently attached at an angle to the bore unless the two remain permanently attached to each other or to an intermediate such as a frame. Of all the firearms I currently own only my S&W model 66 would meet this definition leaving most of the other modern pistols under the regulation the NFA. Of course seeing as this was introduced just a few months after the sunset of the AWB one has to wonder if that was their thinking in proposing the change to begin with.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 10:11:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You layout a good case. However I propose that the term fixed is a modifier to the stock and not the angle. If it were meant as the angle being fixed it would have been written (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at a fixed angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). So we go to the declaratory in the proposal; "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" Merriam Webster defines the word Affix as " 1: to attach (something) to something else 2: to attach in any way : add, append <affix a signature to a document>" The Stock cannot be permanently attached or affixed to an angle. It can be affixed at an angle but it must be affixed to something tangible. An angle is a measurement, you cannot attach a solid object to a measurement. Therefore we must conclude that the attachment must be to another object. While that object is not identified, the attachment must be permanent and at an angle to and extending below the bore. Of course that brings up a whole other can of worms. The majority of modern pistols have a removable barrel. As such the stock cannot be permanently attached at an angle to the bore unless the two remain permanently attached to each other or to an intermediate such as a frame. Of all the firearms I currently own only my S&W model 66 would meet this definition leaving most of the other modern pistols under the regulation the NFA. Of course seeing as this was introduced just a few months after the sunset of the AWB one has to wonder if that was their thinking in proposing the change to begin with.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's the proposed update to the CFR. My post was discussing the background and rationale text in order to understand what the term "short fixed stock" means. Section (a)(2) above describes two attributes of a short fixed stock that must be present to meet the definition of pistol, and it does so in precisely the way I would expect for a two-part test. The short fixed stock (whatever else it may be) must be designed to be gripped by one hand AND it must be at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). This does not define all attributes that constitute a short fixed stock - it only addresses two that must be present on a pistol. Additionally, the presence of the word "and" in the CFR does not insert itself into the rationale where it does not already exist. In fact, taking the rationale and the proposed update together reinforces the case that the word "fixed" was added to exclude a short stock that may be positioned or rotated to be parallel to the bore, not to require that the short stock be permanently installed to the receiver. The attribute of angle to the bore is what is referenced in the rationale, despite already existing in the CFR. It would not make sense to include that if the primary concern was permanently affixing the short stock period. You layout a good case. However I propose that the term fixed is a modifier to the stock and not the angle. If it were meant as the angle being fixed it would have been written (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at a fixed angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). So we go to the declaratory in the proposal; "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" Merriam Webster defines the word Affix as " 1: to attach (something) to something else 2: to attach in any way : add, append <affix a signature to a document>" The Stock cannot be permanently attached or affixed to an angle. It can be affixed at an angle but it must be affixed to something tangible. An angle is a measurement, you cannot attach a solid object to a measurement. Therefore we must conclude that the attachment must be to another object. While that object is not identified, the attachment must be permanent and at an angle to and extending below the bore. Of course that brings up a whole other can of worms. The majority of modern pistols have a removable barrel. As such the stock cannot be permanently attached at an angle to the bore unless the two remain permanently attached to each other or to an intermediate such as a frame. Of all the firearms I currently own only my S&W model 66 would meet this definition leaving most of the other modern pistols under the regulation the NFA. Of course seeing as this was introduced just a few months after the sunset of the AWB one has to wonder if that was their thinking in proposing the change to begin with.
The term "fixed" is a modifier to "stock", that's correct. I don't think that part is in question though - it is simply the meaning of "fixed stock" that we disagree on, based on the explanatory language in the proposal background. Essentially we are discussing whether the phrase "permanently affixed at an angle" means a) affixed permanently, and at an angle or b) affixed, and permanently at an angle These clearly have very different meanings. The language in the proposal could be read either way, though I maintain that b) seems the most natural given the lack of clarifying punctuation. Of course you can't affix something to an angle, but you can affix something at an angle, and that angle can be permanent without requiring the method of attachment to be permanent. For example, I can hold a carpenter's triangle against a table and it will permanently indicate 45 degrees to the table (in other words, it will never indicate any other angle), yet the triangle is attached to the table only by my hand. This would make the triangle a fixed measurement device, as opposed to a protractor, which is not fixed and can be set to indicate whatever angle you want. In the end, none of us will know until the ATF explains it in more detail. And then they might change their minds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2015 10:13:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait! It does have a stock, HA! It's not conventional but I suppose under the current law it'd pass. http://i61.tinypic.com/sqh94m.jpg Well, there you go. Fooled me. Talk about an example of how screwed up our laws are, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2015 7:19:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The term "fixed" is a modifier to "stock", that's correct. I don't think that part is in question though - it is simply the meaning of "fixed stock" that we disagree on, based on the explanatory language in the proposal background. Essentially we are discussing whether the phrase "permanently affixed at an angle" means a) affixed permanently, and at an angle or b) affixed, and permanently at an angle These clearly have very different meanings. The language in the proposal could be read either way, though I maintain that b) seems the most natural given the lack of clarifying punctuation. Of course you can't affix something to an angle, but you can affix something at an angle, and that angle can be permanent without requiring the method of attachment to be permanent. For example, I can hold a carpenter's triangle against a table and it will permanently indicate 45 degrees to the table (in other words, it will never indicate any other angle), yet the triangle is attached to the table only by my hand. This would make the triangle a fixed measurement device, as opposed to a protractor, which is not fixed and can be set to indicate whatever angle you want. In the end, none of us will know until the ATF explains it in more detail. And then they might change their minds. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's the proposed update to the CFR. My post was discussing the background and rationale text in order to understand what the term "short fixed stock" means. Section (a)(2) above describes two attributes of a short fixed stock that must be present to meet the definition of pistol, and it does so in precisely the way I would expect for a two-part test. The short fixed stock (whatever else it may be) must be designed to be gripped by one hand AND it must be at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). This does not define all attributes that constitute a short fixed stock - it only addresses two that must be present on a pistol. Additionally, the presence of the word "and" in the CFR does not insert itself into the rationale where it does not already exist. In fact, taking the rationale and the proposed update together reinforces the case that the word "fixed" was added to exclude a short stock that may be positioned or rotated to be parallel to the bore, not to require that the short stock be permanently installed to the receiver. The attribute of angle to the bore is what is referenced in the rationale, despite already existing in the CFR. It would not make sense to include that if the primary concern was permanently affixing the short stock period. You layout a good case. However I propose that the term fixed is a modifier to the stock and not the angle. If it were meant as the angle being fixed it would have been written (2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at a fixed angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). So we go to the declaratory in the proposal; "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" Merriam Webster defines the word Affix as " 1: to attach (something) to something else 2: to attach in any way : add, append <affix a signature to a document>" The Stock cannot be permanently attached or affixed to an angle. It can be affixed at an angle but it must be affixed to something tangible. An angle is a measurement, you cannot attach a solid object to a measurement. Therefore we must conclude that the attachment must be to another object. While that object is not identified, the attachment must be permanent and at an angle to and extending below the bore. Of course that brings up a whole other can of worms. The majority of modern pistols have a removable barrel. As such the stock cannot be permanently attached at an angle to the bore unless the two remain permanently attached to each other or to an intermediate such as a frame. Of all the firearms I currently own only my S&W model 66 would meet this definition leaving most of the other modern pistols under the regulation the NFA. Of course seeing as this was introduced just a few months after the sunset of the AWB one has to wonder if that was their thinking in proposing the change to begin with. The term "fixed" is a modifier to "stock", that's correct. I don't think that part is in question though - it is simply the meaning of "fixed stock" that we disagree on, based on the explanatory language in the proposal background. Essentially we are discussing whether the phrase "permanently affixed at an angle" means a) affixed permanently, and at an angle or b) affixed, and permanently at an angle These clearly have very different meanings. The language in the proposal could be read either way, though I maintain that b) seems the most natural given the lack of clarifying punctuation. Of course you can't affix something to an angle, but you can affix something at an angle, and that angle can be permanent without requiring the method of attachment to be permanent. For example, I can hold a carpenter's triangle against a table and it will permanently indicate 45 degrees to the table (in other words, it will never indicate any other angle), yet the triangle is attached to the table only by my hand. This would make the triangle a fixed measurement device, as opposed to a protractor, which is not fixed and can be set to indicate whatever angle you want. In the end, none of us will know until the ATF explains it in more detail. And then they might change their minds. I agree we will not know unless it is published and in effect. And even then we really won't know until it is used to bring a charge up. It is interesting that it was proposed in spring of 2004, before the sunset of the AWB (not 2005 as I said in my last post). It has been in and out of session 22 time since it's first proposal as well as in and out of the final rule stage. I would say this shows something is not quite right with it either in wording or meaning. link eta: they don't make linking easy. Put 1140-AA23 in the search box, top right, of that page if you use the above link. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2015 10:00:20 AM EDT
[#25]
Aside from the added interpreted language of permanently affixed, I'm liking Heavy Metal's previous analogy of the termed "fixed buttstock" in it's colloquial use and in context of laws that exist in California which still don't allow for adjustable stocks or folding stocks. It is possible it just means non-adjustable stock which is plausible given Bob the Great's interpretation.
It also makes sense with the added language in subsection 2.(b). I think they just want to register the folding guns or guns with folding grips. Time will tell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2015 11:37:04 AM EDT
[#26]
For those making the contention this is AR - check out the Ruger Charger 22, and then apply the interpretation.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/first-look/first-look-new-ruger-22-charger-pistol-22-charger-takedown/ How is it affected? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2015 11:47:39 AM EDT
[#27]
AR-15 pistol, Draco, Thompson Contender, Thompson Encore, Remington XP-100, Weatherby CFP, Ruger Charger, Savage Striker and I'm sure a host of others would be affected equally if affixed means a permanent part of the receiver vs. fixed in position (non-adjustable).
That's why it's very unlikely to mean a permanent part of the receiver. They'd turn Grandpa's single shot, 7-30 Waters into an NFA firearm. That's just not going to happen in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2015 10:42:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AR-15 pistol, Draco, Thompson Contender, Thompson Encore, Remington XP-100, Weatherby CFP, Ruger Charger, Savage Striker and I'm sure a host of others would be affected equally if affixed means a permanent part of the receiver vs. fixed in position (non-adjustable). That's why it's very unlikely to mean a permanent part of the receiver. They'd turn Grandpa's single shot, 7-30 Waters into an NFA firearm. That's just not going to happen in my opinion. It would extend far beyond just AR and AK pistols, that's for sure. I tend to think the ATF wouldn't try to bite off that much, but then I never thought they would try to ban M855 either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2015 9:13:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Seems the easy solution is to drill a hole once you tighten the screw on the grip to lower, you drill hole through the frame and screw and pin it. That would make it permanent fixed to lower receiver.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2015 9:17:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Now based on this new ruling they plan on making. Having a polymer for a lower on a pistol will not work on permanent fix the grip to the receiver.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2015 12:09:18 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now based on this new ruling they plan on making. Having a polymer for a lower on a pistol will not work on permanent fix the grip to the receiver. Why? you could definitely melt or other wise glue two similar plastics together.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2015 11:41:24 AM EDT
[#32]
If you can pin a flash hider permanently you can "fix" a grip that would require equally destructive results. A simple torque to yield grip screw that twists it's head off leaving a flat topped fastener could do that. You'd have to drill it out to change the grip.
That's why we have holes and studs on one handed knives - which work better than swiitchblades - and pump AR15's, which make the AWB nearly impotent with it's visual ban. The ingenuity of man will always overcome the politics of ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2015 2:25:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now based on this new ruling they plan on making. Having a polymer for a lower on a pistol will not work on permanent fix the grip to the receiver. Where ya get that particular rumor? That would nix any polymer framed pistols, which of course comprise the majority of them. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 4:19:06 PM EDT
[#34]
Until someone sends me a letter informing me i'm wrong, i'll continue to do just what i'm doing...i'm sick of trying trolling every gun, news, and or government website trying to figure out if i'm legal or not...In order for a massive change like this to take place, and people to be prosecuted there would need to be major notifications. i'll just wait.
I'll just keep plinking. And no, i wont be sorry when i "take a vacation in club fed"....DERRRPPP! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2015 11:41:14 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with you, hope I’m wrong. What about the people that already own AR/AK pistols, would they all become felons or will they be grandfathered? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't see them backing down or walking away with their tail between their legs. I agree with you, hope I’m wrong. What about the people that already own AR/AK pistols, would they all become felons or will they be grandfathered? Honestly, who gives a shit. If they want to get stupid about it then they can go have fun trying to enforce it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 7:44:41 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honestly, who gives a shit. If they want to get stupid about it then they can go have fun trying to enforce it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't see them backing down or walking away with their tail between their legs. I agree with you, hope I’m wrong. What about the people that already own AR/AK pistols, would they all become felons or will they be grandfathered? Honestly, who gives a shit. If they want to get stupid about it then they can go have fun trying to enforce it.  |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
