I find it a bit ironic that it's made in NJ.

I put the odds of that thing going into production and not being reclassified by the ATF as an AOW at around 5%.

It sounds interesting, but I feel this may end up being little more than a novelty. Their target consumer will likely not be able to legally carry this firearm unless they live in a state where a permit will be issued without passing a shooting proficiency test or where no carry permit is required. I don't think many would be able to pass a timed shooting proficiency test with that thing. Those that can pass a shooting proficiency test with a conventional firearm likely won't buy very many of them at $300 a pop. At $100 a pop, maybe.

Surprised they don't think it will be an AOW as well.

Would be fine for CCW in Colorado. Only bad in states where you have to identify the weapon you are carrying (I would think). In colorado you can take your training with any pistol and then carry whatever pistol you want. As long as this is declared by BATFe to be a normal pistol by Federal definition, it would be OK in Colo.

If it doesn't qualify as a regular pistol ... I think an ADA lawsuit is in order. Seriously. And likewise any shooting test in any state should be changed for this weapon for the disabled as likewise an ADA issue.

I don't believe any kind of AOW would technically qualify.

FYI. the ATF has formally classified the Palm Pistol as a standard "pistol" and not AOW. Steve Halbrook represented me before the BATFE Firearms technology Branch when I submitted my request for evaluation and classification.

Matt,

I recall the atf approved the "firefaster" too and then following ramp up and production changed their minds.

Good luck anyway the more guns the better.

In the 19th century many systems like this pistol were built.
For example the Palm Pistol „The Protector“ Kaliber .32, Rimfire,1882 by J.E. Turbiaux
or the Galouise pistol

http://site.voila.fr/collectionarme/gaulois.htm

The only problem is it seems a little large. Why is the barrel so big. This is a 9mm single shot. Way to large. Why is it larger then a Chicago Palm Pistol. And don't tell me it's because it is in 9mm. The Chicago Palm Pistol is a 6 shot revolver this is a single shot.

It is to big and price is to high. And the BATF will screw them when they start production.

I don't think the size is a problem - if your target market is people who have trouble with their dexterity they're not going to want something fumble-tiny.

While I like the symmetry of the design I have a slight worry about the bottom 'trigger' - is it possible to discharge the weapon by dropping it down to your leg? Particularly if you have something in your pocket that the bottom trigger could hit? Just don't wany anyone literally shooting themselves in the foot.

Anybody else notice the optional rail with laser at the bottom?

Looks like the "grip safety" or whatever they are calling it would reduce the likelihood of an AD from dropping it.

The size, while being better for the target market, also could have helped keep this from being listed as an AOW.

I like it, it doesn't look like a gun, great thing for elderly parents.

The following are my comments in response to some of the questions posed here:

First, I live in New Jersey and am quite frustrated regarding the anti-rights environment here. That is why I chose to get involved in activism. If chnage is going to occur, it makes little sense to bring the fight to Texas where legislators still respect the Constitution. Rather, the best approach is to bring the fight to the enemy. And besides California, what battlefield is better than this state?

There seems to be lack of clarity regarding the ATF classification of the design. As stated on the website, the Firearms Technology Branch has formally ruled that the Palm Pistol is a standard pistol. This was one of the major hurdles and was very time consuming and costly. The Palm Pistol's size and shape were all based on meeting this definition. Steve Halbrook, one of the country's most reknown firearms attornies, represented me and we were successful in achieving our goal.

I am aware there have been instances where the ATF rescinded prior classification rulings. However, every business venture entails risk and it is Mr. Halbrook's opinion the risk of that occuring here is low.

The triggers located on the distal ends will be immobilzed unless the two contact safeties located on the forward edge of the stock and adjacent to the barrel are depressed. The safeties will also immobilize the breech access latch preventing it from being depressed while shooting.

If anyone has specific questions or constructive criticisms, I would be happy to respond off line out of respect to David Hardy's blog.

I wonder how this would stand in light of laws some states have prohibiting "firearms made especially for concealment"?

My layman's guess is that it'd probably be OK, but whenever ambiguities meet (as in, the ambiguity of the law and the ambiguity of the design), the result goes nonlinear real fast.

I guess the real danger would be if the standard was something like "not obviously a gun", coupled with "that looks like an inhaler"