The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 5, 2012, 11:16 PM   #1
chack
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Location: dixie
Posts: 477
pedersen device legality

I always thought that the pedersen device was a great idea and would love to have one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device

At $60k+ I'll never shoot one, much less own it. I wonder though what legal restrictions there might be to a reproduction Pedersen that used .32 ACP ammo. I assume that there would be a different answer if it was made in the us instead of imported.

1) vwould it fall prey to an assault weapon ban?

2) saturday night special ban?

3) would it require an FFL to transfer?

What other legal obstacles to its production could it face?
chack is offline  
Old June 5, 2012, 11:59 PM   #2
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,454
Quote:
1) vwould it fall prey to an assault weapon ban?
If there were one, perhaps.

Quote:
2) saturday night special ban?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're talking about a device attached to a common, quality military firearm.

Quote:
3) would it require an FFL to transfer?
Since it contains the actual firing mechanism, I imagine it would be treated as a receiver. So, yes, probably.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 6, 2012, 01:36 AM   #3
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,380
The Pedersen device is tricky to classify.
It can definitely be considered a firearm. Yet, it cannot function without the aid of another firearm.
When it was designed, it was given an official designation as a "pistol" (mostly to keep its true purpose hidden, though). Yet, it is not designed to be fired from a single hand.
It also lacks a shoulder stock. And its barrel (chamber insert) is rather short. So, it is not a rifle.

I don't know what the ATF would think of a Pedersen device or any modern equivalent, but my guess is that it would fall into the AOW ("Any Other Weapon") category, requiring the associated forms and transfer tax.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 6, 2012, 06:35 PM   #4
chack
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Location: dixie
Posts: 477
1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
If there were one, perhaps.
There is a ban on importation. That ban might be applicable to a pedersen device type item if it was imported
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're talking about a device attached to a common, quality military firearm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're talking about a device attached to a common, quality military firearm.
There is a ban on importation of handguns that don't score high enough on a points list. If the device was considered a pistol the points list would be a factor for considration to import. There are also several states and municipalities that have statutes/ordinances that mirror them.

http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/12/15/...that_are_dumb/

A pistol must score 75 points. Here’s the point system:

Characteristic........................................Points
Length: for each 1/4" over 6"...................1
Forged steel frame.................................15
Forged HTS alloy frame...........................20
Unloaded weight w/mag (per oz.)..............1
.22 short and .25 auto............................0
.22 LR and 7.65mm to .380 auto...............3
9mm parabellum and over........................10
Locked breech mechanism.......................5
Loaded chamber indicator........................5
Grip safety...........................................3
Magazine safety....................................5
Firing pin block or lock...........................10
External hammer...................................2
Double action......................................10
Drift adjustable target sight....................5
Click adjustable target sight...................10
Target grips.........................................5
Target trigger.......................................5


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Since it contains the actual firing mechanism, I imagine it would be treated as a receiver. So, yes, probably.
I suppose that would differentiate it from something like a .22lr conversion for a AR or AK but how would a striker fired pedersen be different from a striker fird .22 conversion for a glock or any other pistol?
chack is offline  
Old June 6, 2012, 07:46 PM   #5
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 1,322
If a new version of the Pederson device were designed, I would make it for the Mosin Nagant...and chamber it for 7.62 tokarev.
__________________
Still waiting for my Flashback...I would like it now, please.
amd6547 is offline  
Old June 6, 2012, 09:19 PM   #6
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,829
This is just a wild guess / gut instinct, but I would think that a replica device of this sort would be essentially unregulated. It bears more of a resemblence to a Ciener-style .22 kit or AR upper than anything else I can think of. It is missing critical chunks needed to make it operate without the use of something that is already regulated as a firearm. As long as it's not readily converted to full auto or something, I don't see the problem.

But I could be wrong, it's just one way of looking at it.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell
B. Lahey is offline  
Old June 6, 2012, 09:20 PM   #7
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 3,863
Anyone who can afford a Pedersen device can afford a lawyer to guard it.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 09:14 AM   #8
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: On The Road, somewhere in the good ol' US of A.
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Since it contains the actual firing mechanism, I imagine it would be treated as a receiver. So, yes, probably.
I don't think so. The device by itself is incapable of being used as a firearm. The receiver on an '03A1 Springfield is already serial numbered and constitutes the "firearm" for ATF purposes. You wouldn't need a license/permit to swap bolts in a Springfield rifle, which is, essentially, all the Pedersen Device is. Of course, I'm not a lawyer...

Quote:
Anyone who can afford a Pedersen device can afford a lawyer to guard it.
Exactly!
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 06:14 PM   #9
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,380
Quote:
Anyone who can afford a Pedersen device can afford a lawyer to guard it.
That's true, but part of this discussion is about a reproduction or similar device of modern production. The cost of something like that would be significantly lower than a Pedersen Device.
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old June 7, 2012, 11:51 PM   #10
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,609
At the right price I would be interested in one for a Mosin Nagant in 7.62 Tokarev, but no way I am butchering a 1903a3 receiver.

What are the AR conversions with the top mag feed classified as? Seems like it would be the same to me.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old June 11, 2012, 09:51 AM   #11
chack
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Location: dixie
Posts: 477
A simple blowback adapter for a cartridge as powerful as the 7.62 tokerev would be pretty hard to imagine. That's why I was suggesting 32 acp.It would be awesome though.
chack is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10135 seconds with 9 queries