Just had one come into the pawn shop. So what’s that goofy looking fin on the pistol grip. Seems awfully uncomfortable
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
California compliant question
- Thread starter Chuck24
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Westie1
Member
Out here, to keep from having to register any MSR, one option is to go featureless. State has decided that normal pistol grip is a no-no. The purpose of the fin is to keep the web between the thumb and index finger above the top of the trigger-thus eliminating one of the "evil features".
Depending on the specific grip/fin, it's usable. Other evil features are flash hiders and adjustable stocks.
Depending on the specific grip/fin, it's usable. Other evil features are flash hiders and adjustable stocks.
What exactly do they think that will do? How does that make a rifle “safer” or whatever it is they are trying to do?
OP
Thanks, I had no idea. We’ve had such a hard time getting any inventory through our normal suppliers the boss has been on various auction sites. Now he knows why I said not to buy stuff that is California compliant. Paid more for a sd9ve with a 10 rounder than could have gotten a normal one.
Westie1
Member
Sorry for the delay in replying. The " logic" behind all these compliant requirements is that they reduce the chances of a mass shooting. You can have all the "evil features" if the MSR is registered. However, you can't sell it in state. Also, it must be turned into the state for destruction upon the passing of the owner.
I've tried working with that fin grip, but I just cannot get use to it and it is more of a distraction then anything else (probably because all my other guns have grips designed for the human hands). To me it was designed to give a person LESS control with less stability. That's a no-no in my book. Can you imagine going through a training course with it..that would suck.
Last edited:
Miami_JBT
US Veteran
It is gun control, plain and simple. It isn't intended to make things easier or better.
The lawmakers' goal was simple. Make owning a AR-15 difficult or outright ban them. The definition of an assault weapon in California is anything with a pistol grip.
The fin is a way for gun owners to work around the ban since the letter of the law is so specific, someone figured out a "hack".
opoefc
US Veteran
According to this mornings newspaper , a federal Judge just threw out Calif.'s Assault Rifle law as unconstitutional , but has allowed the State 30 days to appeal. Ed
I am hoping by some strange luck that the 30 day appeal does not hit any bites, but historically there is always last minute **** that interferes and keeps the ongoing unconstitutional legislation in affect. I guess we can only cross our fingers, but right now I am skeptical anything will change for the better.
Last edited by a moderator:
csurp34
US Veteran
I notice throughout this thread and the video that Assault Weapon and Assault Rifle terms are being used interchangeably even on the same slide.
IMO that is the sole reason that the term Assault Weapon was invented; to conflate civilian sporting rifles with military assault rifles and thus create the need to regulate/ban them.
Many now think they are the same.
Mission accomplished.
IMO that is the sole reason that the term Assault Weapon was invented; to conflate civilian sporting rifles with military assault rifles and thus create the need to regulate/ban them.
Many now think they are the same.
Mission accomplished.
