Mossberg "Raptor"?

According to the '34 NFA, shotguns are defined as shoulder fired.

So, a "shotgun" that leaves the factory with a pistol grip and has never had a stock installed is not actually a shotgun, which means the shotgun minimum barrel length of 18" doesn't apply to it.

AOW's are are completely bizarre category of firearm. One kind of AOW is a concealable smoothbore that fires shotgun shells. There are no overall or barrel lengths stated in the law for this kind of AOW, only a requirement that it's concealable.

So what does "concealable" actually mean? The BATFE has arbitrarily decided that the word "concealable" actually means a maximum 26" overall length with no restriction on barrel length (unless such a firearm is actually concealed). There's no reason they can't change their mind and redefine it to include a barrel length at any time. To paraphrase a famous wall sitter, it means just what they choose it to mean.

So, the secret here is that it leaves the factory with a pistol grip and a 26" overall length. According to the current interpretation of "concealable", barrel length doesn't matter as long as it's 26" overall.

However, since it's not a shotgun and has a bore greater than .50 cal, I don't understand why it isn't a DD. Nor why they don't change their minds for greater consistency within the NFA.

It's exciting, though. I wonder if it might be more interesting in 20 gauge. Or as a Remington.

However, since it's not a shotgun and has a bore greater than .50 cal, I don't understand why it isn't a DD. Nor why they don't change their minds for greater consistency within the NFA.

Click to expand...

The relationship between shotshell-firing guns (which may or may not be "shotguns" under the the text of the law) and the large bore destructive device category is a little fuzzy.

The definition actually reads, "... except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes." And generally, sometimes, usually, often, guns that fire shotshells, but which are assumed to be(***) not concealable handguns, are not dinged as being destructive devices. At least thats how it's been since the old days of the street sweeper and USAS12 back in the early '90s. So we have existed in a strange world where one manual repeating shotgun like the streetsweeper is officially "non sporting" but a re-configured AK like the Saiga-12 is perfectly acceptable as a sporting shotgun. So, why aren't these little "non-concealble" PGO not-a-shotgun devices "NFA-DD?" Well, because. That's why. Just because.



*** -- I say "assumed to be" because the ATF has said that the ACT of concealing one of these things does indeed disprove the assumption of non-concealability, and thus, even though it's over 26" in length and it was sold to you as a "Title I" firearm, if you put it under your trench coat it IS at that point an unregistered NFA firearm. Watch it!

As an 07 FFL I contacted ATF about this months ago. I was told a Determination Letter was forthcoming and I was told that any smooth bore firearm with a barrel of less then 18" is either an SBE or an AOW and such a weapon is in fact an NFA item. For this reason I have not been building these. I am waiting to see what happens. I am certainly not going to enter this area until I see the finale determination. If it is ruled legal then I will consider building these.

Here's a quick write up on how the law is being applied currently by the Tech Branch: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88/
There is a small pile of letters from them there explaining why it is lawful to sell these as GCA-regulated, not NFA, items.

Of course, maybe they're going to change their minds again sometime, but since 2010 they've been pretty clear.


EDIT: This letter (http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/testttt20001.pdf) is extremely clear in saying precisely that this is a legal non-NFA arm, but also warns that concealing it COULD change its status. (So, no, the Sig brace isn't the only situation where they've said that you can make an NFA firearm just be how you handle something.)


FURTHER: And this is not some small potatoes gun company, or accessory maker, coming out with this. This is Mossberg, who not only competes head-to-head with the biggest firearms companies in the world, but who also produces weapons for the US military. If they're investing the, probably, million bux it's going to take to do the manufacturing and supply chain changes, packaging and marketing, etc., to bring this on board and get it in buyers' hands, then I'd rest quite assured that their lawyers have sat down with the Tech Branch and gotten pretty stout assurances that this isn't going to be an illegal product. They're a successful business in a field with serious legal issues to contend with and they aren't going to go down this path and end up with 500,000 units they have to buy back and destroy, or customers going to jail.

Wow thats cool and no special paper work. One problem I see is if the average LEO sees that your going to get questioned and how are you going to prove it's not a NFA regulated gun? Does it come with factory paper work? Or better yet is it stamped on the receiver? The private range I belong allows the village and town LE use the range for practice so it's common to have a LEO shooting there. Many are also members but you will get questioned if something doesn't look right.

Well, you can explain. You can ask them to look at the factory information on it that's on their website. You could have handy links to the Tech Branch determination letters published about it. In the end, if an officer just doesn't take your word, sure you could end up sitting in a room somewhere while they decide whether they can charge you or not. You can be almost totally certain that, since the Tech Branch has spoken about this (at least, they've not changed their minds, yet), they won't be able to actually press charges and will have to let you go.

Think about the "bumpfire" stocks and fast trigger sets for ARs. How many guys were tossed in a squad car when they let off a burst or three with their new quasi-machine gun in front of a deputy that hadn't heard the news? Surely it must have been a few, but it never seems to have developed into a problem that we really talk about.

OpSol is the Mossberg adapter for the mini-shells, sold on Amazon for $15 (out of stock now).

Also, learned there are 2in shells also made which lets you get more in the tube but seems to feed in more things than the Aguilla mini's.

I understand all that Sam and this first started in 2010 in the Shotgun forum of AR15.com and that letter has been floating around for 6 years with other just as confusing. What I am says is they may be going to end this. There are other sections of the NFA clearly stating that if a weapon has a smooth bore barrel it is either an AOW or an SBS. So, I don't know what they are going to do. As an 07 I refuse to participate in the anything NFA as I am not going to pay them another $1,000 a year for a Tax Stamp. So once this is cleared up for certain I could build these guns without an SOT. I am not going to being playing Loop hole with the ATF as they always win. As a consumer I would by something that could be banned in a few months. Two companies now are pushing the envelop on this so I will watch, wait and see. In the mean time I am going to order extra receivers and barrels just in case as those sell well anyway.

They can change the NFA at their whim. For example: Ever wonder why rifles are 16" and Shotguns are 18"? Originally both were 18", however after WW II the government wanted to sell of a lot of M1 Carbines to help pay the war debit. That Carbine has a 16" barrel so they simply changed the minimum length on rifles to 16 to so citizens could buy them without having to get a tax stamp. So they can change the NFA to suite their own needs any time it suits them.

I don't disagree with any of that. A couple of points seem to be worth understanding for anyone interested in this sort of thing:
1) The NFA is law and it comprises a few hundred written words that spell out things in fairly plain language, but which on further reflection leaves a bunch of odd holes and confusing gaps, especially considering all the things which have been invented since it was written. The BATFE is charged with determining how that law applies to real world devices and situations, especially those that fall into grey areas. They can and often do change how they're currently interpreting the law.

That happens often, and the owners and makers of devices covered by those decisions are certainly then required to jump through hoops or even dispose of their firearms. Look to what happened in the early '90s when owners of USAS 12 shotguns were informed that they had to register their previously owned weapons as NFA items, though at no charge. Or what happened more recently with the Sig brace, which was clearly one thing and then clearly another and has currently been settled into a very odd situation of "fine to own as long as you don't do the one thing that every owner DOES do, which is to shoulder the brace." (About the closest thing to a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge," determination as I've ever heard of.) Or look at the 20 year muddle over "once a rifle" that centered around the U.S. v. Thompson Center court case back in 1992 and the decision when the BATFE finally decided they had to actually follow the Court's orders, not until 2011. Or the confused hubbub around the aborted Taurus "Raging Judge 28" about which we have little published information, except that after having made it all the way to demonstrations at the SHOT Show, Taurus was prevailed upon that such a thing would not, after all, be legal to sell. Or the changes in how they view semi-auto open bolt firearms, and so on, and so forth.

2) The National Firearms Act of 1934 (and also the Gun Control Act of 1968, for that matter) can be changed as well, which would then alter any previous determinations and leave things in some kind of limbo until the BATFE interpretations of those new laws (i.e., explanations of how they will be enforced) are handed down. I would contend that this is a MUCH less unpredictable and flighty area and certainly isn't dependent AT ALL on the whim of the BAFTE. Changes to the actual terms of the law have to be made through legislation in the US Congress, and that's something that body really doesn't tinker with very often. The proposed "Hearing Protection Act" might be the next big chance at changing the actual law itself, but I can't see Congress working themselves up into a mood to lay down new law to explicitly restrict a very niche corner of the shotgun market, not in the current political environment. I'd say it's probably more likely that some kind of NFA reform bill might be passed which eliminates the very, VERY silly and pointless SBR, SBS, and AOW categories than that Congress decides to be MORE restrictive. But I don't look for either to happen.

3) Especially in view of point number 1 above, NOTHING about NFA (or "almost" NFA) firearms is ever "cleared up for certain." You have determination letters to various individuals or companies which get published on the 'net, and which are only "binding" for the persons they're addressed to, and even then, only "binding" until superseded by some other determination letter that says the opposite. Everyone who plays in these areas does so with the understanding that the ground here is shifting sands and the BATFE doesn't even pretend to care that it said "X" last week and now says the opposite. The only way to be sure that what you're doing, selling, making, or owning this year is going to be perfectly legal next year is not to play in these areas.

Well I'm sure Mossberg has done all of the necessary legal work long before they ever contemplated bringing this gun to the market. I think they'll probably sell a lot of them initially mainly for the sheer novelty of having a shotgun that short and compact. Don't know how practical or tactical they're going to be in actual use but I'm not going to go anywhere near one of them with a trench coat on!

It legal to own. I have seen Remington 870 with "swan or goose neck" pistol grip and 14 or 14.5" barrel advertised weeks ago. It was on Impact Guns or someplace like that for about $600. The description said it was legal to own w/o federal stamp.

The description said it was legal to own w/o federal stamp.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's really not in question. The only question, as raised by AI&PTactical was will the BATFE issue another determination letter that reverses this current interpretation. They absolutely could. Seems like there's a fair bit of momentum and standing procedure (at least since 2010) that would support this remaining not NFA-regulated, but that doesn't actually mean anything.

The consolation prize, if they were to reverse their current interpretation, is that in the past they simply notified owners of newly minted NFA items that they had to register them under the NFA rules, but they waived the fee for doing so.

Sam1911 - great read and good points.

As for comments by others about Mossberg doing their home work on this. They don't care if it becomes an NFA item tomorrow as a $1,000 SOT a year is nothing to them so they would continue to make them as NFA items. Even if they lost thousands of dollars by doing this, and they are getting 10X that in advertising as it is being talked about on most every forum out there. They could simply send anyone owning on of these an 18" Mossberg barrel that cost them about $20 to make and that would make their gun legal. Also, they are just as subject to an NFA determination letter as a small 07 Manufacture like me. The end user is the one that gets the shaft by risking this.

Also. Before anyone buys one of these they better check their state Laws. Just because it has slipped through the cracks of the NFA doesn't mean you can get away with it in your state so check first. Your State Police are not going to give a spit when you show them some letter addressed to someone else that you down loaded from the Inter-net as they are enforcing state laws. Have this thing is not worth risking your 2nd Amendment Rights for the rest of your life.

As for comments by others about Mossberg doing their home work on this. They don't care if it becomes an NFA item tomorrow as a $1,000 SOT a year is nothing to them so they would continue to make them as NFA items.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point and I'm of mixed minds about that. Major American firearms makes have traditionally avoided making any NFA products for sale to the civilian market, from what I can recall. Shotguns may be slightly different in that regard as while I know it is possible to buy factory shorty barrels for some, I don't know if you've ever been able to commonly buy new factory-made SBS Mossbergs or Remingtons, new-in-box at your local SOT Class 3 dealer's shop. (Maybe so. I just know know) I think the big makers have always seen the civilian NFA market as just way too small to bother serving, leaving that to small specialty shops like Serbu.

Now, however, the mighty Ruger itself is making a silencer under its own brand, and Remington bought AAC, and well, things seem to be shifting. The NFA djini is out of the bottle it seems, and the big makers are starting to see that as a way to be cool and cutting-edge. Almost as though catering to the hardest of the hard-core gun guys gives them extra "street cred." So, while I'm sure Mossberg doesn't want this to be re-determined as an NFA item, and would be terribly surprised if it suddenly was, yeah they might just deal with that fallout, rectify the matter however BATFE told them they had to, and keep on making them for the much smaller NFA market. Or, of course, they might just drop the product. It happens. Not that big a deal.

They could simply send anyone owning on of these an 18" Mossberg barrel that cost them about $20 to make and that would make their gun legal.

Click to expand...

That would be interesting to see because it would give some possible answers to the knotty question of, if you find yourself in possession of an illegal, unregistered NFA weapon, is it actually legal to destroy that contraband item by reconstructing it into a non-NFA weapon? The BATFE has long said that your only avenue is to forfeit such a thing, but of course they also allowed for a bit of a grace period for registering your USAS-12 when they changed its determination which might suggest some flexibility on their part.

Also, they are just as subject to an NFA determination letter as a small 07 Manufacture like me. The end user is the one that gets the shaft by risking this.

Click to expand...

Of course, it seems that "the shaft" in this case would likely be not more than a letter saying you have to register it, for free. At least, that's how it happened before. Not a happy thought, but not like they come and throw you in prison or slap you with a $250K fine.

Also. Before anyone buys one of these they better check their state Laws. Just because it has slipped through the cracks of the NFA doesn't mean you can get away with it in your state so check first.

Click to expand...

Reasonable advice. Now, it would be good to put together a list of states which specifically ban or further regulate an item like this, in cases where federal law does not.

One I can think of is Michigan which defines under state law that any firearm under 30" in length is a "Pistol." And so this would have to be bought and sold under their rules for a pistol. But any FFL dealer in Michigan would automatically be aware of that and would handle it appropriately.

I'm not sure what, if any, other states would prohibit these, if they're legal as GCA type "Other Firearms" under federal law. Can you think of any?

I'd like to have one, just for the novelty of a 14" while paying no NFA tax. The thing that has me wondering though, is if I have a 590 or even a 500 would I be in constructive possession of a NFA weapon? A person could easily install the 14" barrel on their 590. I know 500 and 590 stocks are they same so either one could go on the Raptor, unless they have changed the receiver to prevent that.

The way the law is applied, you have to be given the greatest reasonable benefit of the doubt in that, as long as the items you own CAN be configured in lawful ways, and/or ARE configured in lawful ways, you aren't going to be charged with being in possession of unregistered NFA Firearms. (Which is what people mean when they say "constructive possession," though that's not really the right definition of that phrase.)

For example, if you own an AR15 receiver built as a pistol, and you own one built as a rifle, you can own a short barrel and longer barrels both, because you can put the short barrel on the pistol receiver. The fact that it would be possible for you to reassemble the rifle as an SBR doesn't hurt you -- unless you're caught actually DOING that.

Most folks steer clear of keeping "pistol" barrels on hand if they don't have any pistol receivers to put them on, as then it might be possible to say that you possessed a disassembled SBR -- since those parts couldn't possibly be assembled into a legal firearm.

Thanks Sam for clearing that up for me.

I forgot to add the obvious. Before anyone buys one of these they should go shoot a Pistol Grip Only shotgun. They may very well find this is a difficult weapon to master and may have very little real world application no matter how cool it looks. Money may be better spent on ammo.

Still a Mossberg LOL