|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 5, 2012, 11:16 PM | #1 |
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? |
June 5, 2012, 11:59 PM | #2 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||
June 6, 2012, 01:36 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,424
|
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.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
June 6, 2012, 06:35 PM | #4 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Location: dixie
Posts: 477
|
1)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
||||
June 6, 2012, 07:46 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2,313
|
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.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now. |
June 6, 2012, 09:19 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,857
|
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 |
June 6, 2012, 09:20 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
Anyone who can afford a Pedersen device can afford a lawyer to guard it.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
June 7, 2012, 09:14 AM | #8 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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 craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
||
June 7, 2012, 06:14 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,424
|
Quote:
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
June 7, 2012, 11:51 PM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
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. |
June 11, 2012, 09:51 AM | #11 |
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.
|
|
|