« Gun Rights Policy Conference this weekend | Main | Obama's not much of a speaker »
Legal thoughts on the Palm Pistol
The inventor of the Palm Pistol has added, not only the ATF approval letter, but Steve Halbrook's letter to ATF, which goes into much more legal detail. (It's all one pdf file, Steve's letter follows that of the ATF). The key argument appears to be that a "pistol" has a "grip" (whereas 19th century palm pistols did not) that is at an angle to the bore (which cane guns, etc. do not satisfy). It's all pretty arbitrary, of course -- but then the pistol vs. "any other weapon" distinction has always been. And AOW only got into NFA because of a quirk in how the statute was drafted and then amended ... it's not like the gangsters of 1934 were running around shooting at each other with palm guns from the 1890s, or guns built into a gentleman's walking cane.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
The ATF doesn't let the law get in the way of what they want to do. So why should it matter if part of the law is "arbitrary and capricious,". The ATF is "arbitrary and capricious,". How else can one man be found guilty of being a dealer without an FFL for selling 12 weapons in a year while at the same time a FFL holder's FFL is pulled because he only sold 12 weapons in a year.
"arbitrary and capricious," DEFINES the ATF.
I think I tracked down the "proposed rulemaking" that the ATF referred to, and I think it would ban this pistol.
If you want one of these then I would suggest buying it during the brief window of time that it will remain legal.
Here's the proposed rule from the 7 Apr 05 Federal Register Volume 70, Number 66
[Proposed Rules][Page 17624-17626]
"...the proposed definition of ``pistol'' in section 479.11 would read as follows:
(a) A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having--
(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
(b) The term shall not include any weapon disguised to look like an item other than a firearm, such as a pengun, wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun or gadget device, or any gun that fires more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
It doesn't appear to me that the Palm Pistol, in any manner, falls outside the current definition of "pistol" or this proposed change to the current definition of "pistol". Bear in mind this proposed rule revision has not to date been adopted.
Unless there is no statutory time limit between the proposal and the adoption of a federal regulation it would appear the revised rule will not be adopted.
WW Woodyard's opinion corresponds precisely with that rendered to me by Steve Halbrook. Nothing in the proposed change, which has not yet been adopted and may never be, will have an impact on the Palm Pistol. The centerline of the stock is at an angle to and extends below the centerline of the bore, has an integral chamber permanently aligned with the bore and is designed to be held in one hand. I designed the gun while staring at the CFR. End of story, I believe.
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the very term "any other weapon," and certainly the way it is used, seem inherently "arbitrary and capricious," to use Justice Scalia's term?