I am interested in how the language of the Clinton ban would apply to this gun.
Does the language cover things that are not Rifles, Pistols, or SBRs?
I am interested because Massachusetts has the Clinton ban still, I wonder if it would cover this gun.
yea. we also can’t have more than 10 rounds in a pistol mag. Which is sorta how we get around using 30 round ar15 magazines. Since ar pistols are considered “assault pistols”, it’s technically not a pistol, therefore ar15 mag’s can’t be used in a “pistol” and should not be illegal.
And i’m not sure if what i said even makes sense, but damn i’m still at work and can barely stay awake.
It is a Title 1 “other” firearm.
AFAIK…
Under MA laws, the Franklin Armory XO-26 would be considered a “large capacity weapon”.
That letter makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
It sounds like to me they couldn’t classify it so they say it doesn’t fall under NFA.
So the first question has to be… What is it? Unfortunately the manufacturer has already classified it as a pistol.
Started life as a pistol
Grip off, it’s a pistol
Grip on, it’s still a pistol but NFA doesn’t have a specific class.
It only stands to reason that it’s a firearm. It is some other sort of firearm that the manufacturer understands to be a pistol.
I wouldn’t want that letter as my defense.
If an ATF agent came to my house and I showed him a letter from the ATF saying what I had was legal, I’m pretty sure I would still be stuck in legal proceedings for years. Ask anyone who bought an Akins Accelerator.
Hi M4 Carbine.
There are a lot of interesting posts here, so I’ll try to touch on a few of the points. The first is the general legality of the product. As most of you know, the U.S. legal system is predicated greatly on precedent. For many years the Thompson 1927A5 “pistol” has been commercially available in the U.S. This firearm features a pistol grip as well as a secondary forward grip. Mr. Spencer stated to us that the 1927A5 is defined as an"other" under Federal law though it is marketed by Auto-Ordnance as a pistol. All Franklin Armory did was note the similarity of configurations between the 1927A5 and what we now call the XO-26 configuration. If the ATF were to revert their opinion on this matter, they would likely have to recall thousands of 1927A5s that have been sold over the years. I just don’t see that happening.
Recently, we wrote a follow up letter to ask if it is legal to transform the firearm (post sale) from “other” to “pistol” and visa-versa. Our argument is that it should be legal since a buyer has to be at least 21 to purchase either class of firearm, and there is no other Federal interest in precluding the transition. We will post the results when they become available.
On Friday (when I waiting for my M4 Carbine account to be approved) I did check the regs for Hawaii and Mass. I don’t have it front of me now, but I think the XO-26 would be legal in Hawaii if we used a bullet button mag release. While that is somewhat onerous, I know you boys like to do a little pig hunting. Can you imagine one of these rigs in 450 Bushmaster? 
In Massachusetts, TMS951 is on to something. I think this configuration would be potentially viable as an “other” but not as a pistol. BTW, we only market it as a pistol where the state definition requires it to be so. For example, in Ca, anything with a barrel less than 16" is automatically defined as a pistol. Also, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be equipped with just a ten round magazine. The other thing I noticed in Mass. was that the state law referenced the Clinton AW ban, but when I turn to my Federal regs, I see the that the section does not exists anymore. So, how can a state law reference a federal section for the state definition of an AW when that section doesn’t even exist in print? I know that’s a tenuous argument that no one wants to hang their hat on, but on a theoretical level, it is interesting.
The last thing I should mention is that, while I have decent grasp of Ca law, I am a novice at understanding the laws in 49 other states.
Thanks for posting Franklin Armory. Legislative language is confusing anyway. I like that You guys are challenging the illegal regulations and finding ways around them. I would love a vert grip on my ar pistol, but even after reading all of this I am not sure I wanna risk being harassed or become a test subject. Makes no sense why a grip would be illegal on an ar pistol because it is still not as effective as an actual carbine. Even if I printed out the letter, it is so confusing, I am not sure it would end the harassment without being charged, and having to prove my innocence in court, and spend a ton of money on lawyers and a trial. Hopefully the latest letter will be more clear cut, and less confusing.
I’d stay away from using thE letter as a defense as well. Its confusing language is designed to let interpretation be brought in by ethier side, but in the long run, the civilian will lose. Sad that it works that way. I’d wait a little longer to see what else they put out there to be on the safe side
This is a lot like pistol gripped firearms that fire shot shells… what most people call a pistol grip only shotgun. It’s not a shotgun since it’s not meant to be fired from the shoulder, but it’s not a handgun either. So it’s an “other” and specifically a pistol gripped firearm.
The long AR in this thread is basically the same. It’s not a rifle since it’s not meant to be fired from the shoulder, but it’s also not an AOW since it’s not concealable or a smooth bored pistol,
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.
It seems it would be the same definition.
Not if the FFL dealer was doing his paperwork properly. On the 4473, a receiver is a receiver and an “other.” Regardless of what it can be made into. Even if can only be made into a rifle, or a pistol, it’s still an “other.”
There are state forms in some states that are more stringent, such as Washington having a checkbox for “receiver or frame only,” but that’s not federal law.
A receiver is a receiver regardless of what’s stamped on it. Just like making a carbine out of a Glock or 1911. But once it’s a rifle, it’s always a rifle (the ruling for the TC Contender seems to apply just to the TC Contender). If that receiver was never built into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), then it can legally be built into a pistol or anything else for that matter. Of course proving it was never built could be hard if you aren’t the first buyer.
This brings an interesting idea for shot guns. Will this lead the way for us to be able to have shot guns with no stock (two pistol grips) and a barrel less than 18" so long as the overall length is still over 26 inches? A little off topic but something worth thinking about, and seemingly much more useful than the AR in question.
That’s the beauty about the letter. It precisely and clearly shows the controlling and relevant sections on page one, the precedence in the 1927A5 Thompson, and the conclusion on page 2 that our product does not require NFA paperwork. While the verbiage and style is protective of the government’s interest, it defines a clear boundary and authorization to build this configuration. Given that this letter is signed by the “Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch,” I can’t imagine an ATF agent arresting anyone for this product. If it wasn’t legal, wouldn’t they simply pay me a visit?
TMS951 brings up an interesting suggestion in the preceding post. Of course someone would have to write another letter prior to building such a device with NFA stamps since that is so far out of the scope of this discussion. Great idea though. 
In regards to Massachusetts law I believe this would still be a no go seeing as it has all 5 of the features listed below. 
The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of features are banned…
a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; (iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and (v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
Out of curiosity, would this be legal in Kalifornia without a bullet button?
This is exactly the loop hole I am wondering about. It states a “semiautomatic pistol” can not have more than 2 of the 5 listed items.
The thing is, what we are talking about is not a pistol. It is an “other”. It does however seem like a dangerous game because if the forward vertical grip is removed then it is a pistol.
You need to look up your State’s definition of a “pistol/handgun”, many copy Federal definitions but not all.
If you are worried about owning one then you should be equally worried about the PG Mossy 500’s on the shelf of gun shops all over. There is nothing scary about it, read the legal definition of a pistol and AOW, this is neither.
A pistol gripped firearm with barrel less than 18" and OAL greater than 26" can be made in 12ga.
http://www.shockwavetechnologies.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=50
Here is what I have found:
Section 121. As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:-…
“Firearm”, a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured;…
P.S. Glad I moved to Fl
No.
A mag lock and 10 round or less magazine is required for it to be legal in CA.
Under CA laws, this is a “handgun”. Therefore, the pistol assault weapon laws apply and it will need to be configured to conform to those laws.
more power to them and good luck on the sale of these.
The concept that because a firearm is less that 16", it is SOOOO much more dangerous, illegal, or what ever is retarded in the first place.
Velcro