Understanding the Virginia ban on ‘street sweeper’ shotguns

saiga_drum_magA question that arises quite frequently concerns the interpretation of the ‘like kind‘ language in the Virginia ban on Striker 12 Street Sweeper shotguns.

With the popularity of semi-auto shotguns such as the Saiga and Vepr 12, these questions are understandable.

Today I was asked this question yet again by a long-time client and I thought the answer might be of interest to others.

His questions could be paraphrased as follows:

In a Saiga or Vepr semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun with a folding stock:

  1. Is it legal to use any box magazine regardless of capacity?
  2. Is a 10 round drum magazine allowable?
  3. What about a 20 round drum magazine?  Since the statute specifically requires a 12 round magazine wouldn’t a 20 be acceptable?

Let’s start by looking at the applicable statute which is § 18.2-308.8 of the Code of Virginia.  It reads as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, possess or transfer the following firearms: the Striker 12, commonly called a “streetsweeper,” or any semi-automatic folding stock shotgun of like kind with a spring tension drum magazine capable of holding twelve shotgun shells. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony.

Breaking the prohibition down, we see that the ‘like kind‘ language requires that, in order to be prohibited, a firearm must be:

  • A semi-auto …
  • shotgun …
  • with a folding stock …
  • with a spring tension drum magazine …
  • that is capable of holding 12 shotgun shells

Now that we have broken down the requirements, let’s answer the 3 questions above.

  1.  Is it legal to use any box magazine regardless of capacity?
    1. Yes.  In order to fall under the prohibition, a firearm must have a spring tension drum magazine.  A box magazine would fall outside the prohibition.
  2. Is a 10 round drum magazine allowable?
    1. Yes.  A 10 round drum magazine is not ‘capable of holding 12 shotgun shells’ and therefore that configuration would fall outside the prohibition.
  3. What about a 20 round drum magazine?  Since the statute specifically requires a 12 round magazine wouldn’t a 20 be acceptable?
    1. No!  The statute does not require that the magazine be exactly 12 rounds, only that it becapable of holding twelve shotgun shells’, which a 20 round drum certainly is capable of.  Anyone who interprets this statute to only prohibit drum magazines which hold exactly 12 rounds subject themselves to a significant risk of prosecution and conviction!

I hope this clarifies the issue somewhat.  The good news is that one can take either of these shotguns (or any other semi-auto shotgun capable of holding a drum magazine) completely out of the purview of this statute by removing the folding stock and replacing it with a fixed stock.

NOTE:  This analysis governs ‘like kind‘ shotguns that are not NFA items.  As I explained in this article, the Striker 12 Street Sweeper itself is now classified as an NFA item.

Posted in Street Sweeper, Virginia Law | Comments Off on Understanding the Virginia ban on ‘street sweeper’ shotguns

In honor of our nation’s veterans

veterans_dayAs a nation we tend to talk about ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ as if they were something inevitable.  But a quick look around the world will demonstrate the folly of that assumption.  The ‘freedoms’ we enjoy and the ‘rights’ we claim were purchased in the coin of sacrifice, blood, and lives; and the same price is required to maintain them.

Today … on a day when we as a nation pause to honor those who have served in our military … let us take great care to remember the debt we owe to every man and woman who has ever taken the oath and gone far from home where they intentionally placed themselves in harms way to protect our great republic.

I ask everyone to join me in honoring our service members, past and present, for their service to our country and for their service in defense of freedom.

#RealSuperHeroes

 

Posted in Opinion, Second Amendment | Comments Off on In honor of our nation’s veterans

Picking up a firearm from consignment

consignmentI received a call earlier today from one of my FFL clients asking about this topic.

Specifically, they wanted me to verify whether or not the owner of a consignment firearm needs to complete a 4473 and NICS check in order to have their firearm returned.

Apparently their customer was questioning the requirement and they wanted to be able to show him verification that it was based upon law and not just store policy.

Thankfully, the ATF has this very question answered on their Q&A web site (see the screenshot below).

The answer from the ATF is clear:

“Return of any consigned firearms by the licensee to the consignor must be entered in the licensee’s disposition record. An ATF Form 4473 and a NICS check must be completed prior to the return of such firearms.”

atf_consignment

Posted in 4473, ATF, BATFE, Consignment, Federal Law, FFL Issues | Comments Off on Picking up a firearm from consignment

May an FFL rent handguns and provide ammunition to those under 21 for on-premises use?

range_pictureI have written before about the differences between Virginia law and federal law where the age to acquire, possess, and carry handguns is concerned.

In that article I note that FFL’s are prohibited under 18 USC § 922(b)(1) from ‘selling or delivering‘ a handgun, or ammunition for a handgun, ‘to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age‘.

The question then arises as to whether or not the rental of a handgun for use on an FFL’s on-premises range constitutes ‘delivery‘ for the purposes of applying this prohibition.

The ATF answered this question in their March 2013 Newsletter (embedded below) where they states that “A licensee may rent a handgun to a person less than 21 years of age, or a long gun to a person less than 18 years of age for use at an on-premises shooting range. The on-premises rental of National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms is also permitted.

Download (PDF, 591KB)

But an observant person will note that 18 USC § 922(b)(1) prohibits the sale or delivery of handguns and ammunition for handguns.  So we then have the secondary question of whether or not an FFL may provide ammunition to someone between the ages of 18 and 21 after they have rented them a handgun?

Renowned Pennsylvania firearms attorney Joshua Prince was asked by one of his clients to get a determination letter from the ATF on just this issue.  That determination letter is embedded below.

Download (PDF, 129KB)

To summarize, the ATF’s position is that ammo may be ‘provided’ (but not ‘sold’) in the case of a range-rental if the following requirements are met:

  1. The ammunition is included as part of the overall fee for the usage of the facility.
  2. All spent cartridges must remain at the facility.
  3. Any unused ammunition must be returned with the firearm.
Posted in Age To Possess, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, Federal Law, FFL Issues, Range Issues, Virginia Law | Comments Off on May an FFL rent handguns and provide ammunition to those under 21 for on-premises use?

Does putting a bipod on a pistol make it an AOW?

Charger_BipodI received an email this morning from a client asking whether or not they could add a bipod to their pistol without making it an AOW.

As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, the answer to almost any legal question is “maybe”  and that is certainly the case here.

There is no ATF regulation directly on point to the ‘bipod’ question but that does not mean that we are done with our analysis.

Let’s start with some basic rules:

1) Adding a vertical foregrip to a ‘pistol’ makes it an AOW subject to NFA regulation.  See the Franklin Armory letter below.

2) If the pistol has an overall length greater than 26 inches then you can add a vertical foregrip and convert the ‘pistol’ to a ‘firearm’ in the eyes of the ATF without it being considered an AOW.  This is also covered in the Franklin Armory letter.

Download (PDF, 969KB)

For purposes of this analysis, I am going to assume that we are dealing with a pistol that has an overall length less than 26 inches.

Now we turn to the question of whether or not a bipod can be considered a ‘vertical foregrip’ for purposes of applying rule #1 above.

As my client pointed out in his email, the Ruger Charger 10/22 pistol comes from the factory with a bipod and is not classified as an AOW.  Therefore we do know that at least some types of bipods are allowable.

But does this hold true for all bipods?  No it does not.

The most obvious example of a bipod that would be considered to also be a vertical foregrip is the aptly named Grip Pod pictured below.

This is a bipod that can also serve as a vertical foregrip and therefore would cause a pistol to which it was attached to be considered an AOW.

But not all examples are so clear-cut.  While we do not have a detailed ruling on the issue from the ATF, if a given bipod is capable of being folded into a stable configuration approximating a vertical foregrip then I believe ATF would consider it violative of the rule against vertical foregrips.

Finally, I believe that ATF would probably apply the same logic from the stabilizing brace issue to this question.  In that case, the ATF held that “[s]ince the pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.”

As applied here, I can easily see them holding that “Since the bipod was neither ‘designed’ nor approved to be used as a vertical foregrip, use as a vertical foregrip constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.”

So … where does that leave us?

I believe the best summary would be as follows:

Use of any bipod that has a built in grip or the capability to be folded into a stable configuration approximating a vertical foregrip would potentially expose the owner to a charge of violating the NFA.  The same would probably be true of any person who uses an otherwise legal bipod as a vertical foregrip despite its intended purposes and design.

Outside of those two broad categories, a bipod is perfectly legal for use on a pistol.

Posted in Administrative Law, AOW, AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, Criminal Law, Firearms Technology Branch, Stabilizing Brace | Comments Off on Does putting a bipod on a pistol make it an AOW?