This is from a BATFU letter that Sebastian has posted concerning the Palm Pistol.
The second thing I notice is, the developer can rely on current definition and invest the farm, and then have the invention reclassified and lose it all. How is this allowed to not only happen, but be apparent SOP?
The first thing, of course, is that a redefinition is underway. I've been looking around for the referenced notice of proposed rulemaking and come up dry--probably because I don't know how to navigate the federal labyrinth.
Anybody know what it is, and where we can read it? And maybe have input during an open public comment period?
UPDATE: Matthew Carmel, the recipient of the ATF letter, sent me an email after I posted this informing me the "Proposed change to definition published 70 FR 17624, 17626 (April 7, 2005) will have no effect on the Palm Pistol."
I had wondered about that and if there was a newer proposal, because the ATF letter is dated 2008, and says that "the submitted item could be affected."
Mr. Carmel tells me that's because "The 2005 proposed change has not yet been implemented, and may never be. Opportunity for public comment is long gone."
3 comments:
Does this have anything to do with the pistol forward grip / AOW definition? I seem to remember a letter going out about that a month or two ago.
Kinda cool. It's a gun for non-gun people. If it gets past the BATFEces and into the hands of the customers.
I find it unusual that the mfr shows a NJ address, next door to Newark. Surely Capo Corzine's Ministerium für Staatssicherheit would never allow such things to be made in their AO. If atf doesn't get 'em, Capo's boys in the Sam Brown belts will. No one makes or sells personal arms in NJ without approval of both the feds and the state.
Post a Comment