Wilco has left a comment on my blog "LEGAL STATUS OF PISTOL GRIPS AND THUMBHOLE STOCKS” I would like to respond to this here as the points (he?) raised are relevant.
The gist of what Wilco claims is the same as the police, that any stock that has a design which has an “obvious pistol grip that allows a full hand pistol grip” qualifies as an MSSA pistol grip. The Police say that the H&K SL8 “retains the functionality of a pistol grip and much of the appearance and thereby falls within the definition of being MSSA”.
The issue then is that any pistol grip which retains the functionality and appearance of a pistol grip qualifies as MSSA.
Logically all pistol grips retain the functionality and appearance of a pistol grip. Right?
Logically all pistol grips are obvious and allow a full hand pistol grip. Right?
Heck if if didnt look like a pistol grip or function like a pistol grip then obviously its not a pistol grip.
Essentially... if looks like a pistol grip and it feels like a pistol grip then its a pistol grip .... we can all agree on that !
So what that means is that the Police claim all pistol grips retain the functionality and appearance of a pistol grip and are obvious and allow a full hand pistol grip and therefore are MSSA. Right? So all pistol grips are MSSA - call this FACT (A)
Now what the law says is this
All flash suppressors are MSSA. That means if we divide the flash suppressors into two buckets – MSSA flash suppressors and Non MSSA flash suppressors. We have all flash suppressors in the MSSA bucket and none in the non-MSSA bucket. So the whole population of flash suppressors are MSSA. Right?
Collapsible and telescopic stocks are MSSA. So two buckets again – one full of collapsible / telescopic stocks MSSA, the other bucket has all other stocks non-MSSA. You can start to see the logical point…. if there is a subset qualifier of what is MSSA then by implication there must be two groups – one group MSSA and another group non-MSSA. The subset qualifier in this case is "Collapsible and telescopic stocks" Out of all stocks (the whole population) there is a percentage that are MSSA but not 100 percent... meaning the balance left after taking out all the collapsible and telescopic stocks are not MSSA.
Same thing with magazines – First bucket, magazines that hold or appear to hold more than 7 rounds (MSSA), second bucket all the others (non-MSSA)
So now let’s look at pistol grips. There is a qualifier. All pistol grips that are military pattern, free standing pistol grips in our first bucket (MSSA), second bucket all other pistol grips (non MSSA). So this means that there are, according to the Arms Act s2, non-mssa pistol grip options for semi-automatic rifles.
Fact B the legislation says - not all pistol grips are MSSA (military pattern free standing pistol grips.)
So fact B DISPROVES fact A
Having a pistol grip on a semi-automatic rifle does not neccesarily mean the rifle is then an MSSA. Even if it has an obvious pistol grip, that looks like a pistol grip and functions like a pistol grip, that does not mean the pistol grip is a military pattern free standing pistol grip. Obvious functional pistol grips that look like pistol grips are perfectly legal on A Cat semi-autos as long as they are not military pattern free standing.... unless of course you can prove that all pistol grips are free standing military pattern pistol grips... which brings us back to FACT B... (the laws says NOT ALL pistol grips are free standing military pattern)