|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ohio has definitions for "firearm" and "handgun", both are "Deadly Weapons"
(A) “Deadly weapon” means any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.
(B)(1) “Firearm” means any deadly weapon capable of expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant. “Firearm” includes an unloaded firearm, and any firearm that is inoperable but that can readily be rendered operable.
(2) When determining whether a firearm is capable of expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant, the trier of fact may rely upon circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to, the representations and actions of the individual exercising control over the firearm.
(C) “Handgun” means any of the following:
(1) Any firearm that has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;
(2) Any combination of parts from which a firearm of a type described in division (C)(1) of this section can be assembled.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.11
Last edited by Eric D.; 10-10-11 at 17:17.
B.A.S. Mechanical Engineering Technology
Californians jump on board to bring anything into the state under any legal means available. it is a form of protest, an exercise if ingenuity and the only way we get to celebrate our second amendment rights.
Forcing atf and cal doj to make definitions and then exploiting those definitions to the maximum in order to create precedence and opportunities for more suits is the game.
Hardly anyone truly supports california, most just look on and sneer. But it is my contention that californians lead the way in the legal battles for our second amendment rights, not only in california, but across america. just take a look at calguns, is there any other forum on the net that specifically has a second amendment legal discussion subforum?? One as active as the ine on calguns.
There my not be any real reason for this configuration to exist, i believe i saw this for the first time on calguns last year. The price makes me believe its aimed at californians who really are just willing to shell out cash for the "fight." Sometimes the line between being passionate and being swindled is thin.
Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/
Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/
M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141
Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com
http://mobile.calguns.net/calgunforu...384326&page=41
i'm sure you've stayed abreast. if not you can read it all right there.
open carry was banned. it created a lot of awareness. there are still other options as far as challenging the california laws, some that will be directly borne from the banning of open carry.
find that type of discussion anywhere else in the country.
and really... why do people act like what happens in california won't readily happen anywhere else? why do people poopoo on california when places like DC, chicago and NYC were worse? why don't people in the rest of the country care enough (as california does) to change those places and make things _constitutionally_ correct.
do i have to contend that it's all because these people have become complacent?
Just move to Alaska then you won't have to deal with all that!!![]()
Allow me to digress. I lived there and I feel your pain. I also voted for whom I thought were good people. Unfortunately it gets to a point that the war is lost and you have to move on.
I now live in Arizona and we have fixed the problem. We have concealed carry with a permit (if you desire) we have open carry of any long gun or handgun and we have CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY. So I would say that we fixed it for us.
I personally think that any challenge to the open carry ban is a waste of money thanks to the more recent SCOTUS rulings. But, I am not a lawyer (except in the outhouse) and may be they know something I don't.
In fact people do care in Chicago and D.C hence the most recent 2nd Amendment rulings in both places.
Like it or not there are still many people and places that don't like guns. Until we win back some of our rights and stick it to the federal government it's going to be a battle for everyone.
Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/
Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/
M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141
Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com
Just to clarify, removing a stock from a shotgun or a rifle does not change the classification of that gun. If it has a barrel or barrels under 18"(shotgun) or 16"(rifle) or it is under 26" overall length it will be a SBS or a SBR.
If it came from the manufacture with a pistol grip installed then it is not a "shotgun" by definition. A pistolgrip shotgun is not constrained by the 18" barrel length of a shotgun. Barrel length of a pistolgrip shotgun is only a consideration to the overall length. This means for most PG shotguns the barrel can be as short as 14" and still be a legal title 1 firearm provided the overall length is 26" or more. If it falls under the 26" it is an AOW.
The Franklin Arms firearm is not a new ruling on these type of firearms. The Thompson A5 "pistol" was sold with a forward grip from the factory from the 1070's until the AWB. Being over 26"OAL, the Thompson A5 was classified as a "firearm" just like the Franklin Arms XO-26.
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
Actually it does. There are two classifications of firearms Title 1 (non-NFA) and Title 2 (NFA). Removing a stock from a Title 1 (non-NFA) shotgun makes it an 'other' but it's still a Title 1 firearm but it's now a Title 1 'other' just like a 'receiver'. Example: If we (I work for an FFL) receive a Remington 870 Express HD shotgun which ships with a stock on it this shotgun can be transferred to an 18 yr old or older person. IF WE HOWEVER remove the stock and install only a pistol grip in its place it before the transfer occurs then has to be transferred to a 21yr or older because per ATF definitions on the 4473 it's now an 'other' and not a shotgun designed to be fired from the shoulder. If you want to shoot a pistol grip only shotgun from the shoulder please let me know how that works out for you and please post pics!![]()
Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)
Bookmarks