Shoulder stocked handguns are illegal.

[Ranb]

Or at least they are according to an article written by Mike "Duke" Venturino in an article published by American Hangunner.

http://www.americanhandgunner.com/
http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanHandgunner/AHSO12/

On page 73 he says in part;

I'm sure at this point some of you are thinking, "But aren't detachable shoulder stocks illegal?" Well the answer is yes - and no. For modern handguns they certainly are. But the ATF has ruled that some handguns in their curio and relic status can have their shoulder stocks.

What he should have said was that a modern handgun with a shoulder stock is a short barreled rifle and requires routine BATFE authorization to possess, make or transfer as well as payment of a $200 tax unless licensed to do so.

While I expect media like CNN and Fox News to lie about gun control, it is sad to see a gun magazine attempt to convince its readers that any type of firearm in the USA is illegal.

Ranb

 

[Sam1911]

Not sure he's trying to "convince" anyone of that. He's just speaking sloppily, or possibly even out of ignorance.

Gun writers are gun enthusiasts just like us, not imbued with any special knowledge greater than many of us here have, and make a lot of silly mistakes. If you want to start pointing out all the daft and silly things gun writers have put into print (or PHOTOS! Mercy!) we're going to have a long, LONG thread.

This does perhaps add to the growing question of why anyone bothers to read print media anymore...but that's probably a side topic.

 

[Tommygunn]

I must refrain from installing the shoulder stock on my Colt 1860 Army repro by Uberti or I might get "waco'd" by BATFE ninjas.......


Yeah .....cap 'n' ball guns are one of the exceptions .......

 

[Ranb]

Not sure he's trying to "convince" anyone of that. He's just speaking sloppily, or possibly even out of ignorance.

You would think that after Zumbo shot himself in the foot with his claim that AR-15's should be banned that anyone writing for a gun publication would remember two very simple rules.

Rule #1. Everything is legal unless prohibited by law.

Rule #2. The federal government does not completely ban any type of firearm.

Remember these two very simple rules and you will not make a fool of yourself as often. So is he really this stupid?

Ranb

 

[dprice3844444]

black powder weapons are not firearms according to batfe(check state laws as they may differ)and are exempt from the shoulder stock rule(unless converted to fire modern ammo).also,i believe are broom handle mausers. if not sure,send a latter to atf tech branch with pics,keep pic copies for yourself),and wait for reply.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm sure at this point some of you are thinking, "But aren't detachable shoulder stocks illegal?" Well the answer is yes - and no. For modern handguns they certainly are. But the ATF has ruled that some handguns in their curio and relic status can have their shoulder stocks.

...What he should have said was that a modern handgun with a shoulder stock is a short barreled rifle and requires routine BATFE authorization to possess, make or transfer as well as payment of a $200 tax unless licensed to do so...

I suspect that Mr. Venturino wrote what he intended, and there was no reason to get into the details. I suspect that he wanted to take his article in a particular direction and didn't want to detour into NFA issues.

First, although it's been a while since I've read a detailed discussion, I seem to recall that the ATF rules about when a C&R handgun can have a detachable shoulder stock without NFA formalities are somewhat complicated. IIRC, you can't just tie a shoulder stock onto your granddad's WWI 1911.

Second, while under federal law it can be kosher to have a short barrel rifle (SBR) if you comply with the NFA formalities and pay the money, I believe some States have different rules. So if you're in one of those States, a SBR might be lawful under federal law and still be illegal under state law.

 

[Ranb]

The trouble is that too many people think like Venturino does. When I was trying to get a bill passed that would allow silencer use on firearms in WA, it was an uphill battle to convince my Reps and Senators that silencers were legal in the USA. They just assumed that silencers were illegal in the USA probably for the same irrational reasons that Venturino does. Eventually bill 1016 passed and now we can use silencers in WA.

I am now involved with a bill that will restore the rights of WA residents to own registered SBR/SBS; new civilian possession was banned back in July 1994. I have already run into the same ignorance from my legislators as displayed by Venturino. These people have no reason to say something so irrational, but they still do. That makes it harder to make a change for the better.

Anyone who fills out the ATF form 1 or AFT form 4 properly can make or buy an SBR. The BATFE does not deny approval to any individual who fills out the form properly and pays the tax.

Ranb

 

[Frank Ettin]

...They just assumed that silencers were illegal in the USA probably for the same irrational reasons that Venturino does...

And you're assuming that Mr. Venturino believes suppressors or SBRs are illegal. As I pointed out, it's entirely possible that he fully understands the law and just didn't want to get into it in his article.

...I am now involved with a bill that will restore the rights of WA residents to own registered SBR/SBS; new civilian possession was banned back in July 1994...

Which proves my point that an SBR/SBS can be legal under federal law and still illegal under state law.

...I have already run into the same ignorance from my legislators as displayed by Venturino...

And your supposition that Mr. Venturino is ignorant just because he chose not to go into the detail you'd like on what was a side issue in his article is completely unwarranted and out of line.

This has gone far enough.