Is This A Class III Device?

F

FN15

Inactive
This is (obviously) for sale at Amazon and seems to be quite popular. Some say that when one of the pistols it's designed for is holstered it becomes a Class III device or a destructive device.

Since this is supposed to be used for defense, it'd be remarkably awkward to use it legitimately for one's defense but then face major federal charges for having used an unregistered Class III device in doing so.

I don't see this as being a Class III device, but would be curious to hear the opinions of others.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K3STNQ6
 
In my possibly un-informed opinion, no, it doesn't appear to be a Class III device. But I don't see the purpose of it, other than taking up more room in your pocket. It doesn't offer any protection covering the trigger.
 
Some of the reviews at Amazon claim it's a destructive device. That's what sparked my concern. It's not a destructive device as sold but if also equipped with a pistol.

The reason for the device is how it prints in one's pocket. Put, say, an LCP in your pocket and it prints like a pistol. Put the LCP in this holster and then put in pocket and it prints like a wallet or a cell phone.

It's similar in purpose to a Sneaky Pete holster but in one's pocket rather than on a belt.
 
I see this as a legal problem due to some of the reviews at Amazon. As i understand it, something like a cane that hides a firearm is a destructive device because it doesn't look like a firearm but can shoot.

I don't think this qualifies but am hardly an expert here which is why I posted the OP.
 
Let's look at the definition of Any Other Weapon from 26 U.S. Code § 5845(e), my emphasis underlined.
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.
Click to expand...
The definition specifically exempts "a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore". Therefore, the phrase "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive" must address devices OTHER than pistols and revolvers with rifled bores. FWIW this phrase generally encompasses items that aren't immediately recognizable as firearms.

In the case of the DTOM, the actual device that discharges the shot is a pistol with a rifled bore. The DTOM is merely a fancy device for holding that pistol. Therefore, IMHO this item is NOT an AOW, although it's important to understand that the ATF may issue a ruling contradicting my opinion at any time. :rolleyes:

Mandatory disclaimer: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. ;) This is not legal advice. Caveat emptor and YMMV.
 
The reason for the device is how it prints in one's pocket. Put, say, an LCP in your pocket and it prints like a pistol. Put the LCP in this holster and then put in pocket and it prints like a wallet or a cell phone.
Click to expand...

Pocket holsters don't magically turn pistols into AOWs.
 
OK. I agree with both the above and I also did look the definition up before hand but also remember things like shooting canes being Class III weapons which is why I had some doubt.

I think this settled. Thanks All.
 
FN15 said:
Some of the reviews at Amazon claim it's a destructive device.
Click to expand...
Those reviewers clearly don't understand the definition of a DD. Per 26 U.S. Code § 5845(f), my emphasis underlined:
The term “destructive device” means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device; (2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and (3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon... [other irrelevant exclusions omitted for brevity]
Click to expand...
The DTOM is obviously not a bomb, rocket, missile, explosive, grenade, etc. Thus, the key question is whether it is a "weapon" with "barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter".

The DTOM clearly lacks a "barrel [with] a bore... more than one-half inch in diameter" even if one argues that adding the pistol constitutes a "combination of parts... converting" it into a weapon.

The pertinent question is whether the DTOM is an AOW, not a DD.

FOOTNOTE: The definition of AOW does not include similar "combination of parts" language, so a pistol plus a DTOM cannot constitute a "combination" that would create an AOW—at least not in theory.
 
Last edited:
They did decide wallet holsters were like pin guns and moved them into the AOW designation.

Wallet Holsters

Image of a brown wallet holster
Image of a black wallet holster
Notice: All "Any Other Weapons" have a mandatory tax of $200.00 for making. Transfer of an "Any Other Weapons" is an additional $5.00.
Classification

Any Other Weapon with firearm

Distinctive Characteristics

Holster has hole to fire weapon
Click to expand...

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-section-9


That said, the one you linked to has the pistol much more exposed. Pretty obvious it is a pistol and not just a wallet.

Contact the company or better yet the NFA branch of the BATFE (304-616-4500) and ask a specialist if that would turn your LCP into an AOW.

FWIW I use a techna clip on mine and really like it.
 
TunnelRat said:
Pocket holsters don't magically turn pistols into AOWs.
Click to expand...
This is a simple and succinct way of saying what I've explained in depth with legal citations. :)
FN15 said:
also remember things like shooting canes being Class III weapons which is why I had some doubt.
Click to expand...

Such items are generally AOWs.

The key point: In its assembled firing configuration, if the item looks like a gun, it's generally not an AOW. [EDIT: Unless it's a smoothbore handgun. :)]
 
Last edited:
Pocket holsters don't magically turn pistols into AOWs.
Click to expand...

For us, no, but the ATF makes their own decisions. And their opinion is the one that will land you in court, or not.

Contact the ATF, and see what they say. And if possible, get it in writing. ATF opinions are known to change.

Not my area of expertise, but I do know that there are "wallet style" holsters that ARE regulated AOW. Generally is seems to depend on if is designed for the gun can be fired in the holster, or not.

What we think about this doesn't matter. What matters is what the ATF rules it is, or is not.
 
Thes folks sell a holster that looks like the one you linked to.

https://www.gunnersecurity.com/wallet-holsters-the-law/

At that link they also have a link to this ATF approval letter.

https://www.gunnersecurity.com/wp-co...ploads/atf.jpg

Exhibit 1 is the holster in question and looks like having the entire slide exposed is what took it out of the AOW category.
Click to expand...

Thanks. It does show that the concerns expressed by a few at Amazon aren't entirely without merit. After all, a company does not get a letter from ATF unless there is a question on the table.
 
For us, no, but the ATF makes their own decisions. And their opinion is the one that will land you in court, or not.

Contact the ATF, and see what they say. And if possible, get it in writing. ATF opinions are known to change.

Not my area of expertise, but I do know that there are "wallet style" holsters that ARE regulated AOW. Generally is seems to depend on if is designed for the gun can be fired in the holster, or not.

What we think about this doesn't matter. What matters is what the ATF rules it is, or is not.
Click to expand...

I think I'll contact the company first. I've not had any luck dealing with even benign Fed agencies.
 
FN15 said:
I think I'll contact the company first. I've not had any luck dealing with even benign Fed agencies.
Click to expand...



Frankly while that should be enough, if you're really that concerned I would want something from the ATF directly, unless that company has a letter from the ATF saying their particular product does not fit the definition of AOW when used with the pistol. Companies are in the business to make money. Some do their due diligence, but some don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'd add that while this is an interesting item from a legal curiosity standpoint, I think it's relatively stupid. A holster should cover the trigger and trigger guard; this does not. There are pocket holsters that do offer the protection I mention above. Those same holsters don't, in my experience, print notably in the pocket unless you're wearing pretty tight pants. Not enough that disguising my pistol to look like a wallet at the expense of doing what a holster should do would actually appeal to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've had such bad luck dealing with all fed agencies that I'd prefer, if the company's response doesn't settle me, to just avoid the product.
 
I sent an email to the company and will report here if I get a reply. I don't disagree with tunnelrat's last post about covering the trigger. Some do and some don't. This don't.
 
The point is so the gun won't "print" in your pocket. In other words so the gun in your pocket doesn't look like a gun in your pocket.

The first ones out, looked like a wallet with a hole in it. These the ATF considers AOW's like other devices that are firearms but don't look like it, the aforementioned pen gun as an example.

AOW image from the ATF.
wallet-holster-2.jpg


This is one that they exempted because the entire slide is visible and while it will reduce "printing" in your pocket, once removed it is clearly a firearm.

holster-wallet-laser-front.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top