Constitution Arms President Matthew Carmel wanted to address some of the comments made on gun boards discussing it:
David:I've always admired originality from those demanding to chart their own course in spite of "conventional wisdom." While the majority is picking things apart, trying not to rock any boats, and throwing sand on the new, the innovators push forward despite the catcalls, bringing progress to us all through revolutionary ways of thinking.
Regarding the single shot issue, I have been following many blog threads and this seems to be a common objection. I am aware of both the limitations and advantages to a single shot design as described in the specification document posted at http://www.palmpistol.com/. There are many single shot self defensive firearms and devices which have their place in the market such as pepper sprays, Derringers, etc. Most notably, Tasers, which are quite successful, are also single shot and not nearly as effective as a live cartridge.
The Palm Pistol is not for everyone. But firearm enthusiasts fail to appreciate there are many people, particularly seniors and disabled, who due to physical limitations or simple intimidation, would be unable to properly wield a traditional revolver or semi-automatic.
Also note I am applying for DME (Durable Medical Equipment) coding for the design since I believe this assistive device may qualify as such under CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) regulations. If successful, it is possible some insurance companies many offer partial reimbursement for purchase if the insured is disabled. I don't expect Medicare to reimburse but anything is possible, particularly if an argument concerning ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance can be made. If a DME coding is issued, this will be the first in the nation that I am aware of and I would hope that people who believe in the RTKBA, for everyone including the disabled, should welcome and support my efforts.
All the so-called "experts" insisted the design would be classified as AOW and I proved them wrong. I have learned long ago to ignore the advice of experts if your own logic and research suggests otherwise.
Matt
2 comments:
David Codrea suggested I post the additional commentary as follow up to my earlier submission to him:
I am grateful for your comments and those of other posters on the various blog sites. The feedback is very helpful and I am listening intently to those who offer constructive and civilized criticisms. I am choosing to respond here because the posters appear to be reasonable and cordial. I also would point readers to Dave Hardy's blog Of Arms and the Law whose posters are similarly thoughtful.
The number of cartridges the design is capable of holding without reloading is a multifacted issue. There are technical, legal, marketing, financial and legislative concerns all competing simultaneously. Yes, a multishot design could be more effective in the hands of a capable user. But do you think this is so in the hands of a frail 86 year old grandmother or someone with crippling arthritis? Also, some state legislatures will be more prejudiced against a multi-shot design and more apt to ban it immediately rather than allow a single shot design to come to market and given an opportunity to be proven an effective self-defensive tool. It is advisable to introduce a product that is the least intimidating, and least likely to be subject to wild exaggerations, by our adversaries.
Several commenter’s have poked fun at the optional Picatinny rail. The principle reason for offering this was simply to provide a mount for the LaserLyte Subcompact V2 laser sight. I had considered an integral laser but the tooling and assembly costs are appreciable. I cannot justify that kind of risk for a product whose demand is still undetermined. The rail can also mount a strike bezel, a clip for extra rounds or any number of things that may be suggested by customers. Remember, optional means just that - it is an option and need not be employed. I personally would not use an external laser since this really is a "belly gun" and meant for point blank or near point blank range. My personal preference would be to maintain easier concealability and minimal potential for hanging up on clothing. However, many commenter’s have said they want a laser sight. I see no reason to exclude their desires.
Interestingly, I had some discussion with military representatives who suggested a possible application for tank commanders. The confined space of a tank does not lend itself to swinging a traditional sidearm and the Palm Pistol might be suitable under these circumstances. I also think it would be ideal for pilots or airline stewards in the event of another 9/11 type event. I also think adminstrative staff who are not typically trained or inclined to carry firearms, in high risk areas such as embassies, might be interested in the design. If you look carefully at the 4th 3D drawing, you will notice the threaded barrel protector. This covers a standard 1/2 x 28 thread which accepts typical silencers. Again, this may be silly to most but it may have utility for specialized applications.
The best potential application remains to be as an assistive device for seniors or disabled. There are approximately 30,000 non-work related phalangeal amputations involving one or more fingers annually in the US. Fingers obviously do not regenerate so the number of amputees is cumulative. Wouldn't you agree that someone missing their dominant index finger should have an alternative firearm available to them for self-defense? If one also considers those suffering from arthritis, peripheral neuropathy, phalangeal fusions, and any number of other medical conditions that affect motor skills, the market could be substantial.
Finally, the comments about the potential for ATF retraction or redefinition of the term "pistol" are certainly valid. However, and I can only speak from my personal experience, my contacts at ATF have been nothing but professional and helpful. My local ATF representative directed me to the correct person in at their Firearms Technology Branch to initiate my request for evaluation and classification. True, they were not as fast as I would have liked but they are understaffed and mandated by Congress to do their job with minimal resources, whether some agree with them or not. The ATF knows full well about the Atkins Accelerator and other designs that were initially approved and later reclassified. Putting conspiracy theories aside, I do not believe the agency would have approved my design as "pistol" in bad faith. They easily could have denied me, particularly if it was a initially submitted as a multishot design. Review my comments above about competing interests. If they choose to redefine "pistol" in such a way as to make the Palm Pistol AOW, the worst thing that happens is buyers would need to pay the $5 tax (not $200 as some have stated) and go through the permitting process. If I were handicapped and needed a firearm to defend myself, this would be a small price to pay. And if a CLEO denies a permit application, certainly complaint alleging ADA discrimination could be made by competent counsel.
So those are my thoughts. Again, I appreciate your courtesy and would be glad to answer any questions offline. My personal email is mcarmel@constitutionarms.com.
Matt Carmel
One note ... if you do get stuck with an AOW designation in the future, the requirement for a L.E. signature can be avoided on the BATF Form 4 by having an LLC or a Revocable Trust buy the firearm, with the buyer listed as the "Responsible Person".
Post a Comment