Legal CA DOJ letter regarding 1919 pistol grip legality

[Experimentalist]

I found the attached letter, issued by CA DOJ in March of 2000, regarding the status of the pistol grip on 1919 firearms.

I understand subsequent legal changes make 1919-A4 configurations into Assault Weapons irrespective of pistol grip status. I further understand that adding a stock to the firearm, thereby converting it from A4 into 1919-A6 configuration negates this issue.

I'm posting this letter in part because I've seen some discussion regarding the legal status of the 1919 grip. This should help settle any such debate, despite the overall change in 1919-A4 classification.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[five.five-six]

M1919 not a rifle, it is a crew service weapon. Pistol band only applies to rifles.

 

[Experimentalist]

M1919 not a rifle, it is a crew service weapon. Pistol band only applies to rifles.

You are correct.

Legal evolutions in California have changed the original status of 1919-A4 firearms into that of Assault weapons.

The way to avoid such classification is to add a rifle stock to the firearm. This changes it from 1919-A4 configuration (assault weapon) to 1919-A6 configuration (not assault weapon... but rifle).

Some have questioned whether the pistol grip on a 1919-A6 firearm - a rifle - counts as an Assault Weapon feature.

The attached letter clearly negates this concern.

Staying legal in this state is ever a complex challenge.

 

[H. Bowman]

Resources like this are what will be missed from calguns. Hopefully a lot more will be stored here moving forward.

 

[Experimentalist]

Well rats.

Upon closer perusal of the letter I posted above, I see it's not related to pistol grips. I posted the wrong letter.

Here's the correct one:

 

[RickD427]

M1919 not a rifle, it is a crew service weapon. Pistol band only applies to rifles.

The M1919 (as well as it's big sister, the Browning M2) can be either a crew-served weapon or a personal small arm, depending on it's manner of employment. I served in a unit that employed M2's as a personal small arm (when mounted on a boat) and as a crew served weapon, when mounted on a tripod ashore.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Pistol Band", but if that is a reference to California's "Assault Weapon" ban, that ban initially only applied to pistols, rifles and shotguns, but was extended by AB118 in 2020 to include weapons other than pistols, rifles and shotguns, that possess AW features.

 

[Experimentalist]

Just to further round out the legal picture regarding 1919-A4 status, here's a link to the definitions of CA Assault weapons: https://oag.ca.gov/ogvp/fed-assault-weapons-ban

From that link:
Other Firearms

• A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that does not have a fixed magazine, but that has any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (B) A thumbhole stock; (C) A folding or telescoping stock; (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; (E) A flash suppressor; (F) A forward pistol grip; (G) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (H) A second handgrip; (I) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or (J) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
• A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that has an overall length of less than 30 inches."

Part (J) from the first bullet point, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip", is the feature that places 1919-A4 configured firearms into the Assault weapon category.

Hoping this helps.

 

[RickD427]

Well rats.

Upon closer perusal of the letter I posted above, I see it's not related to pistol grips. I posted the wrong letter.

Here's the correct one:

Please read the letter more closely. It does not address whether the M1919A6 is, or is not, an "Assault Weapon." Under the current statute, the M1919 is an "Assault Weapon" but not by reason of the pistol grip (which the letter does explain). It's an "Assault Weapon" because it contains two of the "Evil Features" imposed by the AB118 changes to the Assault Weapon statute (Please refer to Penal Code sections 30515(a)(9)(i) and 303515(a)(9)(j)):

1) A barrel shroud

2) A detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip.

The DOJ letter which you posted discussed the 2020 views of the DOJ that an ammunition belt was a "magazine" under California law, and that belts of 10 rounds or less were lawful (that point is disputed by some prosecutors, but the DOJ position stands until changed). But the issue isn't whether the law is violated by possession of a large-capacity magazine. It's violated by having a detachable magazine located outside of the pistol grip.

A lot of pundits have suggested various methods of altering the weapon such that some disassembly is required to insert a belt, but that doesn't work. The law defines a "fixed magazine" as one that requires disassembly of the action in order to remove the magazine (refer to Penal Code section 30515(b)). You don't create a "fixed magazine" by so doing. If a weapon were so modified, I could remove the magazine, without any disassembly, simply by firing all of the rounds. You would have to modify the weapon such that the links remained in the weapon after firing, and such that disassembly would be required to remove the links.

 

[Experimentalist]

Always appreciate your insights RickD427, thank you for the additional information.

The information you post above amplified my own post above that, referencing CA AW law. We're in emphatic agreement.

My primary purpose in posting the second letter was for the following information: "In that these models have grips located well behind the action of the weapon, they do not meet the pistol grip characteristic under the law".

Some people worried that 1919-A6 configuration firearms - with the stock that puts them into rifle status - would themselves be classed as AWs because of the pistol grip. I posted the letter specifically to ally those particular concerns.

 

[RickD427]

Always appreciate your insights RickD427, thank you for the additional information.

The information you post above amplified my own post above that, referencing CA AW law. We're in emphatic agreement.

My primary purpose in posting the second letter was for the following information: "In that these models have grips located well behind the action of the weapon, they do not meet the pistol grip characteristic under the law".

Some people worried that 1919-A6 configuration firearms - with the stock that puts them into rifle status - would themselves be classed as AWs because of the pistol grip. I posted the letter specifically to ally those particular concerns.

Thanks.

Your point is very well taken. The pistol grip on a 1919A6 is kinda weird. It does not "protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" as required to fall under PC30515. It is well aft of the action, and on the the same horizontal plane as the action.

 

[han_solo]

Just make sure you dont have the original side plates in your collection