(sigh) Why can’t these threads ever be about John Kerry wearing beach sandals?
Well, that would depend whether the idea is that the shotgun must have 1 of the 4 listed characteristics, or 3. Both of these interpretations could be supported by the statute. It really is very badly worded.
Anyone know how the legislation translates into concrete regulation? Is there a regulation or other list, published subsidiary to the 1994 Act, that names proscribed firearms? I assume so. Perhaps we can check this to see what particular models are proscribed.
This pistol grip stuff is rather inane. If that shotgun has a pistol grip, then every longarm in existence also has a pistol grip, and hence the term is completely meaningless. Since we can presume that the bill’s authors don’t intend the term to be completely meaningless, we can safely conclude that the term ‘pistol grip’ is not intended to be interpreted in such a ridiculously broad fashion.
References to pistol grips in this context generally mean that one graps the firearm with the trigger hand on a grip protruding below the stock (as seen here, rather than grasping the firearm with the trigger hand around a slender, often curved portion of the stock itself (as seen in the pic of the shotgun in question linked above).
For the record, I think regulating access to firearms based on cosmetic features is the height of stupidity, and that the so-called “Assault Weapon Ban” is utterly useless, what with its talk of pistol grips and carrying handles and bayonet lugs. But the shotgun in question clearly doesn’t have any of those cosmetic features. Moreover, its mag only holds 4 rounds, and it doesn’t accept an external mag, either. So basically, the OP’s story is factually incorrect, as there’s no chance that the shotgun would have been banned by the renewed AWB.
If you want to pit someone, do it in the appropriate forum.
Lockdown.