restriction on Puma Model 92 "Bounty Hunter", PT 2
In reference to "Part One":
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=413747
Nwcid,
quote:the ATF sucks and ALL gun laws are an infringement on our 2A rights if that was your point but I can not do anything to change them if I am locked in jail for breaking current laws.
No one claimed it was not a pistol, Bean asked a VERY good question about how this gun was not an NFA item.
I could stamp everyone of my rifles with pistol but legally that does not make them a pistol. On the other hand when was the last time you saw a "traditional" pistol like a 1911 or a Glock with "PISTOL stamped on the side? The word "PISTOL" does not in any way change what a gun is legally.
This gun IS a pistol because of the way it was manufactured and no other reason.
I agree with all of what you said. However, because this kind of pistol is now becoming more of a mainstream item, and there are repeated questions of its legality, I was pointing out that the Bounty Hunter is clearly labled for quick recognition to the uninitiated, whoever they may be. This video shows, though not very clearly, a copy of an ATF letter about the JB Custom version of the pistol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZrFQ9XhL4E&feature=fvw
I have no ill feelings toward anyone who asked questions about this gun, and I was not trying to be a wiseacre. I was trying to point out the markings to illustrate that they are marked as "pistols" That is all.[;)]
===============
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=413747
Nwcid,
quote:the ATF sucks and ALL gun laws are an infringement on our 2A rights if that was your point but I can not do anything to change them if I am locked in jail for breaking current laws.
No one claimed it was not a pistol, Bean asked a VERY good question about how this gun was not an NFA item.
I could stamp everyone of my rifles with pistol but legally that does not make them a pistol. On the other hand when was the last time you saw a "traditional" pistol like a 1911 or a Glock with "PISTOL stamped on the side? The word "PISTOL" does not in any way change what a gun is legally.
This gun IS a pistol because of the way it was manufactured and no other reason.
I agree with all of what you said. However, because this kind of pistol is now becoming more of a mainstream item, and there are repeated questions of its legality, I was pointing out that the Bounty Hunter is clearly labled for quick recognition to the uninitiated, whoever they may be. This video shows, though not very clearly, a copy of an ATF letter about the JB Custom version of the pistol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZrFQ9XhL4E&feature=fvwI have no ill feelings toward anyone who asked questions about this gun, and I was not trying to be a wiseacre. I was trying to point out the markings to illustrate that they are marked as "pistols" That is all.[;)]
===============
0
-
Well makes sense. As I pointed out in my first thread I was not exactly sure what your point was so I tried to be all inclusive.
Sound good [:)][:)][:)]0 -
OK, yes, in this case, I meant a "Short barrelled rifle", not an "AOW".
FWIW, I agree with NWCID. The manufacturer "pistol" markings on the gun are interesting, and I can see why they are on there, but I don't see how they mean anything in a legal sense. (I also agree that these guns are highly cool at $500, and not very cool at $1250!).
I mean, I can slap a Harley badge on my bicycle. . .that doesn't make it a motorcycle, does it?
I'm also not trying to be a wiseacre, but my question stands.
We have a handgun that has what looks like and potentially functions like a shoulder stock attached to it. So why isn't this a short-barreled rifle?
Note that the ATF letter quoted in the above you tube video DOES NOT address the issue of the stock. It just addresses the issue of the receiver.
Yes, you can legally build a non-NFA pistol from a virgin rifle receiver. This isn't new and we all know that. (EG AK-47 pistols, AR-15 pistols, Thompson semi-auto machine gun pistols, Ruger 10-22 "charger" pistols, etc).
The question is what about this STOCK (if anything) makes it legal as a pistol?
The guy in the video asserts that the pistol grip is too short to be used as a stock. Maybe. . .though it doesn't look that way to me. I bet you could shoot it from your shoulder if you wanted to. Is there an ATF advisory opinion on THIS issue?
Consider this. Lets say I were to take the EXACT SAME STOCK (pulled off of one of these guns, for example) and mount it to the butt of a 1911 pistol or a Glock.
Anyone think the ATF would let me get away with that? I don't. . .
If THAT isn't legal, then how can THIS be legal?0 -
Bean first off you are talking about the ATF here and most of the time sense does not come into play.
If you think about it there are 2 different kinds of AR pistols. There are the OA style that do not require a buffer tube then all the others that do. The ATF does not consider a buffer tube to be a stock, even though it can be used as such. With the buffer tubes it better be a straight tube with no stock (the part that goes over the tube per ATF) mounting options on it, ie straight tube with no screw hole in the back.
Here is where it gets tricky and runs at the whim of the ATF. In the case of this pistol the "stock" is the grip that " is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand" which is the KEY point here. In the case of a 1911 or Glock the grip is at a downward angle. If you redesigned a 1911 to feed a mag from the side and got rid of the "pistol" grip and put it at a similar angle to the Puma it would be legal.
Think about CA law where on AR's you have to pick the evil features you want. One of the ways the guys get around some stuff is to remove the "pistol" grip and put a wedge shape grip in there.
In the case of the 1911 adding a stock to the grip is adding a stock and making a SBR because now it is "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder"
Again this is legal because that IS the grip of the gun and it "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand" so it meets the legal definition of a pistol.
I agree that the "grip/stock" looks a bit long but the gun was NOT "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.0 -
With respect to getting this into California, not only are single ACTION revolvers exempt from the roster but single SHOT handguns are exempt - think of the T/C Encore and Contender as examples. However we also get AR and AKs into the state by having an out of state FFL fix a single shot sled in place of the magazine, once the gun is in state it is then legally configured to semi auto. It seems to me this gun could be converted to single shot by either removing the mag tube or plugging.
A CA resident may also receive a non-rostered handgun from an out of state family member (Mom or Dad only I believe) and of course LE can get this sent into CA from out of state.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Nwcid
Bean first off you are talking about the ATF here and most of the time sense does not come into play.
Oh. . .I don't expect "sense" from the ATF, I just expect *consistency*.
If the rules apply to one gun, they should apply to all guns of similar appearance and/or design.
You say the lever action pistol is designed to be fired from one hand?
I say (for the sake of argument) that its quite "obviously" a cut down rifle originally designed to be fired from the shoulder, and it retains that ability (albeit compromised).
Subjective? I think so.
In practice, I think the ATF simply isn't worried about mischief from a relatively heavy, slow to load, low capacity, 24" lever action pistol/rifle that costs $1200.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments