Is This A Class III Device?

I've had such bad luck dealing with all fed agencies...
Click to expand...

HA! A friend of mine says dealing with any government agency is like poking a bear with a stick, sometimes it'll move on in the direction you want it to and other times it'll turn around and bite you.

The question in post #1 turned out to be more 'nuanced' than one would have ever thought. (Says Dale using his word of the day.)
 
Thanks jmorris. The example that's exempted is exactly how the one in question looks. The entire slide is clearly visible.

DaleA - If it ever moved in a direction that didn't scare me, I'd not be nearly as leery as I am of it.
 
The above holster does not reclassify the weapon as an AOW, . Among other things an AOW is a weapon that is concealable on ones person that is NOT a pistol or revolver. A pistol or revolver is by definition designed to be fired with one hand (ie it has a SINGLE pistol-grip). Since the case has a second hole for a finger that counts as the case allowing a fairly normal grip. If there was no second hold the weapon would be classed as an AOW. The classification has nothing to do with the slide being visible, it is all about the lack of a "pistol-grip". Notice the "Defining Characteristic" on the BATFE website "Holster has hole to fire weapon".See...

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-section-9
 
My personal opinion says, 'yes, that is [or will be] an AOW.'
Current ATF opinion, or not (whatever that's worth :rolleyes:), I wouldn't mess with that "holster".

The defining characteristic, for me, is the fact that the 'holster' is installed on the firearm and is not readily removable. Combined with the manufacturer's own description including the line, "...Disguises itself as a back pocket wallet..." I'd have to say the ATF will not be smiling down upon this design. Slide exposed, or not, it's a "wallet" that can fire without removing the firearm.
 
Contact the ATF, and see what they say. And if possible, get it in writing. ATF opinions are known to change.
Click to expand...

Yeah, please don't. Best case, they tell you what we already know about a holster you aren't even buying, worst case, you've destroyed this company & made worthless all the holsters they've sold to people so far. In all likelihood you'll frame your question poorly, or broadly, so the ATF can interpret it to their benefit, and issue a hostile ruling. "Legal curosity" is a stupid reason to go snooping, and can only have negative consequences. The ATF letters aren't even binding, not even for the person/item in question (since they are subject to change)

If you are given trouble over the holster, that is when you get legal help to construct a bullet proof argument against their opinion.

TCB
 
The defining characteristic, for me, is the fact that the 'holster' is installed on the firearm and is not readily removable. Combined with the manufacturer's own description including the line, "...Disguises itself as a back pocket wallet..." I'd have to say the ATF will not be smiling down upon this design. Slide exposed, or not, it's a "wallet" that can fire without removing the firearm.
Click to expand...

Lots of things get installed on a gun that make the gun look different - that doesn't make it an AOW. You can see the bore, trigger, and slide when unconcealed. That is far more than what you see with a Braverman pen gun.

Making a gun look and print like a wallet when it is concealed is not only legal but helps users comply with local/state laws by keeping their gun concealed. In any event, I've been carrying my Dimondback DB9 in one of these for about 1.5 years now. Here is a picture of mine:

/media/DSCF0885_zps2zyuzae8.jpg.html]
DSCF0885_zps2zyuzae8.jpg
[/URL]
 
jmorris is correct. The exposed slide makes it a legal item while the ones that completely cover the weapon but can be fired without removing are AOW.
These exposed slide versions have been on the market for several years and remain due to some small popularity with the inexperienced.
They are large, do not draw well from a pocket and are clumsy to shoot with. Their sole purported virtue of not printing like a gun is hype. Other pocket holster designs are equal or better print proof without the drawbacks.
 
Not directly pertinent to the OP's question, but we had guy shoot himself in the butt here earlier this summer. He was moving a spare tailgate out of his PU and sliding his butt along the floor of the bed. Had the pistol (Ruger LCP) in the back pocket of his jeans. He got stuck sliding over a tie-down, it positioned just right and applied enough pressure to discharge the weapon. The round grazed the back of his thigh and no one else was hurt.

Since a lot of our guys use these to carry as back-ups we put out an officer safety bulletin about the incident.
 
Post #20 = Winner, winner chicken dinner!

I cannot believe that it took 20 guesses until someone (jmorris) posted the correct answer.
 
Can't say for sure as to the law, but this style of holster is designed to look like a wallet, etc. while in your pocket. It is also designed to be able to fire specifically from the holster. This is used as a prime selling point for the holster.
 
There is never a correct answer, when dealing with the ATF.
Click to expand...

Everytime I have had a question for them they have given me an answer. Not that they don't change the rules.

Like allowing "multi" for caliber on SBR's, approving devices like the Akins accelerator and AW sym, only to later rescind it.

But as of the time I posted the answer it was correct. If you want to confirm you can call the NFA branch at the number I posted on the last page.
 
To be fair, BATFE really doesn't get all of the blame for not being able to give consistent answers to questions. BATFE passes rules based on the "gun stuff" and guns that are already out there.

But, when ingenious inventors decide to invent devices that: 1) make a gun fire at near full-auto rates; 2) are called "solvent traps" but can be used to make silencers; 3) might be a gadget gun; 4) is called an "80% receiver", 5) or sort-of, kind-of looks like a forward pistol grip - BATFE doesn't always know what to do with these new developments.

I'm not saying that there is anything at all wrong with folks making things that are within the bounds of the written laws and rules - in fact, I like to see this. But let's at least acknowledge that it's not just BATFE arbitrarily making stupid rules...at least not always.
 
worst case, you've destroyed this company & made worthless all the holsters they've sold to people so far.
Click to expand...

Nice guilt trip. Sorry, its BS. Oh, of COURSE the ATF would NEVER notice the product, and issue a ruling, except for the fact that ONE GUY thinking of buying one asked a question?? No, not buying that for a minute.

HOWEVER, even if I did, the one to blame is NOT the guy asking the question (or, even the ATF). The one(s) to blame for "destroying the company" would be the ones running the company, for not getting ATF approval before making their first sale.

Seriously, if you plan to make a product that, at a glance, at least, seem very similar to something that is regulated/banned, if you go ahead and spend your (and other people's money) setting up production and marketing WITHOUT getting a valid legal ruling from the GOV that your product is legal, then you're either an idiot, or something worse.

WITH ATF approval, suitably documented, if the ATF changes it's ruling, you at least have the "acting in good faith" argument to take them to court with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top