I was checking this accessory by Frontier Arms for the EXP-556 which allows the use of a 30-rnd mag as a "cheekweld device":

https://newfrontierarmory.com/shop/tactimount-exp-mounting-body/

And was wondering if a more sturdy mag holder such as the one made by MAKO/Fab Defense was bolted to the receiver back end would cause any problems with the ATF?

Something like this:

http://www.themakogroup.com/foregrips/m16-m4-ar-15-quick-release-front-grip-and-magazine-holder.html

Does each method of attachment have to be individually approved if used as a "cheekweld device" or whatever they call them? Or could I mount a small picatinny rail on the back end of the EXP-556 and mount the MAKO grip to hold a magazine instead of the Frontier Armory device?

With the latest brace letter, BATFE seems to be saying if it quacks like a stock, it is a stock.  There's two ways to find out - write a letter to Tech Branch, & wait for months, or try it & see if you end up in a court case.  Try not to lose.  

They are now saying you can't rest your cheek on the brace?

No, just that you can't use it as a stock.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

How would something bolted below and extending down from the RE be used as an aid for a cheekweld?



Y'all need to stop pushing it or we will loose AR pistols altogether.

It's as easy as declaring them a non-sporting firearm.

Umm, where are you finding that regulatory authority?

Isn't that basically what happened with the Street Sweeper, USAS, etc?
They were legal one day and the ATF decided they were "non sporting destructive devices" the next.

They'll try and figure away into the power granted them by CGA68 to limit importation of non-sporting arms.

They did it to the Spas12 and street sweepers. Of course those actually were imported.



 

Come on guys.....NONE of us here will be able to legitimately answer your legal questions about "shouldering" or "cheeking" your pistols.  Read the letters from the ATF and do what you will.  I can just hear you explaining it to the judge.......

"but, your Honor.....this one guy on ARFcom said I could shoot it like that..."

WOW....the lunacy here in the pistol section is getting DEEP.  I have got to learn to stay away from the pistol section.  I used to be a fan of the "work arounds" but now they just makes idiots of us all.

All they have to do is declare they are not designed to be fired with one hand. After all, they have a handguard, you know, for your other hand.

- OS

Only handguns are identified by a design to be fired by one hand.  That's not a constraint for pistols.  As much as everyone likes to think a handgun and a pistol are the same, they are not.  If they were, the definitions would be the same.   There is no design constraint for identifying a pistol by how it's fired.   I keep mentioning this but folks seem to have trouble with English construction.   The ATF is very clever when they include both definitions but if you read carefully, they know this as well by how they construct their answers.   You'll also notice when it comes to making, the handgun definition never makes it into those legal proceedings.  That's because handguns aren't made, only pistols.

Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand...





And what the heck does this mean? "That's because handguns aren't made, only pistols." If they are not made they don't exist so why define them?



(i)
        Make
       

You have some 'splainin to do.
 

OMG only on the internet and halls of Congress . . .

Firing ANY weapon with two hands isn't illegal. And if it is made illegal then all cops, agents, and soldiers would have to go back to Olympic style shooting.

As for a mag holder on the back of the gun it was suggested last year or so. IIRC if I didn't I should have clicked post, if not the same thread about a cheekrest modification to allow a rear mounted hand stop or something mounted on a rail - it was only meant as a smart workaround. Which the ATF figured out. They aren't stupid.

Their letter shooting it down in flames mentioned that it would create a "flat vertical surface" which could be held to the shoulder. The end of the buffer tube isn't - at least not enough for them. Point being, everyone is trying to get a shoulder stock on a pistol to keep from paying for a Stamp, instead of writing letters to their Congressman and generally working to rescind the .34 NFA.

The workaround isn't necessary.

Trying to put a stock on a pistol isn't needed. It's a pistol. 5.56 doesn't have enough recoil to deserve a stock, it's merely an aid for more precise aiming. The pistol - for that matter, the MK18 and it's ancestors all the way back to 1965 weren't meant for sniper shooting, they are used for close quarters combat. Ship boarding, townhouse executions, etc. It's a 2MOA gun used on 18MOA targets at close range. Not a bughole shooter.

Don't hold it out away from the body, hold it closer and support it with the arms down against the rib cage. Use a sling. Do something about the lack of stock and what little stabilizing it needs to line up the sights. Enjoy it for what it is.

Learning how to use it accurately is a lot better workaround than dreaming up some scheme to poke the ATF. But - it's your life.

Hot linking

https://newfrontierarmory.com/shop/tactimount-exp-mounting-body/


http://www.themakogroup.com/foregrips/m16-m4-ar-15-quick-release-front-grip-and-magazine-holder.html

Congress yanked their ability to put shotguns on the non-sporting list.  There isn't a non-sporting list for pistols, so BATFE doesn't have that regulatory authority.  There's a point system for importing pistols, which is why all our small pistols are made domestically.  Like any good bureaucrat, BATFE is constantly trying to expand their authority, but don't yell fire when there isn't one.

However, a firearm designed, made, or remade to be held with two hands is by definition not a handgun.

So if ATF (perhaps urged by an Executive Order?) wanted to claim such for AR/AK handguns, the alternatives are few.

- OS

We'd just take the forward handguards off.  

New industry: the heatproof AR/AK pistol mitten.

- OS

We just got Open Carry in Texas, and a new sign - the 30-07 sign prohibiting Open Carry.  I'm thinking of the 30-07 gun sock.  

They don't have the regulatory authority to reclassify a firearm based on how it is fired either, but here we are.

My point is if the trend to skirt the NFA are not stopped it will lead to reclassification, if not elimination, of the AR pistol.

Legal or not.





 

Y'all let things fester too much. Gun laws aren't passed in a vacuum at state level, and Texas is a good example. Open carry is now an option.

In MO you can with permit open carry an AR15 pistol, and hunt two seasons with it. BUT you can only carry a two inch double bladed knife with handle 90 degrees to the blade openly, only if permit licensed. Obviously a very old push dagger law makes them far more eeeevil than an AR pistol with 30 round mag loaded with 77gr OTM.

Go figure.

We can all shoot any handgun with two hands. Worry more about why you got stopped by your local LEO or deputy and his interpretation. It's going to take some really stupid decisions on our part to even elevate the situation to the attention of the ATF. Shooting with two hands is far less likely to involve anyone - we have the whole "hold it to your shoulder" issue taking precedence. Since February there have been about 6 posts of pistol owners getting harassed on ranges and escorted off. Nobody is getting harassed for shooting one with two hands.

Since it is a "pistol" by legal definition then how it would be attacked is to make it NOT a pistol Shooting a pistol with two hands is completely legal How they make it not a pistol? Well people keep trying to add stocks to them and poke the bear.

It's the cute illegal workarounds that keep pistols in the limelight, not the two handed shooters. Focus on reality. All the two armed shooters are what screwed things up with the Brace. it was meant for paraplegics, but NOOOOOoooooo, everybody had to dogpile on it and now what?

Complete lack of discipline in a selfish exhibition of not thinking things thru.

All a stock does is stabilize the rear sight. The front still waves around. Figure it out and do something else. Overcome a minor bit of adversity and use a 2MOA gun on 18MOA targets under 100m for what it is.

Want a challenge? Take your pistol to a range with 400m metal gong, standing, and hit it without the buffer tube touching the shoulder, Post pics. YOU CAN. Just keep trying.

Then you are setting a standard. Beats debating the legal aspects - the ATF doesn't want you to have specifics, entirely why they are fighting a FOIA about the 30 file cabinets of letters they have. None are searchable online, ya know. TMI as far as they are concerned, they rule by being confusing and as noninformative as possible.

Worry about the .Gov tracking down TM owners as terrorists under ITAR.

It's a wonder I ever see aluminum foil on sale buying tactical ammo at Walmart.

This little phrase you keep posting is only adding to the perception that the firearm is made for nothing more than shooting people.

Please stop.



 

Actually, the SIG brace debacle had precedent in over 26" AOWs.  An over 26" "other firearm" becomes an AOW if concealed.  So there is precedent under the NFA for BATFE to classify a firearm differently based on use.

The phrase "skirting the NFA" implies the NFA has greater power than it actually wields.  Someone claiming that some action is a loophole in the law, such as the so-called "gun show loophole," is simply claiming that such action is legal, but they wish it to be illegal.

Let us explore the NFA's nooks & crannies w/ all our wit.  If we cannot defeat it legislatively, let us defeat it judicially.  If we cannot defeat it judicially, let us defeat it technologically.

Nolo's lawsuit is one step towards defeating it judicially.  The bump-fire stock is a technological attempt.  OP's attempt is a technological attempt, albeit I happen to think it will fare poorly against the regulatory hurdles in the way.

One opinion by the ATF does not make a precedent for another one. There is no ruling that concealing a "firearm" makes it an AOW. It is just the interpretation of the ATF and is itself without precedent.



 

It may well be w/o judicial precedent.  However, BATFE is the assigned regulatory body for the NFA, and their interpretations carry the weight of law unless overturned by a court.  Sucks, but that's where we are legally @ the moment.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.   I think that's a pretty good prediction.  

Going back to pistol vs. handgun,  my opinion is that the handgun definition wasn't created to identify guns that are made but only to regulate the transfer of certain pistols.  The handgun definition doesn't include actually making one.  It does include assembling one from parts but no where in the definition does it ever reference making one as does all the other definitions.  So handguns are never "made".  Only pistols are made, and from that made group of pistols certain ones are regulated as handguns (the ones that are designed to be fired by the use of a single hand).  

Your still not getting the definition of a pistol:

"Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..."

I fail to see where you can conclude that all pistols do not need to fit this definition. If it doesn't fit the definition it isn't a pistol.



The term Handgun is a category of firearms, not a firearm definition.

All pistols are handguns, but not all handguns are pistols.

Revolvers are not pistols but are Handguns.
 

Actually ATF opinions/interpretations do not carry the weight of law. ATF rulings do.

However the 26" concealability limit, the concealed 26" =AOW and even this brace are just opinions and are not rules.



This said, the opinions are not to be taken lightly. Although not a rule, opinions and interpretations are heavily weighed in court cases. I won't be surprised one bit if some of these opinions make it through the Administrative Law process into actual rules.  



 

I disagree.  Pistol is a category of firearms and handgun is sub category created to regulate certain pistols.  All handguns are pistols but not all pistols are regulated as handguns because while all handguns are pistols not all pistols are designed to be fired by the use of a single hand.  Pistols can be held in one hand and fired but their design isn't necessarily limited to being fired by the use of a single hand.  That's why pistols can have a provision for the off hand such as a barrel shroud.  It's the only possible way pistols can be allowed to have a design that can be fired by both hands.   If this wasn't the case, any pistol with a barrel shroud would not be a pistol.  

You have it backwards. Pistol is a sub category of Handguns. If it were otherwise the 4473 that is used to transfer the firearm would have a check box for pistols and revolvers.

But there is only check boxes for long guns (shotguns and rifles) Handguns (pistols and revolvers) or other (frames,receivers...). NFA are transferred on form 4.



You still have not answered where in the pistol definition a pistol can be designed to fired with anything other than one hand.

"Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..."
 

It seems that Samuel Colt, The NRA and even William Shakespeare would disagree with you....


From Guns and Ammo.....


One authoritative source, The NRA Firearms Sourcebook, defines a pistol as “a generic
term for a hand-held firearm. Often used more specifically to refer to a single-shot, revolver
or semi-automatic handgun.”

Then there’s the historical record. Though there’s debate over whence the term “pistol” arose,
by the late 16th century it was commonly used to describe any hand-held gun. It even
appeared in works by William Shakespeare. Then along came Samuel Colt, who described
his cylinder-firearm invention as a “revolving pistol.”

“Pistol” was an established part of the vernacular long before the semi-auto handgun.
Therefore it’s safe to say all handguns are pistols, and all pistols are handguns.

Well, the form is actually incomplete because at the moment handguns are not regulated any different than pistols and revolvers so they just lump them all together.  However, let's assume that the importation requirements on handguns vs. pistols  was applied interstate.  Then you'd see the form changed to reflect the subcategory of handgun so that pistols that were designed to be fired by the use of a single hand could be transferred in their subcategory.  

And once again, handguns are not made.  You don't make a handgun because make is not part of the definition of handgun.  Once you understand that only pistols are made, then you would know that there would be no reason to regulate the transfer of handguns if they were the same.  You would only regulate the transfer of pistols and revolvers.  

As for the definition, words matter.  Pistol and handgun are not the same definition.  This is plain English.  If they meant the same, they would be defined the same.  Once you understand they are not the same, then you must analyze why they are different.  And the difference is in the narrow scope of handgun which are only those pistols which are designed to be fired by the use of a single hand.  That's very exclusionary in it's construction versus the broad language used for making pistols.

It's like talking to a rock. There is no mention of make or made or built or manufactured or any other way produce a firearm in the definition of a firearm. Does that mean there are no firearms? That pistols, rifles, revolvers and shot guns are not firearms?





You still have yet to show were a pistol can fit the definition of a pistol if it is designed to be fired by more than one hand as you claim.


Yes words do have meanings, often many different meanings depending on how they are used. You seem to pick one that fits your fantasy world and just keep running with it.

 

Generic use does not equate to legally defined term.
This is the legal definition of a pistol:
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and
having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently
aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped
by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the
bore(s).
A revolver does not have "a chamber(s) as an integral part of, or permanently aligned with, the the bore(s)." The chamber on a revolver is cylinder which revolves around to align with the bore. It is not permanently aligned to or an integral part of the bore.
It does not meat the definition of a pistol.
 

What I've never really understood is exactly how the relatively simple laws by comparison in USC legally become the extremely detailed "explanation" of them in the CFR.

Nowhere is this more pronounced than in 18 USC 921, where the firearm definitions are, and the corresponding 27 CFR 478.11.

For example, in the USC, there is only a definition of "handgun", and not "pistol" or "revolver". Yet magically in the CFR there is not only that, but also definitions for "pistol", "revolver", and even pistols included as "assault weapons".

This seems somehow all left over from the AWB verbiage, but since that was excised from the USC, I fail to see how it remains in the CFR. Maybe someone can explain that?

- OS

Make. This term and the various derivatives [that would be made, making, remade, remaking, those are derivatives] thereof shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this part), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.  

You'll find make (made) all over title 27.  You won't find handgun there, though.

Logic can be a difficult process especially when it comes to syntax and construction.  Since handgun is limited to designs fired by the use of a single hand, one could conclude that perhaps other designs could exist which wouldn't meet that criteria.  The language in the pistol definition does not preclude those designs.  In fact, nothing in the pistol definition actually speaks of how a gun is fired. It speaks of a design by which a cartridge is fired.  It never talks about firing the gun with one hand.  It only speaks of holding the gun in one hand.  

Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

"When held in one hand" does not mean fired by the use of a single hand.  We know this because of the handgun definition.  There would be no need for the handgun definition if it meant pistol.  That is a logic progression.  If you cannot process that, I doubt you'll ever be able to understand the concept I'm presenting.  Lastly, we know there are pistols that can be held in one hand and fired by the off hand.  The only way they can exist is if the pistol definition is broad enough to encompass that concept.

?? Same in 27 CFR as in 18 USC:

"Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(b) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in paragraph (a) can be assembled."




??  Handgun definition in both USC and CFR includes:

" ... a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand..."

- OS

oops, meant to edit, not quote

You are the one overlooking the syntax and construction. "..intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand," This is exactly how it is constructed. The firing of a projectile when held in one hand is the way the pistol is fired. If there were a comma or semicolon somewhere in that sentence then its meaning could be ambiguous.  But there is not. It's meaning is very clear; a pistol is meant to be fired with one hand.



As for the sub category thing, both the pistol and the revolver meet the definition outlined in the term handgun. The term pistol does not meet the definition of revolver or the revolver a pistol. Therefore pistol and revolver are subsets of Handgun. If it is as you say then either the pistol or the revolver would not be a handgun as they could not proceed through the definition to the subset. The catagory of handgun cannot exist in two different subsets.



 

It makes it a bit easier when you consider the USC as Judicial laws as passed by Congress, where the CFR is administrative law via rulemaking by a government agency of a specific regulatory agenda.
In short the USC is the law congress passed, the CFR is the rules by the ATF for the administration of that law. Both are valid and legal.
 

I understand what they are, just not how the CFR gets codified, guess I'll have to research that. Case in point though, is that there is a lot of stuff in the CFR that is not even hinted at in the USC. The entire "assault rifle" section for example. To my knowledge, the term does not appear anywhere in USC at all.

- OS

"The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) annual edition is the codification
of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by
the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. It is divided
into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation.
The 50 subject matter titles contain one or more individual volumes,
which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis. The
annual update cycle is as follows:  titles 1-16 are revised as of
January 1; titles 17-27 are revised as of April 1; titles 28-41 are
revised as of July 1; and titles 42-50 are revised as of October 1. Each
title is divided into chapters, which usually bear the name of the
issuing agency. Each chapter is further subdivided into parts that cover
specific regulatory areas. Large parts may be subdivided into subparts.
All parts are organized in sections, and most citations to the CFR
refer to material at the section level."



The Federal Register is the official journal of the federal government of the United States that contains government agency rules, proposed rules, and public notices. It is published daily, except on federal holidays. The final rules promulgated by a federal agency and published in the Federal Register are ultimately reorganized by topic or subject matter and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is updated annually.



LINK



LINK2



Those should bewilder you a bit.

Good luck.



 

No, the little phrase I keep posting is to get the kids to understand exactly what the pistol will do, in terms a paper sharpshooter uses to explain relative accuracy. And, you know it. MOA is not a killing term. Describing a target as being 18MOA means describing it's size to understand how big a normal target is in general use.

Here's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=QG6z7GkK_zg

But since you asked - just what ARE firearms built to do? The M1 Garand wasn't built to shoot on a mowed range in long distance competition, it was designed to kill people, nothing more or less. Yet the Garand generation doesn't question it - It's celebrated for doing the job a lot better than it actually does.


Firearms are made to shoot people And worrying about how it's perceived is somewhat late to the game - the antigunners really don't need any incentive to call them killing machines. They already do and it's too late.

I have no problem with the AR pistol I built - I intend to use it hunting deer, same at the .30-30 Win 94 Saddle Ring Carbine, or HK91, or Remington 700, or AR15 in 6.8 I built. This particular pistol, tho, uses iron sights.

Heres the comparison, tho - I DO plan to use the pistol to kill animals. Now, if you equip a pistol with a 2 MOA red dot scope, laser, and light, what is the purpose of that? The red dot is used to acquire a target rapidly - and the DOD issues them to shoot people with them. Units equip them with lasers to specifically narrow the target zone on a person, and they use the light to ID friend or foe.

The light and laser, tho, are generally banned by regulation from use in hunting game animals in season. There must be some other purpose for them - and the purpose it to target and shoot people.

MOST handguns originated from the need for protection against others who would assault them and their defense was to shoot people if necessary. It's why literally millions of police carry and use them.

I don't understand why it's being questioned as if nobody is supposed to talk about it.

Was Golden Saber and Critical Defense ammunition designed to improve competition scores - or to improve the ballistic result of shooting live targets?

Was the AR pistol invented just for shooting people? In reality, no. It actually was meant and is largely a range toy, just like it detractors say it is. A small minority like me actually hunt with it - but if people need to be shot, the weapon of choice by the Armed Forces and most PD's is the M16 or M4 - with lights and lasers on them. Not the AR pistol. Not hardly.

Of course, that is what I was trained, taught, and paid to do for 22 years USAR. I have no delusions about what a firearms actually does - and as for the 2A, I don't see people interpreting it correctly. It's not "The right to keep and bear arms," it's "the Right to keep and bear weapons." Our founding fathers used edged and impact weapons long before firearms became reliable enough to trust.

The military standard is 2MOA to shoot at 18MOA targets - if the AR pistol shooter would at least try, just like in the video, he won't need to create a ludicrous legal workaround for a stock. We don't need them and we don't really need to pretend all the SBR's are meant for peaceful purposes. Not with lights and lasers on them.

They are specifically intended to kill. The AR pistol is used to a much less degree for that.

I would agree that's the interpretation that existed prior to handgun.  I think there was an assumption that held in one hand meant fired with one hand.  That changed with the handgun definition which made it very clear that designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand was different.  We know it's different because it's not the pistol definition and is more restrictive in it's design constraints.

The question would be can a gun be fired without holding it at all.  Obviously, the answer is yes.  

And one last question, assuming you remove the tripod is this a handgun?

http://www.centerfiresystems.com/rifle-1919-308.aspx

The reason I ask is because I guarantee I could fire the 1919 when held in one hand, but there's no chance I could hold and fire it with a single hand.  

The Semi auto version of the 1919 is a classified as a firearm, not a pistol or a rifle.


It is not designed made or intended to be shoulder fired or with one hand.





It is only restricted by OAL.
Again, by US legal definition, pistol and revolver are sub categories of handgun.


Rifles and shotguns are sub categories of longgun.


Long guns and hand guns are sub categories of firearm.





This is fact and there is no disputing it. Your argument is baseless.


You don't have to believe me, call the ATF and ask them.
But just to play your game, if I grab the 1919 with my right hand am I not holding it? If I then use my index finger of my right hand to activate the trigger am I not firing it? So it seems I can hold and fire it with a single hand, why can't you?



"Fired when held in one hand" and "hold and fire with a single hand" has the same meaning.



Now just to throw a monkey wrench into your whole theory, you do know that the definition of both handgun and pistol were codified at the same time, don't you?

There's no "firearm" on the 4473, you know ... the 4473.  I supposed you'd like to say it's an "other" and you know that's incorrect as well.  

And you know hold doesn't mean put your hand on it.  It means picking the damn thing up.  You know that and I know that.  

The only way a barrel shroud can exist on a pistol is if it's not a handgun.  You know it, I know it and the ATF knows it.  That's why handgun is never argued in pistol and revolver litigation unless it's specifically talking about transferring.  Making is always pistol or revolver.  

All this is hypothetical, obviously.  I like my argument and nothing that I've read invalidates it.  I know English and those two phrases are different, they just are.  If they weren't different, they'd say the same thing.   You can't get around that.  

I respect your opinion, though.  But, the 1919 Semi is a pistol and not a handgun.  I could chop it below 26" overall and it's still a pistol and not a handgun.  Something to think about.

Firearm is a definition not a checkbox on a 4473 although the "other firearms" checkbox is exactly what that is for.
Question 18.  Type of Firearm(s):  Check all boxes that apply.



"Other”refers to frames, receivers and other firearms that are not either



handguns or long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel



a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms.
Your also wrong about the 1919 you linked to. The 1919a4 is a firearm NOT a pistol. It is subject to the 11% FET and it transfers on a 4473 as "other". If you chop it below 26'OAL and it is an AOW.
https://www.atf.gov/file/83661/download





Also:





http://www.thompsonmachine.net/img/1919/1919letter.jpg
 

Cool, then an AR-15 pistol is a portable weapon and not a handgun or a pistol.   I'm not seeing where a 1919 below 26" is an AOW.  I missed that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/53.11

Really? What do you think the last link is referring to?





http://www.thompsonmachine.net/img/1919/1919letter.jpg





Read the end of the last paragraph(not the last line). What do you suppose the "NFA provisions would be applicable if the over all length totaled less than 26 inches"  is referring to?
Yes a pistol is considered a portable weapon.  Did you even read the links I posted. That is in the first one.
You might want to read the definition of a pistol in the link you posted too:
Pistols. Small projectile firearms
which have a short one-hand stock or butt at an angle to the line of
bore and a short barrel or barrels, and which are designed, made, and
intended to be aimed and fired from one hand. The term does not include
gadget devices, guns altered or converted to resemble pistols, or small portable guns erroneously referred to as pistols, as, for example, Nazi belt buckle pistols, glove pistols, or one-hand stock guns firing fixed shotgun or fixed rifle ammunition.
Explain the part I have in bold. What stupid twist do you give to "intended to be aimed and fired from one hand"?
You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your arguments are foolish and ill conceived. Even when proven wrong you continue. I'm done with you. Welcome to my ignore list.





Oh wait, I forgot your not a member, you don't have an ignore button or ignore list. I'll explain, slowly so you can understand it, I place you on my ignore list and "poof" your posts no longer show up to me.





Well......Bye.
 



 

I'll admit that sentence you refer to is vague.  If you think it means "any other weapon", that's fine.  But that's not what it says.  

I'll also admit that description of pistol is new to me.  I find it interesting it's never used in litigation.  There must be a reason for that.

It's also fine that you can live in a world where pistols with barrel shrouds are allowed at the whim of an agency and not based on statute.  I believe they exist based on statute.  I will not accept their existence because it's just not something that's enforced.  I refuse to live in a kangaroo culture.

That's fine if you wish not to read what I post. I miss you already.  

i just was about to take my pistol to the range thinking all this crap had died down.

now were back to threads full of people playing solicitor.


This country needs NFA reform, and is full of starch.