Because of this awful "reporting" I have a question

[elcaminoariba]

The writer of this story is beyond incompetent and biased, and she is overtly claiming that "Federal law prohibits the sale of a pistol grip shotgun to anyone under 21."

I have been told by dealers that they CAN sell a pistol grip shotgun to an 18 year old so WTH?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52042009-78/talovic-gun-pawnshop-sold.html.csp

Has the BATFE-and big fires ruled on this at all? If it's not federally a "shotgun" wouldn't it then be an AOW, and UNTIL batfe-abf rules that a pistol grip shotgun is an AOW, isn't it still federally speaking just a shotgun and thus sell-able to an 18 year old? It couldn't be anything BUT a shotgun or an AOW (right?), and if it were an AOW then they couldn't sell them to anyone over 21 without the colonoscopy paperwork and $5 B.S. AOW transfer tax. Since I as an old fart can go buy one without the AOW B.S. it must be still legally a shotgun. GAWD I hate federal firearms laws, even more than "reporters" who only quote the brady campaign.

 

[kozak6]

It's not a bad article. Just because you disagree or don't understand, it doesn't mean the author is beyond incompetent and biased. I personally don't see any bias. It seems to be fairly neutrally reported.

"We are pleased that a jury will get to decide whether Sportsman’s Fast Cash should be held accountable for illegally supplying a gun to a dangerous, underage killer," said Paul Helmke in a news release,president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

The problem is that the pawnshop did actually illegally sell a shotgun to a dangerous underage killer.

The law is also much more complicated than it seems.

The 1934 NFA defines a shotgun as being able to be fired from the shoulder. A pistol grip only shotgun, then, isn't actually a shotgun as far as federal law is concerned.

So, then what is it? Certainly not a rifle, and the barrel length keeps it from being an AOW.

Since it is neither a rifle or shotgun, then federal law states the buyer must be 21.

Look here, 2nd page:
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ffl-newsletter-2009-11.pdf

The author of the article is correct, and your allegations of incompetence are misguided.

 

[elcaminoariba]

Just because you disagree or don't understand, it doesn't mean the author is beyond incompetent and biased. I personally don't see any bias. It seems to be fairly neutrally reported.

You're kidding right. "Neutrally reported?" The only third party quoted is the BRADY campaign of all people and you don't see the bias and even call it "neutrally reported?" Just wow. Are you even pro 2nd amendment or pro gun because it doesn't sound like it? Do you know the definition of bias? Failing to quote anyone, yes ANYONE supporting the pawn shop (as of the writing of this post, since they regularly update stories) is evidence of bias, as clear as evidence can get.

A pistol grip only shotgun, then, isn't actually a shotgun as far as federal law is concerned.

So, then what is it? Certainly not a rifle.

I answered that sir. If it's not federally a shotgun then it is an AOW. Did you not bother to read my post?

The problem is that the pawnshop did actually illegally sell a shotgun to a dangerous underage killer.

No they didn't. They sold a shotgun to an 18 year old who PASSED the background check (and thus your statement about "dangerous underage killer" is not relevant to the seller unless they have a crystal ball, and not accurate since he was of legal age to buy a shotgun that barring a BATFE ruling, is STILL just a shotgun).

The author of the article is correct, and your allegations of incompetence are misguided.

You seem to be quite fond of telling me I'm wrong but you don't tell me HOW I'm supposedly incorrect. Are you saying the BATFE has ruled that a pistol grip shotgun is something other than a shotgun?

 

[lawson4]

I answered that sir. If it's not federally a shotgun then it is an AOW. Did you not bother to read my post?

did you not bother to read:

Look here, 2nd page:
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ffl-n...er-2009-11.pdf

lawson4

 

[Sam1911]

You seem to be quite fond of telling me I'm wrong but you don't tell me HOW I'm supposedly incorrect. Are you saying the BATFE has ruled that a pistol grip shotgun is something other than a shotgun?

Actually, YES, and you are mistaken here.

A pistol grip only shotgun transfers as an "Other Firearm," being neither a rifle nor shotgun, nor a handgun. Other Firearms include PGO shotguns, stripped receivers for ARs/AKs/etc. that may be built into either a long gun or handgun, and also things like semi-auto clones of belt-fed, non-shoulder-fired guns like a M1919.

It cannot be a shotgun, as the federal definition of shotgun (and rifle too, by the way) includes the phrase "...designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder." A PGO shotgun that leaves the factory without a full butt stock, and doesn't have one installed along the way somewhere, remains simply a "firearm" according to the BATFE, not a shotgun for the purposes of the law.

(This is why, as long as you keep the total overall length of a PGO shotgun over 26", you can install a barrel of less than 18". It can't be a Title II short-barreled shotgun, because it isn't a shotgun to begin with!)

Other Firearms cannot be transferred to anyone under 21 by a dealer.

A PGO shotgun does NOT meet the NFA Title II definiton of an "Any Other Weapon," which should be obvious as they can be purchaed at any gun shop, not just an SOT 03, and they don't require transfer on a Form 4, no $5 tax, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

Further, while the author of the article does quote Helmke -- which is abhorrent -- there doesn't seem to be any misinformation or yellow journalism here. It's just a report of the why and what of the case.

The gun shop make several serious mistakes, including selling a gun other than a long-gun to someone under 21. Because of that person's later bad actions, they're getting special scrutiny and will likely pay for the mistake.

And that's about it.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Interesting, you learn something new every day. So does that mean a "shotgun" with a rifled barrel is technically not a shotgun either? Therefore you have to be 21 to purchase one?

 

[Sam1911]

No, not the way the ATF interprets things:

(d) Shotgun The term ''shotgun'' means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

Now a shotgun with a slug barrel is not really intended to fire shot. But it does fire a type of shotgun shell, and it "may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell."

Also, if is a long arm with a rifled barrel, and the ATF wants to call it something besides shotgun, "Rifle" is the only definition that fits, and you don't have to be 21 to purchase a rifle.

 

[D94R]

I've read this report from two different Utah agencies. The one linked says they made the claim the gun was sold without the shoulder stock. The KSL report mentions nothing of that.


So, if a shotgun is sold without a shoulder stock, and with a pistol grip, no one under 21 can buy?
If a shotgun is sold with a shoulder stock, and with a pistol grip, anyone over 18 can buy?



I also take a gripe with the statement " the shop should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime." That's just absurd. Gun shop owners are now supposed to be psychic? Sure there are indicators that they are supposed to look for to deny a sale. But even that has proven to be inefficient.

 

[Sam1911]

So, if a shotgun is sold without a shoulder stock, and with a pistol grip, no one under 21 can buy?

FROM A DEALER, yes, that is correct. (Many states have no problem with younger residents purchasing handguns and other firearms in private sales.)

If a shotgun is sold with a shoulder stock, and with a pistol grip, anyone over 18 can buy?

If a shotgun is sold with a shoulder stock installed, according to the ATF's policies, it is a shotgun now and forever more, so a dealer can sell one to anyone over 18. The fact that you could install a pistol grip -- and even that it is also sold with a pistol grip -- doesn't enter into it because it has been made or remade as a shoulder fired arm, i.e.: a shotgun.

If you really want to split hairs, if it was sold with the PGO installed, but packaged with a shoulder stock, that's still an "Other Firearm." However, by the ATF's own standards, if you removed it from the package and bolted on the shoulder stock, even temporarily, it would now transfer as a shotgun.

I also take a gripe with the statement " the shop should have known Talovic intended to use the gun in a crime." That's just absurd. Gun shop owners are now supposed to be psychic? Sure there are indicators that they are supposed to look for to deny a sale. But even that has proven to be inefficient.

True enough. That's a judgment statement and hard to pin down. There were several problems with the sale. A reasonable suspicion that he was up to no good would be just one of several.

 

[Heretic]

Is anyone else confused? Oh well, I'm over 21 so I won't worry about it.

 

[TX1911fan]

Just another demonstration of the ridiculousness that results from politicians writing gun laws. Based on emotion and cosmetics rather than logic. Of course, if gun laws were based on logic, we wouldn't have very many, would we?

 

[9mmepiphany]

Is anyone else confused?

That is part of the problem with my advancing age, I sometimes forget that other folks haven't been exposed to some of the same knowledge/bulletins/developments that I have.

That is why I always encourage folks to ask question about things they are not sure about and to research facts that may be new to them when exposed to them.

That is the great thing about this forum, folks are willing to share their acquired experience...you just have to ask and need to have an open mind about answers you receive

 

[elcaminoariba]

A pistol grip only shotgun transfers as an "Other Firearm," being neither a rifle nor shotgun

How the heck is anyone supposed to know that? No one has even posted a link confirming it (there's a link in this thread that doesn't work which MIGHT but I can't tell and by the way lawson, thanks for rudely asking if I "bothered" to read something so obscure that only comes to FFLS. Real nice pal. Way to be civil in a discussion. Oh, and your link doesn't work ).

The gun shop make several serious mistakes, including selling a gun other than a long-gun to someone under 21.

At the time of the sale, was this ultra complex "other weapon" (and not AOW ) classification for pistol grip shotguns even publicized by the BATFE-abf?

there doesn't seem to be any misinformation or yellow journalism here. It's just a report of the why and what of the case.

You're sure going out of your way to disagree with me and it's rather interesting. First, just quoting ONE SIDE isn't yellow journalism to you? I don't believe that you believe that. Obviously it is as yellow as it gets. Only reporting one side of an issue is the very definition of bias. Unless they've updated the article, there wasn't a WORD of support for the pawn shop. No bias or yellow journalism to you? Hmmm.

Secondly, quoting brady at ALL in the article serves no purpose and certainly isn't "just reporting the why and what of the case." You ignore these two items as pertaining to obvious bias by the "reporter," in your quest to paint me as 100% wrong. Again, interesting.

A reasonable suspicion that he was up to no good would be just one of several.

Oh...my...GOODness Sam. Where on earth are you getting that? Where do you manufacture your "reasonable suspicion" in this instance that he "was up to no good?" Seriously, where?

There were several problems with the sale.

No there weren't. The guy was 18, and if people on this forum can't explain the federal firearms excuse for laws, then how is a clerk supposed to know every stupid detail of them? Ergo, it is the opposite of your "reasonable suspicion" claim against the buyer because it is "reasonable" that the clerk would look at the SHOTGUN he was selling, and gee, actually think it is a shotgun, which can be sold to an 18 year old. Good grief. Are you trying to make some veiled statement that because he wasn't a naturalized citizen that that constitutes your "reasonable suspicion" against the buyer? It sure looks that's what is embedded in your "reasonable suspicion" claim that he "was up to no good." You just don't want to admit that there was no way on earth or hell that the clerk or anyone else at the gun store could know he "was up to no good." You're making all these arguments on behalf of the brady campaign and their lawsuit here, which is rather interesting sam.

 

[Justin]

A pistol grip only shotgun transfers as an "Other Firearm," being neither a rifle nor shotgun, nor a handgun. Other Firearms include PGO shotguns, stripped receivers for ARs/AKs/etc. that may be built into either a long gun or handgun, and also things like semi-auto clones of belt-fed, non-shoulder-fired guns like a M1919.

For the sake of clarification, there is a difference between the legal definition of an "Other Firearm" and an "Any other weapon", correct?

 

[TriTone]

The pawn shop was at fault, and reading the article I don't find real bias coming through. And while I personally would never quote Helmke, I believe I find you just as undesirable, elcaminoariba.

Places that can't bother to follow the law for selling firearms shouldn't be allowed to, in my opinion.

 

[N003k]

Alright, the 1-5 paragraphs are facts.

The reason that Helmke is quoted seems pretty simple, as RIGHT AFTER THE QUOTE they state that the Brady Campaign is REPRESENTING Tuft, who is the injured party in the lawsuit.

As for the next part of the quote saying no Gunshop should be above the law? Well, whether we AGREE with the laws or not, that's true. Gun shops that break the current laws give all gunshops and gun owners a bad name.

The final paragraph is the defending attorneys argument, though not as a quote it gives equal representation to the defense.

IF the pawnshop really did sell a shotgun sent from factory with only a pistol grip to an 18 year old, which would be illegal it sounds, as like it or not it does NOT meet the description of a shotgun, and like a stripped reciever would transfer as "Other Firearm", then yes, the suit should go forward.

Whether you, or Joe Whoever on the street corner knows the details of the law when it comes to PGO shotguns is also irrelevant. Anyone that goes through the trouble of getting an FFL and selling firearms SHOULD know the laws and regulations that govern them well enough to understand how that gun transfers and who can buy it.

All that said, I find it stupid that a PGO shotgun isn't technically a shotgun by law also, my opinion on the matter however, is not law.

 

[brickeyee]

The guy was 18, and if people on this forum can't explain the federal firearms excuse for laws

Federal law is pretty simple and clear on this.

There is a EXCEPTION that allows LONG guns to be sold to folks over 18, bot NO OTHER TYPES OF GUNS.

The law initially states that you must be 21 to purchase ANY gun from an FFL, then has the exception for LONG GUNS.

If it does NOT meet the legal definition of a long gun you must be 21.

Enforcement was spotty for a long time, but has been stepped up.

 

[GigaBuist]

The guy was 18, and if people on this forum can't explain the federal firearms excuse for laws then how is a clerk supposed to know every stupid detail of them?

It's actually written write on the 4473 in the instruction section. Quote:

"Question 18. Type of firearm( s ) : Check all boxes that apply. "Other"
refers to frames, receivers and other firearms that are not either handguns or
long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel
a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms"

Emphasis mine.

So, it's not exactly like this little nuanced detail is hidden away. It's printed on every single 4473 out there right now.

 

[9mmepiphany]

How the heck is anyone supposed to know that?

As the one being offended by the article, it is on the OP to know that they are on firm legal ground before asserting that the article isn't accurate

At the time of the sale, was this ultra complex "other weapon" (and not AOW ) classification for pistol grip shotguns even publicized by the BATFE-abf?

It is the responsibility of the FFL holder, and their agents, to be aware of these classifications.

Note that the store doesn't claim that they were not aware, they only claim that the gun did not fall under that classification

First, just quoting ONE SIDE isn't yellow journalism to you? I don't believe that you believe that. Obviously it is as yellow as it gets. Only reporting one side of an issue is the very definition of bias.

Yellow journalism is defined by Frank Luther Mott, American Journalism (1941) as

1. Scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news - Nope, just news that the High Court denied their request for dismissial

2. Lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings - Nope, just one picture of the Square

3. Use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudo-science, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts - There were no faked interviews, misleading headlines or pseudo-science

While you may disagree with Helmke, there is nothing false in "We are pleased that a jury will get to decide whether Sportsman’s Fast Cash should be held accountable for illegally supplying a gun to a dangerous, underage killer,"
a) He is pleased
b) A jury will get to hear and decide if the Pawn shop should be held accountable
c) They are being asked to answer for supplying a gun
d) The suspect did prove to be dangerous (it doesn't say that the shop knew at the time of sale)
e) The suspect was indeed underage (to purchase that firearm)
f) The suspect did kill...was a killer

4. Dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system. - The was no drama, just a statement that people were shot

No there weren't. The guy was 18, and if people on this forum can't explain the federal firearms excuse for laws, then how is a clerk supposed to know every stupid detail of them?

It was his job to know or be trained to know the law, they accepted that responsibility when they obtained their FFL...plus it is printed on the form (4473)

The Judge Iwasaki did not find that the Shop was at fault. What he found was that: "there were too many uncertainties and that the issues of the case should be decided by a jury". In other words, both sides will have a chance to make their argument in front of a jury.

Why are you so outraged that they will be afforded a trial rather than have it dismissed on a technicality?

 

[zoom6zoom]

For the sake of clarification, there is a difference between the legal definition of an "Other Firearm" and an "Any other weapon", correct?

Absolutely. "Other Firearm" is anything that does not fall under the definition of a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, such as stripped receivers, as noted earlier. "Any other weapon" is defined in the NFA rules, and would include such items as a handgun with verticle foregrip, or a Serbu "Super Shorty". This last gets even stickier as to be an AOW it had to have been built on a virgin receiver, where if it were converted from an existing shotgun it would be a "short barreled Shotgun", regardless of grip type.

I followed a lengthy thread on the PGO "shot firing guns" and barrel length on another forum and found it interesting. However, I'm not sure Deputy Barney on the shoulder of the highway at some late night hour would be convinced it's not a sawed off shotgun.

 

[youngda9]

It's actually written write on the 4473 in the instruction section. Quote:

"Question 18. Type of firearm( s ) : Check all boxes that apply. "Other"
refers to frames, receivers and other firearms that are not either handguns or
long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel
a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms"

There's the simple answer. Maybe he can stop being so angry now. I don't know why someone would get all worked up over something that they don't understand. Perhaps coming here to ask questions here would save a lot of stress. There are some smart members on this forum that can get to the bottom of these legal questions fast.

Besides, I doubt there would be any case if there was no merit to it...but I've seen strainger things.

 

[Sam1911]

A pistol grip only shotgun transfers as an "Other Firearm," being neither a rifle nor shotgun

How the heck is anyone supposed to know that? No one has even posted a link confirming it

As the others have explained patiently to you, EVERY FFL MUST know these rules. A lot of those rules are far more complex and esoteric than this one. And, just in case they forget, it's written on the form.

The fact that you didn't know it is understandable. Selling guns and knowing these laws isn't your job. But it is theirs and it is their responsibility to follow them (all of them, even the strange ones) if they want to continue doing business as a gun dealer.

There's a lot of stuff I don't know about what a certified stock broker is allowed to do. When they get busted for improper actions I don't rant and rave that because, since I didn't know the SEC's rules, they shouldn't have had to either.

At the time of the sale, was this ultra complex "other weapon" (and not AOW ) classification for pistol grip shotguns even publicized by the BATFE-abf?

Again, nothing ultra-complex and secret about this. You didn't know about it, but the BATFE sure does make sure the FFL dealers know. Like, every single time they look at the 4473 form.

there doesn't seem to be any misinformation or yellow journalism here. It's just a report of the why and what of the case.

You're sure going out of your way to disagree with me and it's rather interesting.

No, trust me, I'm not going out of my way. You seem really agitated about this, and it appears to stem from your own (very common) misunderstandings, spiced with a heavy dose of knee-jerk reaction against the media and the enforcement of gun laws. It's fine to feel that way, but don't accuse the guys on your side of being in cahoots with the enemy when they educate you about something you'd misunderstood.

First, just quoting ONE SIDE isn't yellow journalism to you? I don't believe that you believe that. Obviously it is as yellow as it gets. Only reporting one side of an issue is the very definition of bias. Unless they've updated the article, there wasn't a WORD of support for the pawn shop. No bias or yellow journalism to you? Hmmm.

I think 9mmepiphany has given you a pretty solid definition of yellow journalism. Doesn't seem to fit this pretty low-key, factual story.

And, I don't know that there's really any more sides to report. They do say what the charges are, and they do report what the defense's position is. (Isn't that "both sides?") They quote an unsavory person, but nothing he said is very inflammatory, or actually wrong.

The defense position that this gun shouldn't be what it is seems like a long shot, unless they're going to fight the BATFE all the way to the SCOTUS over that definition. And reading the text of the US Code, they're dead wrong.

Secondly, quoting brady at ALL in the article serves no purpose and certainly isn't "just reporting the why and what of the case."

Again, Helmke is representing a party to the case. Reporters usually like to get a quote from those kinds of folks. And, Helmke managed not to say (or be quoted on) anything too absurd or inflammatory.

A reasonable suspicion that he was up to no good would be just one of several.

Oh...my...GOODness Sam. Where on earth are you getting that? Where do you manufacture your "reasonable suspicion" in this instance that he "was up to no good?" Seriously, where?

What I said was that there were obviously several problems with the sale. That is true. The store broke federal law on the PGO shotgun issue, and there was this:

Hill, the clerk who sold Talovic the gun, pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor for failing to record Talovic, from Bosnia, as a resident alien. He received one year of probation and a $500 fine. As part of plea deal, prosecutors dropped a felony charge of selling a weapon to an unauthorized person.

I didn't say that I had a reasonable suspicion that the fellow Talovic was up to no good. (I don't even know the guy.) I was agreeing with the poster's point that the store probably COULDN'T have known that, but that they'd ignored some important issues in making the sale, made several other mistakes -- and if they thought he was acting suspiciously that would have been yet another reason not to make the sale. In other words, they missed the obvious stuff. No wonder they didn't also pick up any hypothetical "bad guy" vibes. Sorry if my intent wasn't clear.

There were several problems with the sale.

No there weren't.

Um, yes there were. Again, they sold an underage guy a gun that the form they were filling out told them NOT to, and they didn't fulfill the federal obligation to report his status. That's "several" mistakes, both of them possible felony convictions.

The guy was 18, and if people on this forum can't explain the federal firearms excuse for laws, then how is a clerk supposed to know every stupid detail of them?

I'd say we pretty well HAVE explained them, clearly. Chapter and verse. And I think we've covered why a Federal Firearms License holder MUST know them, better than we do!

Are you trying to make some veiled statement that because he wasn't a naturalized citizen that that constitutes your "reasonable suspicion" against the buyer? It sure looks that's what is embedded in your "reasonable suspicion" claim that he "was up to no good."You just don't want to admit that there was no way on earth or hell that the clerk or anyone else at the gun store could know he "was up to no good." You're making all these arguments on behalf of the brady campaign and their lawsuit here, which is rather interesting sam.

I'm going to laugh this off because I don't want to be insulted by you. I think you've gotten over-wrought about this issue, mostly due to misunderstanding and perhaps a twinge of embarrassment, and need to relax a bit and maybe take a break for a while before you end up saying something you shouldn't.

We're all pals, and we're all on the same side. Listen to the counsel of your buddies here -- they're giving you good info -- and ease up on the rage a bit, o.k?

 

[Sam1911]

For the sake of clarification, there is a difference between the legal definition of an "Other Firearm" and an "Any other weapon", correct?

Yes. As zoom6zoom said, AOWs cover a lot of different things. In the case of shorty shotguns vs. AOW "shotguns" it comes down to concealability. If it's over 26", it's an "Other Firearm" type shotshell-firing weapon. If it's under 26", and has never been a shoulder-fired weapon, it's an AOW.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Someone needs a prescription for chill pills.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2009-11.pdf

Pistol Grips and Shotguns

Firearms with pistol grips attached:
The definition of a shotgun under the GCA, 18 U.S.C.
§ 921(a)(5), is “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed
or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of
an explosives to fire through a smooth bore either a number
of ball shot or single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
Under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29)(A), handgun
means “a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to
be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” Federal law
provides under 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), that if the firearm to be
transferred is “other than a rifle or shotgun,” the purchaser
must be 21 years of age or older.

Certain commercially produced firearms do not fall within
the definition of shotgun under the GCA even though
they utilize a shotgun shell for ammunition. For example,
firearms that come equipped with a pistol grip in place of
the buttstock are not shotguns as defined by the GCA.
A firearm with a pistol grip in lieu of the shoulder stock is
not designed to be fired from the shoulder and, therefore,
is not a shotgun. Since it is a firearm “other than a rifle or
shotgun,” the purchaser must be 21 years of age or older.
Additionally, interstate controls apply. The licensee and
transferee must be residents of the same State.
Other questions raised pertain to entries made in the
licensee’s required records with respect to firearm “type.”
These entries should indicate the firearm type as “pistol grip
firearm.”

Age Restriction & Interstate Transfer Reminders
Licensees are reminded that firearm frames, receivers, and
other firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns
(rifles or shotguns) are considered “Other Firearms.” They
cannot be sold or delivered by a licensee to any person under
21 years of age. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3) states that
a licensee shall not sell or deliver any firearm other than a
shotgun or rifle to any person who does not reside in the
State in which the licensee’s place of business or activity is located;
this restriction includes handguns, pistol grip firearms
utilizing shotgun ammunition, and frames and receivers.

It really is pretty simple.