Pistol Grip Shotgun

[dzavoina]

That's what it says verbatim.
Look it up yourself:
NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(e)

There isn't any interpretation involved.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by dzavoina

That's what it says verbatim.
Look it up yourself:
NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(e)

There isn't any interpretation involved.

Arm braces came almost 80 years after the NFA and aren’t mentioned anywhere in the US Code nor in the Code of Federal Regulations. So why are you citing the NFA and US Code?

[raimius]

The question of whether a brace constitutes a "redesign" from the definitions of rifles or shotguns (e.g. "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder") has been addressed by the ATF. In their letter to SB Tactical's lawyer, the ATF indicated that a properly installed brace, which has not been altered, may be fired from other positions without necessarily "redesigning" it into an NFA item.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by dzavoina

That's what it says verbatim.
Look it up yourself:
NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(e)

There isn't any interpretation involved.

And as we all know, one something has been written into U.S. Code, it is unheard of for there to be any disagreement as to interpretation.

Aside from that ridiculous non sequitur, 26 USC 5845(e) says verbatim:

Originally Posted by 26 USC 5845(e)

e) Any other weapon
The term "any other weapon" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Since the Shockwave is a title I weapon, I’m not sure why you think citing Title II regulations helps your argument, or why you would cite to (e) which specifically says that AOWs can not be “designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder” when you are arguing a brace makes a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder?

[langenc]

Gun laws esp written to entrap users and req a lawyer to interpet--all for their own good.