pedersen device legality

[chack]

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?

 

[Tom Servo]

1) vwould it fall prey to an assault weapon ban?

If there were one, perhaps.

2) saturday night special ban?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're talking about a device attached to a common, quality military firearm.

3) would it require an FFL to transfer?

Since it contains the actual firing mechanism, I imagine it would be treated as a receiver. So, yes, probably.

 

[FrankenMauser]

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.

 

[chack]

1)

If there were one, perhaps.

There is a ban on importation. That ban might be applicable to a pedersen device type item if it was imported

I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're talking about a device attached to a common, quality military firearm.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're talking about a device attached to a common, quality military firearm.

There is a ban on importation of handguns that don't score high enough on a points list. If the device was considered a pistol the points list would be a factor for considration to import. There are also several states and municipalities that have statutes/ordinances that mirror them.

http://www.saysuncle.com/2005/12/15/on_gun_laws_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

Since it contains the actual firing mechanism, I imagine it would be treated as a receiver. So, yes, probably.

I suppose that would differentiate it from something like a .22lr conversion for a AR or AK but how would a striker fired pedersen be different from a striker fird .22 conversion for a glock or any other pistol?

 

[amd6547]

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.

 

[B. Lahey]

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.

 

[Slamfire]

Anyone who can afford a Pedersen device can afford a lawyer to guard it.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Since it contains the actual firing mechanism, I imagine it would be treated as a receiver. So, yes, probably.

I don't think so. The device by itself is incapable of being used as a firearm. The receiver on an '03A1 Springfield is already serial numbered and constitutes the "firearm" for ATF purposes. You wouldn't need a license/permit to swap bolts in a Springfield rifle, which is, essentially, all the Pedersen Device is. Of course, I'm not a lawyer...

Anyone who can afford a Pedersen device can afford a lawyer to guard it.

Exactly!

 

[FrankenMauser]

Anyone who can afford a Pedersen device can afford a lawyer to guard it.

That's true, but part of this discussion is about a reproduction or similar device of modern production. The cost of something like that would be significantly lower than a Pedersen Device.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

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.

 

[chack]

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.