Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - franklinarmory

Pages: [1]
1
Legal and Activism / Re: Let's talk "assault pistols" legality
« on: April 27, 2012, 12:32:59 PM »
There are always gray areas, for example you cannot put a vertical grip on a pistol (at least that is what I have been told is a violation of some federal law) So what if instead of putting a vertical grip I just happen to mount an L shaped flashlight that I could inadvertently hold onto? Am I violating the law, technically it is a flashlight and not a grip but in practical use it acts as a grip.
Funny you should happen to use that as an example...  Last year Franklin Armory received permission from ATF-FTB to build AR pistols WITH a forward vertical grip as NON-NFA firearms.  The XO-26 is a non-AOW.  (To prove it, the letter is posted on our website.)  In general you are correct though...  Unless certain criteria are met, it is illegal (not gray) to install a secondary vertical grip on a pistol.  Infantry H2 is correct.  You can also use a Magpul AFG on any AR pistol.  Someone has posted a letter on line for that as well.
2
Legal and Activism / Re: Let's talk "assault pistols" legality
« on: April 26, 2012, 07:07:21 AM »
First a question then I will give my best answer on the point of the button in question.

So if this product did allow people to bypass the magazine detachable from outside the pistol grip what firearms would be allowed now that are not currently allowed? THe ruger 10/22 charger pistol is the only one that comes to mind but I have to admit I am no firearms expert. What other firearms would be allowed?


Here is my answer from someone in the LEO field.
I do not think this button would allow one to bypass the 1st section considering magazines outside of the pistol grip. After all the first rule does not say anything about detachable. Now if we look at the initial definition that says the rules apply to a semi auto with a detachable magazine we can see that if we make the magazine non detachable then we never run into the problem of it being a possible assault pistol.

So the question comes down to whether the button makes the magazine non detachable. I would say that the magazine would still be considered detachable since it is relatively easy to remove the magazine.  Now the law is not explicit so this is kind of a gray area. So I think we would need to look at the intent of the legislature when the law was passed. I don't know the actual discussion on the issue so I will do my best to speculate. They probably wanted to restrict firearms that had some significant capability of shooting people rapidly, essential a pistol meant to assault someone, civilian or police. So if a product like this made you need a "tool" to remove the magazine but it could still be done rapidly then I do not think they would consider it to be allowed. However if the product made the magazine take some time and effort to remove the magazine to the point that the pistol would not be such a danger if used to shoot large numbers of people then perhaps they would consider it to be allowed.
If we look at blackpowder pistols we can see they do not need to be registered. They can still be deadly but the amount of time needed to reload and shoot again in a tactical situation make them obviously a poor choice in a gunfight.

So ultimately I would think that if the product requires a "tool" to detach the magazine but the magazine could still be detached rapidly and replaced rapidly that the firearm would not be exempt from the assault pistol rules.

Feel free to disagree or ask for clarification etc.
The reality is that the magazine is NOT detachable with a bullet button device installed.  The magazine is effectively only "Attachable."  The same magazine used on a differently equipped firearm is both attachable and detachable.  However, if the legislature had written the phrase "Attachable" instead of "Detachable" into the law, then I think there would be absolute ban on the product.  Given that they did not, I would suggest that it should be legal.  Admittedly, I am not an attorney, and I am not intimately familiar with the laws of your state.  (...California's laws are tough enough to keep track of...)

BTW, there are many EBPs out there:  Dracos, PTR 91s, and of course AR pistols and XO-26s.
3
Legal and Activism / Re: Let's talk "assault pistols" legality
« on: April 23, 2012, 07:09:37 AM »
Unfortunately no new information.  We basically need someone within the state that would be willing to see if it could be registered with a single shot sled and a bullet button. 
4
Legal and Activism / Re: Let's talk "assault pistols" legality
« on: November 24, 2011, 09:15:13 AM »
Thanks for the referral.  I will contact him.

Test cases are great so long as it doesn't involve actual physical possession in Hi prior to a determination by a court or government body.  The last thing we want to see is anyone saddled with civil or criminal penalties for simply possessing one of our products.  Do you have a legal mechanism to achieve standing to petition your courts or governing body without actually importing it?

Obviously it's much easier to first try to contact the appropriate regulatory powers to seek an interpretation.  ...anyone got Martha's phone number.    :crazy:

Starting next month, our rep will be visiting Hi shops with our rifles.  Hopefully the pistols will follow after we figure out the details. 
5
Legal and Activism / Re: Let's talk "assault pistols" legality
« on: November 24, 2011, 08:16:54 AM »
Hello Hawaii.
Interesting thread you have here.  We might have something that could fly in HI.  We have been building AR pistols for a while now, but recently we received ATF approval for an AR pistol with a forward vertical grip, WITHOUT the need for NFA paperwork.  The XO-26 is NOT an AOW.  Interestingly enough, the feds stated that it was not a pistol, not a rifle, not an AOW, but rather just a "firearm."  That being said, I believe your state law would define it as a pistol since the barrel length is 11.5" long.

That brings up concerns about the Hi Assault Pistol ban.  We have a couple of physical characteristics that have allowed us to build these for Ca sales.  The first characteristic is a bullet button.  I realize that Hi has not ruled one way or another on this characteristic.  I think it may be worth while to submit a sample to your state DOJ to render an opinion (if they do that sort of thing.) 

Secondly, our Ca models must ship with a "sled" installed.  This device is a delrin plug inserted in the magazine well (and locked in place by the bullet button.)  With this sled installed, the pistol is effectively a single shot pistol.  It is a long story to explain it, but this is done for transfer purposes  in Ca and can be removed by the consumer legally.  Since the firearm is marketed as a "Self Extracting Single Shot Pistol," we think that it might have viability in HI.  The model on the lower even reads "SE-SSP," !!!

Any thoughts?

Also, what state 2a attorney do you recommend?  I have a feeling I might need one.   :D



[attachment deleted by admin]
Pages: [1]