Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

JustaShooter wrote:

lar1 wrote:Thank you for the response. So shockwaves are not consider class 3 type weapons by definition of specific firearm?

FWIW they were never Class 3. That is a Federal designation (technically, Class 3 is the type of license needed to sell them, firearms covered by that license are Title II weapons, or NFA firearms), they were never classified that way since they are over 26" long. However, Shockwaves and similar were classified as Dangerous Ordnance under Ohio law until HB228 and the HB86 fix were enacted. Now they are legal in Ohio, along with any other firearms over 26" that aren't regulated under the NFA.

IMHO they WERE considered Title II until somebody noticed that there was room in the regs for a 26" OAL firearm to have a shorter barrel than 18" and asked for and received an opinion from BATFE.

Prior to that they would stick a tape measure down the bore to the breech face and if it was sub 18" by their definition it was a SBS. They also could and did go after the sub 26" dimension, allegedly in the Randy Weaver case this is what they did, ask him to cut barrels to just over 18", then afterwards altered the guns to sub 26" length.

One case in Ohio (If I recall right) they went after a guy and they tried to measure the length of pull the wrong way.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/ ... osecution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can you imagine the civil liability fallout from a gun store that sold a Shockwave or other similar gun BEFORE they were legal in Ohio ??

Bill

willbird wrote:

JustaShooter wrote:

lar1 wrote:Thank you for the response. So shockwaves are not consider class 3 type weapons by definition of specific firearm?

FWIW they were never Class 3. That is a Federal designation (technically, Class 3 is the type of license needed to sell them, firearms covered by that license are Title II weapons, or NFA firearms), they were never classified that way since they are over 26" long. However, Shockwaves and similar were classified as Dangerous Ordnance under Ohio law until HB228 and the HB86 fix were enacted. Now they are legal in Ohio, along with any other firearms over 26" that aren't regulated under the NFA.

IMHO they WERE considered Title II until somebody noticed that there was room in the regs for a 26" OAL firearm to have a shorter barrel than 18" and asked for and received an opinion from BATFE.

We'll have to disagree here - the ATF ruling simply followed existing law that allowed that configuration. They may have been *treated* as Title II firearms (though, I'm unaware of any specific instances where they were), but under the law, they were not.

willbird wrote: Can you imagine the civil liability fallout from a gun store that sold a Shockwave or other similar gun BEFORE they were legal in Ohio ??

Plenty of gun shops did exactly that - some even informed their customers that they needed an Ohio Dangerous Ordnance License to possess them legally, while others did not. What civil liability would they have been subjected to, exactly?

JustaShooter wrote: We'll have to disagree here - the ATF ruling simply followed existing law that allowed that configuration. They may have been *treated* as Title II firearms (though, I'm unaware of any specific instances where they were), but under the law, they were not.

willbird wrote: Can you imagine the civil liability fallout from a gun store that sold a Shockwave or other similar gun BEFORE they were legal in Ohio ??

Plenty of gun shops did exactly that - some even informed their customers that they needed an Ohio Dangerous Ordnance License to possess them legally, while others did not. What civil liability would they have been subjected to, exactly?

The sale of the gun was illegal in Ohio, had the shop followed the law no sale would have taken place, imagine the fun a lawyer would have with that in a civil lawsuit ?? EXACTLY the lawyer would make the case that the shop helped cause the mayhem the person committed with such a gun by selling it to them illegally.

Another example of this is the Calico 9mm guns that had magazines that held more than the maximum amount before the laws were changed, again the sale was illegal under ohio law.

There is really no basis for disagreement about what BATFE did, I'll bet you a cold soda that far more than one person was tried and convicted under federal law based on being charged for shotguns that had sub 18" barrel but were 26" or more OAL.

Bumpstocks were legal, then later illegal. Streetsweeper shotguns were not DD, but then they were.

willbird wrote:

JustaShooter wrote: We'll have to disagree here - the ATF ruling simply followed existing law that allowed that configuration. They may have been *treated* as Title II firearms (though, I'm unaware of any specific instances where they were), but under the law, they were not.

willbird wrote: Can you imagine the civil liability fallout from a gun store that sold a Shockwave or other similar gun BEFORE they were legal in Ohio ??

Plenty of gun shops did exactly that - some even informed their customers that they needed an Ohio Dangerous Ordnance License to possess them legally, while others did not. What civil liability would they have been subjected to, exactly?

The sale of the gun was illegal in Ohio, had the shop followed the law no sale would have taken place, imagine the fun a lawyer would have with that in a civil lawsuit ?? EXACTLY the lawyer would make the case that the shop helped cause the mayhem the person committed with such a gun by selling it to them illegally.

That's just it, you don't know that they sold them illegally. Even before HB228 was enacted, you could legally possess those firearms.

willbird wrote:Another example of this is the Calico 9mm guns that had magazines that held more than the maximum amount before the laws were changed, again the sale was illegal under ohio law.

It was perfectly legal to possess magazines with greater than 30-round capacity under Ohio law before the change - as long as you didn't insert the magazine into the firearm. They broke no law by selling them.

willbird wrote:There is really no basis for disagreement about what BATFE did, I'll bet you a cold soda that far more than one person was tried and convicted under federal law based on being charged for shotguns that had sub 18" barrel but were 26" or more OAL.

Happy to have you point any out. I'll be happy to point out that their lawyers were incompetent if they couldn't see the exception for those under Federal law even before the BATFE ruling.

willbird wrote:Bumpstocks were legal, then later illegal. Streetsweeper shotguns were not DD, but then they were.

That is, of course, an entirely different matter. Yes, it is possible at the stroke of a pen for anything we own to become illegal. That shouldn't be the case (and I shudder at how we've allowed the government to make inanimate objects illegal...) but what I'm saying about the above has nothing to do legislating something to be illegal under the law (or in the case of the bumpstock ban, re-writing law by regulation, which I still believe will be overturned eventually).

Kinda like the nonsense with Tannerite. You can buy, sell, or own it but as soon as you mix it you are a criminal.

JustaShooter wrote: That's just it, you don't know that they sold them illegally. Even before HB228 was enacted, you could legally possess those firearms.

IMHO there were two ways to legally posses them.
1. Have them in the NFA registry somehow as AOW or SBS (this would require building on form 1 or transfer using form 4)
2. Have a dangerous ordnance permit which is "may issue" at whim of county sherriff.

The paper trail is all there to show that neither condition was true at the time of sale.

Nobody saw the exemption for a shotgun with sub 18" barrel but plus 26" length until somebody asked for a clarification, plain and simple if the tape measure down the muzzle showed under 18" you were in hot water.

Your still in hot water in Ohio if you do this.........(unless it has been amended and Lawriter does not have it yet)

2923.16 Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle.
(C) No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded, and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways:

(1) In a closed package, box, or case;

(2) In a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;

(3) In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;

(4) If the firearm is at least twenty-four inches in overall length as measured from the muzzle to the part of the stock furthest from the muzzle and if the barrel is at least eighteen inches in length, either in plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped, or, if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight.

That covers quite a few factory 22 rifles with 16" barrels, a lot of AR with 16" barrels, and would cover the shockwave too, they cannot just be tossed on the back seat unloaded legally.

WY_Not wrote:Kinda like the nonsense with Tannerite. You can buy, sell, or own it but as soon as you mix it you are a criminal.

That is true of all explosives in Ohio really. There were binary explosives avail before Tannerite. The advantage to them is that they do not have to be stored in an explosive magazine, the user only has to store the blasting caps legally.

Bill

As for the Calico 9mm, it's smallest magazine was 50 rounds. No doubt they were displayed and sold with magazine attached. An owner of a fairly large gun store asked if I would look at one for a customer of his...it needed a repair of some kind and the gun store owner who also did a lot of gunsmith work did not want it in his shop because the 50 round magazine needed to be attached to test fire it.

Bill

https://smga.us9.list-manage.com/track/ ... ad8e977f38" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;