Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/20/2006 3:42:02 PM EDT
I have been wanting to do a transfer here in Illinois for AOW's. They are legal here and only require a $5 transfer tax. Anyone interested in this IM me.
Doug
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 3:43:45 PM EDT
Details??
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 4:41:58 PM EDT
I didnt think those were transferable to private individuals in this state, but would love to be wrong with proof.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 5:18:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 5:19:33 PM EDT by P08]

Originally Posted By FAL:
Details??


Go to the MOSSBERGweb site It is this gun.

If you read the state laws it mentions SBR, SBS, MG's but not AOW's. So what is not illeagal in ok to own. There is a guy who goes by the handle Panzerfaust in southern Il. who has a few of them.

You will need to fill out paperwork, fingerprints, photo and $5 for the tax stamp. The process used to take months ever up to a year, but with the staff change at NFA things are going much smoother.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 9:28:32 PM EDT
From 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7)

(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches;

The Mossberg you linked to has a barrel of 14", and by statute is not legal.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 3:53:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CavReconScout:
From 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7)

(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches;

The Mossberg you linked to has a barrel of 14", and by statute is not legal.



You are quite wrong there. An AOW by definition is NOT a shotgun! It is considered a smooth bore pistol. On top of that NFA will not transfer a gun that is illegal to own in that state. As a Class 3 dealer I did check into things before I opened my mouth about selling them.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 5:23:10 AM EDT
OK I give up.

What the hell does AOW stand for any way???
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 5:58:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jm03:
OK I give up.

What the hell does AOW stand for any way???



Any Other Weapon= Any novelty gun ie: pen, flashlight, cane gun etc. This also covers smoothbore pistols that were never made into a shotgun (butt stock). Also legal in illinois are DD's Destructive Devices. This would be the Street Sweeper, USAS 12 semi auto, cannons, grenades etc..
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 8:51:34 AM EDT
OK, I'll bite. Show me the statue that defines them as legal.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:16:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CavReconScout:
OK, I'll bite. Show me the statue that defines them as legal.



Actually, show me the statute that specifically says that they are illegal. There isn't one that addresses AOW's therefore if they are not illegal then they must be legal to own. Hence the NFA approving transfers to Illinois residents. Do not fall into the trap where things that are legal are spelled out that they are such! Firearms laws do not state what is legal; rather they spell out what is not legal.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:24:59 AM EDT
Ok, so that means that you can sell to me grenades?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:34:42 AM EDT
Actually I cannot, but a DD dealer could. They are considered DD's and would require a $200 transfer tax per item. Of course BATFE would want to know why you wanted one and lacking a valid reason would probably deny the transfer. Post your question on Sturmgewher addressed to Panzerfaust. He has 3-4 AOW's and is in Southern Illinois.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:46:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By P08:

Actually, show me the statute that specifically says that they are illegal.

I already did that, see above. So you are going to try to argue in court (soon I would guess) that the 14" barrelled Mossberg pistol grip you linked to is not a shotgun? Or was not or could not be readily converted from a shotgun?

I think I understand what you are trying to say here, but I think you are using the wrong examples. I do not think you will win in court with the Mossberg, and I think it would be a prosecuters wet dream. Also, if you check the "Dangerous Weapons" Article 24 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes you will see that grenades are specifically mentioned and illegal.

Now on the other hand, if you are trying to "push the envelope" with a test case, I wish you good luck. I think it is bullshit that we cannot pay the tax and own SBRs, F/As, etc.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:51:13 AM EDT
No, a DD dealer couldn't. As I wrote above, grenades are specifically mentioned in Article 24, and are NOT legal to own. Under Federal law I can pay the $200 transfer fee etc., but still can not own them by Illinois law.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 10:19:36 AM EDT
Pictured above is an AOW. Not a "shotgun".

It just so happens to fire shotshells. Since it was never made into a SBS (came straight from Mossberg as an AOW) it should be legal here.

If you read, they don't say AOW's are illegal. We all know that it's a Mossberg shotgun with a short barrel and a pistol grip. But it's a registered AOW, negating any reference to a shotgun in the eyes of the law.

You could use your same logic for AR pistols too. "They could easily be converted". So? The person that owns it should know the consequeces for doing so and NOT DO IT. Same with that AOW. Someone COULD put a shoulder stock on it and magically turn it into a SBS (that's all you'd have to do for an AR pistol, too) but the person that owns it should know that they're putting their own ass on the line and committing a felony if they do that, and should avoid it at all costs.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 10:38:55 AM EDT
Wizzo, AOW is a Federal definition, it is not a firearm category under Il statute. And an AR-15 pistol is registered by the dealer selling it as a "handgun".

How about we do this. I can supply lots of case law from Illinois regarding prosecutions of "short barreled shotguns", rifles, etc. that the defendant lost. What I would like to see is ANY case law regarding short barrelled rifles, shotguns, etc. where the defendant won. Because that is were the rubber meets the road, and until it is defined by case law it is merely speculation on our part as to what the statute means.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 10:58:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CavReconScout:
What I would like to see is ANY case law regarding short barrelled rifles, shotguns, etc. where the defendant won.



There's the thing. It's not a SBS, SBR, etc., it's an AOW and is registered as such.

I don't know, I can see where you're coming from, but I can't accurately get my thoughts into text right now.

Gotta get to class,

WIZZO
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:14:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 11:23:12 AM EDT by Kalahnikid]
Hmmm.......my 21st is coming up. Applying for an AOW would be way better than buying a pistol!

Group buy?!
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:26:00 AM EDT
Okay here's my past experience. Back in the mid-eighties I was a class 3 dealer. I bought and had legally transfered a Thompson 1928 from a local police officer. The explanation that I always got when I asked how can I own a sub-machine gun when it is expressly forbidden by Illinois statutes was that federal law trumped state law. When I dropped the class 3 FFL I sold the gun to another Class 3 dealer who was happy to be getting a pre '86 dealer sample.

If it is truly the case that the federal definition of AOW applies to that Mossberg and I can legally have one, SIGN ME UP! That would be one sweet little toy. I just need to make sure it's legal. Im'm not rich enough to be the test case.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:41:04 AM EDT
There is so much ignorance and stupidity in this thread that it's worth a tag.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:47:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 12:04:25 PM EDT by U_Down_Wit_OPP]

Originally Posted By CavReconScout:
OK, I'll bite. Show me the statue that defines them as legal.



Originally Posted By CavReconScout: It is not a firearm category under Il statute.


That is spectacularly ignorant.
Laws are not permissive in nature, they're restrictive. That statement right there belies your own fundamental lack of understanding about "how laws work".

The burden is now on you. Unless you can cite an Illinois statute that specifically prohibits firearms federally classified as AOW's or Smooth Bore Pistols or a statute using a unique classification of smoothbore pistols that is native to Illinois, you are just blathering typical "gun show" ignorance.


So you are going to try to argue in court (soon I would guess) that the 14" barrelled Mossberg pistol grip you linked to is not a shotgun? Or was not or could not be readily converted from a shotgun?


He is correct in that those AOWs are not a "shotguns", they're classified as smoothbore pistols. He wouldn't have to do much "arguing" of his position since Federal Law already codifies those guns as NOT being shotguns.
Even though they look like a "shotgun" when you look at them, due to the wording of Federal Law, they are Federally classified as NFA restricted smoothbore handguns.

It's one thing to be wrong; we’re all wrong at times… It's another to be enthusiastically ignorant as you are here.


I can supply lots of case law from Illinois regarding prosecutions of "short barreled shotguns", rifles, etc. that the defendant lost.


Which would be a total non-sequitor since we are not talking about illegal posession of "short barreled shotguns", we are talking about weapons classified under Federal Law as smooth bore pistols and their legality in the state of Illinois.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:51:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By P08: Of course BATFE would want to know why you wanted one and lacking a valid reason would probably deny the transfer.

Ignorance #2.
The ATF cannot deny a NFA transfer based on an intuitive, abstract feeling.
No where in the National Firearms Act or the DD addendums to the GCA is there anything that would outline what constitutes a "valid" reason.

People have been approved transfers for Destructive Devices by listing "To Fulfill The Desires Of My Inner Child" on the Form 4.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:07:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 12:10:11 PM EDT by U_Down_Wit_OPP]
Federal Definition


(e) Any other weaponThe term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, ....weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.


Basically, CavReconScout is arguing against Federal Law, the BATFE and every SOT manufacturer who have been making these for years.
He knows something about this law that they don't.
I'd love to hear it.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:28:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 2:33:41 PM EDT by silascobb]
I am not going to touch this thread with a 10 foot pole. Damn, I guess I already did.

Be advised that should the police, district attorney, judge, and jury disagree with your interpretation, you are talking Class III felony.

Edit:
Ok, I didn't think I would come across a definition of "shotgun" in either the statute (which is true) or the case law. But this is pretty close to going against the AOW interpretation:



People v. Stankovich, 20 Ill.App.3d 162, 313 N.E.2d 276 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)

In the case at bar it was adduced at an evidentiary hearing that defendant's 'Game Getter' was a firearm with a 12 inch, smooth bore barrel capable of firing shotgun shells. In Illinois the mere possession of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length subjects an individual to criminal liability. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 24--1(a)(7).)

The underlying rationale of this statute is that firearms of this nature are so inherently dangerous to human life that they constitute a hazard to society. (See Committee Comments to Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, art. 24.) In view of this clear expression of public policy, the trial judge was correct in holding that defendant's 'Game Getter' was an 'illegal' weapon. It is contraband Per se and consequently the court below had the authority to order that the gun be confiscated and destroyed. The order confiscating the gun and ordering its destruction is affirmed.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:07:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By silascobb:
I am not going to touch this thread with a 10 foot pole.

Be advised that should the police, district attorney, judge, and jury disagree with your interpretation, you are talking Class III felony.

Edit:
Ok, I didn't think I would come across a definition of "shotgun" in either the statute (which is true) or the case law. But this is pretty close to going against the AOW interpretation:



People v. Stankovich, 20 Ill.App.3d 162, 313 N.E.2d 276 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)

In the case at bar it was adduced at an evidentiary hearing that defendant's 'Game Getter' was a firearm with a 12 inch, smooth bore barrel capable of firing shotgun shells. In Illinois the mere possession of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length subjects an individual to criminal liability. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 24--1(a)(7).)

The underlying rationale of this statute is that firearms of this nature are so inherently dangerous to human life that they constitute a hazard to society. (See Committee Comments to Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, art. 24.) In view of this clear expression of public policy, the trial judge was correct in holding that defendant's 'Game Getter' was an 'illegal' weapon. It is contraband Per se and consequently the court below had the authority to order that the gun be confiscated and destroyed. The order confiscating the gun and ordering its destruction is affirmed.




They do not mention in what you posted if the "Game getter" was registered or not?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 2:01:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 2:15:24 PM EDT by U_Down_Wit_OPP]

Originally Posted By silascobb:



People v. Stankovich, 20 Ill.App.3d 162, 313 N.E.2d 276 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)

In the case at bar it was adduced at an evidentiary hearing that defendant's 'Game Getter' was a firearm with a 12 inch, smooth bore barrel capable of firing shotgun shells. In Illinois the mere possession of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length subjects an individual to criminal liability. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 24--1(a)(7).)

The underlying rationale of this statute is that firearms of this nature are so inherently dangerous to human life that they constitute a hazard to society. (See Committee Comments to Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, art. 24.) In view of this clear expression of public policy, the trial judge was correct in holding that defendant's 'Game Getter' was an 'illegal' weapon. It is contraband Per se and consequently the court below had the authority to order that the gun be confiscated and destroyed. The order confiscating the gun and ordering its destruction is affirmed.



Was Mr. Stankovich's Game Getter registered as an AOW in accordance with Federal Law?
If he had an illegal, unregistered game getter, that's one thing.

ETA P08 beat me to it.
As they say in school... Bad information sets bad precedence which makes bad laws. The abstract of that case screams that it was adjudicated by a bunch of people who really didn’t understand the law. In that respect, the only thing that’s apparent about People v. Stankovich is that no one understood the Federal Definitions of what constituted a “shotgun” and what constituted a “smooth bore pistol”, much as is the case with this very thread.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 2:25:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 2:32:15 PM EDT by silascobb]
AOW was not mentioned. Agreed that this case is not squarely on point because it is not deciding the issue of whether it was a shotgun or not b/c the defendant never raised that as a defense. I think you can assume with confidence that it was NOT a registered AOW (if any such thing even existed in 1974), but that -- IMHO -- misses the point.

An Illinois court is not going to be bound by federal definitions anyway (EDIT: UNLESS there is some preemption provision I am not aware of). The feds could say this is an AOW, and in IL it can still be a shotgun, if IL statute or case law says so. Ultimately, you are going to be at the mercy of the judicial system to come out in line with your interpretation. I wouldn't want to be in that situation personally, especially in THIS state, of all states.

Edit: Here's the full opinion.


People v. Stankovich, 20 Ill.App.3d 162, 313 N.E.2d 276 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)
*163 DRUCKER, Justice.
Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition to vacate an order for the destruction of a gun which had been seized by police at the time of his arrest for unlawful use of a weapon. (IllRev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 24-1(a).) He contends that the court below did not have the authority to issue such an order.

Defendant was arrested by the Evanston Police Department and prosecuted pursuant to an amended complaint alleging that he 'knowingly possessed a Game Getter shotgun * * * with a barrel length of less than 18 inches with the intent to use said weapon unlawfully against' Officer James Smith and two other individuals. The weapon was seized by arresting officers.

Found not guilty of the criminal charges, defendant sued for recovery of the gun. During the course of the recovery proceeding he discovered that in the criminal trial the court had ordered his gun destroyed.[FN1] He petitioned the court to 'delete the order of destruction to allow the pending civil action to proceed to a final determination of petitioner's right to the 'Game Getter." He alleged that the destruction order was erroneous as a matter of law.

FN1. The record does not indicate the present status of defendant's replevin action.

**278 A hearing was held on the petition at which time defendant called James Bell, Jr., a gunsmith, as an expert witness. Bell testified that the 'Game Getter' had two 12 inch barrels, that while the top barrel was rifled, the bottom barrel was not, and that the gun was capable of firing shotgun shells. He estimated that the weapon was over 50 years old and that fewer than 10,000 guns of this model had been manufactured. No other testimony was heard.

Noting that the length of the barrel and the bore determine whether a gun of this nature is 'legal ro illegal,' the court ruled that it was unlawful for defendant to possess the 'Game Getter' and denied defendant's petition and directed that the gun be destroyed.[FN2]


FN2. In making this determination, the court was apparently referring to Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 24--1(a)(7) which provides, in pertinent part, that:

'(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly;
'(7) * * * possesses or carries * * * any shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length * * *.'


Opinion
[1] It is defendant's contention that there is no authority for a court to confiscate a gun and order its destruction absent a showing that there *164 has been a conviction for unlawful use or unlawful possession of a weapon. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 24--6.)[FN3] We disagree.

FN3. This provision, dealing with the confiscation and destruction of weapons, states:

'(a) Upon conviction of a violation of Section 24--1 or Section 24--3.1 of this Article, any weapon seized shall be confiscated by the trial court.

'(b) * * * All other confiscated weapons when no longer needed for evidentiary purposes, shall in the discretion of the trial court, be destroyed, or preserved as property of the governmental body whose police agency seized the weapon.'

The circuit court is vested by the Constitution with plenary jurisdiction to adjudicate any justiciable matter. (Ill.Const., Art. VI, Sec. 9, S.H.A.) A destruction order, of course, is necessarily dependent upon the power to confiscate. Defendant does not deny that the grant of authority found in the Constitution extends to the power of a court to order the confiscation of articles of personal property it determines to be contraband Per se. (See People v. Moore, 410 Ill. 241, 102 N.E.2d 146; ch. Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 108--2.)

Per se contraband consists of those items whose possession alone constitutes a criminal offense. (One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170; People v. Moore; People v. Steskal, 55 Ill.2d 157, 302 N.E.2d 321.) Even if improperly seized, such articles need not be returned since to do so would frustrate a clear expression of public policy. United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59; One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania; People v. Steskal.

[7] In the case at bar it was adduced at an evidentiary hearing that defendant's 'Game Getter' was a firearm with a 12 inch, smooth bore barrel capable of firing shotgun shells. In Illinois the mere possession of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches in length subjects an individual to criminal liability. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 24--1(a)(7).)

The underlying rationale of this statute is that firearms of this nature are so inherently dangerous to human life that they constitute a hazard to society. (See Committee Comments to Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, art. 24.) In view of this clear expression of public policy, the trial judge was correct in holding that defendant's 'Game Getter' was an 'illegal' weapon. It is contraband Per se and consequently the court below had the authority to order that the gun be confiscated and destroyed. The order confiscating the gun and ordering its destruction is affirmed.
Affirmed.

SULLIVAN, P.J., and LORENZ, J., concur.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:39:58 PM EDT
Better have a good lawyer and lots of $$$ to blow on him if you are going to go that route. I'll pass.

I think the closest you get to an AOW in this state would be registering a pistol with a foregrip as an AOW.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 1:54:34 PM EDT
Cant we just write to the ATF to tell us if they are Il legal?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 2:04:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Cant we just write to the ATF to tell us if they are Il legal?



Nope. If you want a legal opinion on IL law, you need to contact the state's Attorney General's office.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 2:26:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By Kalahnikid:
Cant we just write to the ATF to tell us if they are Il legal?



Nope. If you want a legal opinion on IL law, you need to contact the state's Attorney General's office.



I thought of that first but I remember seeing a letter in the Conn. HTF from the federal ATF ruling on their state AWB regulating AKs in 762.

I love big government
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 2:48:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 2:51:59 PM EDT by U_Down_Wit_OPP]
There is one reply to this question on subguns.com.

Bear in mind, subguns.com is to NFA stuff what AR15.com is to AR15's and panzerfaust is a respected, long time member. These guys know every single detail about NFA laws down to the slightest.

http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=530181

This issue would resolve itself very simply by someone calling a SOT and asking them.
While your or my interpretation of the law might fall in one direction or the other, if they are approved transfers for these AOW's, they are legal.

Yes, ATF does predicate it's approvals on state laws. There are a number of instances where ATF has written to states for clarification before approval. An ATF Form 4 approval is a very, very affirmative defense to any "innovative" interpretations to state statutes that might arise later on.

Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:17:32 PM EDT
Thanks to all who are on my side in this matter. As it so happens I am a Class 3 FFL. I did take the time to read up on what can and cannot be done in Il. Panzerfaust is trying to get a SBR approved in Il. Using some type of angle with overall length and removing the butt stock when in state. Also some may know that he is a lawyer and quite knowledgeable.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:01:13 PM EDT
Obviously Im all for it, and Im sure we all are; but I just wouldnt feel comfortable without a signed letter from an Il Atty General and/or ATF before I started to process.

Keep us updated.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:06:56 PM EDT
Good luck guys. Maybe Panzerfaust has some legal authority he can cite you to?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:20:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By silascobb:
Good luck guys. Maybe Panzerfaust has some legal authority he can cite you to?



Is he a member here?
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 4:47:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 10:42:35 AM EDT by Illinigunner21]
at any rate, I would HATE to be the fucking test case for this...

ETA: I sure would like an AOW shotgun
Top Top