Mossberg shockwave question

Walkabout Dan said:
When you can supply the information get back with me. It is public record.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s going to happen, I’m curious why you ask. If you just want to know about how difficult the legal situation is for folks that defend themselves you can look at any number of cases. I expect that it gets more troublesome every year, but I doubt it’s anywhere near as bad as frightened folks on the internet make it out to be.

Have you had any direct experience with these situations or know folks that have?
 
All had some issues . Some still do . If i get on a thread its because I have experience or am
trying to gain knowledge. Real easy to tell with my comments. Be interesting to see a shooting
in Cleveland with 3 killed in self defense.
 
BigWaylon said:
Nope. Bet it’s not.

It’s an Other Firearm, which is different than an AOW.

My Shockwave is actually an AOW with a $5 stamp…as I intentionally purchased it that way. It was measured without the birdshead grip, which put it under 26” OAL.
Click to expand...
i need that birdshead grip. you got the early version that put the 14" barrel model under 26. Once mossberg started releasing the shockwave, all those grips disappeared and the only thing on the market are ones that put it over 26.
And yes, mine is a registered AOW too - it's the one i somehow paid $5 for a $200 stamp on.
I really want to make my own grip, and forearm, but i don't work wood.

EDIT - i read your post wrong. i blame alcohol. I have a knoxx recoil reducing grip on mine and it is juuuust barely under 26" if you don't count the easily removable sling stud. Up in MI, they consider anything that can fire while under 26" to be a pistol. So yeah, there were some fun games up to play up there with folding stocks and such. I had no problem at all loading the AOW up and concealing it. It was the gun I took camping, because I figured it was the smallest best thing i could have if bears showed up, as they sometimes do.
 
Last edited:
Walkabout Dan said:
Kill someone , even in self defense with an NFA item and watch what it costs you in the long run.
Click to expand...
the gun lawyer i had a good working relationship with... he said if he didn't know somebody, it was 10k up front just to show up and start working. if he knew you and were knew you were good for it, he'd probably charge a little less, but you'd still be getting hurt on his hourly fees.
 
Walkabout Dan said:
Kill someone , even in self defense with an NFA item and watch what it costs you in the long run.
Click to expand...
Kill someone in legitimate self defense and OF COURSE it will cost you ... time, effort, legal fees, etc. -- regardless of one's lawfully owned and used implement for the given self defense. The fact that a NFA item was used for such lawful purpose has no material bearing on the outcome other than opposing counsel and or anyone else with anti-gun sentiments trying to hype things based on one's choice of implement. Any good (key word: good) counsel you elect to use will have no trouble shutting that down .... provided you're entirely on the right side of the law.

In my example (at home, at night, suppressed to preclude hearing impacts and limit blinding effects to the user), there's absolute rationale for use of a lawfully owned/possessed suppressor and/or MG. And there's, you know, NCGS 14-51.2 which stipulates very clearly, "A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties."

So, I don't know what you're fearmongering about with respect to legal self-defensive use of legally owned/possessed NFA items, but IMHO it's just that: fearmongering ... at least in NC.
 
Last edited:
Walkabout Dan said:
All had some issues . Some still do . If i get on a thread its because I have experience or am
trying to gain knowledge. Real easy to tell with my comments. Be interesting to see a shooting
in Cleveland with 3 killed in self defense.
Click to expand...
Not interested in your self-aggrandizing statements, but I’m curious why you asked the question in the first place.
 
surrealone said:
Kill someone in legitimate self defense and OF COURSE it will cost you ... time, effort, legal fees, etc. -- regardless of one's lawfully owned and used implement for the given self defense. The fact that a NFA item was used for such lawful purpose has no material bearing on the outcome other than opposing counsel and or anyone else with anti-gun sentiments trying to hype things based on one's choice of implement. Any good (key word: good) counsel you elect to use will have no trouble shutting that down .... provided you're entirely on the right side of the law.

In my example (at home, at night, suppressed to preclude hearing impacts and limit blinding effects to the user), there's absolute rationale for use of a lawfully owned/possessed suppressor and/or MG. And there's, you know, NCGS 14-51.2 which stipulates very clearly, "A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties."

So, I don't know what you're fearmongering about with respect to legal self-defensive use of legally owned/possessed NFA items, but IMHO it's just that: fearmongering ... at least in NC.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point.
 
Walkabout Dan said:
I was replying to you and your statement.
Click to expand...
Not true. You asked a question in response to @hp468 asking you a question that you avoided, see post #34. He was smarter than me and realized it would be unproductive to respond, I hope to be more like him when I grow up.
 
JimB said:
Not true. You asked a question in response to @hp468 asking you a question that you avoided, see post #34. He was smarter than me and realized it would be unproductive to respond, I hope to be more like him when I grow up.
Click to expand...

NFA items being used in self defense isnt widely discussed, not that I’ve ever seen anyway. It was a legit question, lots of self defense folklore out there. I knew I wasn’t going to get an answer after the reply. No biggie.

The only instance I’ve heard of was a story from back in the 80s or early 90s where a fellow smoked a guy with a select fire Ruger. Don’t recall the details but seems like it was ruled a good shoot IIRC.

I’m fully aware of the financial burdens a justified shooting can bring upon a person.
 
hp468 said:
The only instance I’ve heard of was a story from back in the 80s or early 90s where a fellow smoked a guy with a select fire Ruger. Don’t recall the details but seems like it was ruled a good shoot IIRC.
Click to expand...
Chicago, I believe. It's in the Masaad Ayoob Files. You are right, he walked.
 
Walkabout Dan said:
Best not to use NFA items for self defense.
Click to expand...
The above-quoted text was your ORIGINAL point to which I was responding.

Walkabout Dan said:
Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...
My response to which this next quoted text of yours referred ... in no way proved your ORIGINAL point. In fact, it refuted your point by indicating that lawful use of lawfully owned/possessed NFA-restricted tools in no way changes the legal outcome of a lawful self defense shooting (in NC). It may change perceptions, but it doesn't change the outcome, at all -- especially since here in NC, if the self defense shoot is lawful, you can't be sued civilly or criminally per the (castle doctrine) statue I cited.

You may care about those perceptions, but frankly, if I'm above ground and breathing after being subjected to reasonable threat of imminent death or grave bodily harm and surviving it, my focus is likely to be on the fact that I and/or my loved ones are still here thanks to preparedness and training rather than on how others feel about the use of both to preserve my life or that of another.

I hope I never have to deal with such concerns...
 
Last edited:
hp468 said:
NFA items being used in self defense isnt widely discussed, not that I’ve ever seen anyway. It was a legit question, lots of self defense folklore out there. I knew I wasn’t going to get an answer after the reply. No biggie.

The only instance I’ve heard of was a story from back in the 80s or early 90s where a fellow smoked a guy with a select fire Ruger. Don’t recall the details but seems like it was ruled a good shoot IIRC.

I’m fully aware of the financial burdens a justified shooting can bring upon a person.
Click to expand...
It went to trial and cost him dearly.
 
Walkabout Dan said:
It went to trial and cost him dearly.
Click to expand...
Did it go to trial because it was a NFA item, or because he shot someone?

As stated above, any shooting could cause a great deal of legal fees. In this case, it's correlation v causation. Did the NFA cause the great amount of legal fees, or did there just so happen to be a NFA item involved and he also had high legal fees?
Basically - was his defense about the NFA item or the shoot itself?
 
HMP said:
Did it go to trial because it was a NFA item, or because he shot someone?

As stated above, any shooting could cause a great deal of legal fees. In this case, it's correlation v causation. Did the NFA cause the great amount of legal fees, or did there just so happen to be a NFA item involved and he also had high legal fees?
Basically - was his defense about the NFA item or the shoot itself?
Click to expand...
Both were used in the case agaist him.
 
Next time my life's in danger I won't need a weapon; I'm just gonna ask the perp to read this and certain other threads so he takes pity on me and moves along.
 
Last edited:
jfanatic said:
Might as well ask: what is an AOW?
Click to expand...
Any Other Weapon

cane guns
pen guns
pistols in wallets that conceal the gun but trigger is accessible
concealable firearms under 26”
Etc, etc

ETA: definition from ATF.gov:

What does “any other weapon" mean?
The term "any other weapon" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.
 
Last edited:
BigWaylon said:
Any Other Weapon

cane guns
pen guns
pistols in wallets that conceal the gun but trigger is accessible
concealable firearms under 26”
Etc, etc

ETA: definition from ATF.gov:

What does “any other weapon" mean?
The term "any other weapon" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.
Click to expand...
Thank you, much appreciated.
 
JimB said:
The only rationale that I’ve found for this is virtually unrecognizable as logic. It is over 26” which is the length beyond which the ATF recognizes a weapon as not being concealable. If it was less than 26” it would be considered concealable and then an AOW. The goofy assertion is that if you prove them wrong by concealling it, then it must be an AOW rather than a firearm in that circumstance.

Since it's on Mossbergs website it has probably been written somewhere by ATF, but I don’t know where.

As with most ATF stuff, it isn't law, it’s their interpretation of the law. If it ended up in court it’d be fun to lay out 10 shockwaves and ask the ATF expert witness to identify which ones are AOWs. Obviously he or she wouldn’t be able to do it. The downside is that to get to this you’ve probably spent better than $250k.

Oh, and the difference between concealed and stored in a vehicle is a gray area, but if it is handy then I think it’s more likely concealed than stored.

Didn’t @Gunbelt make a holster to open carry a shockwave?
Click to expand...
I did
 
Walkabout Dan said:
Both were used in the case agaist him.
Click to expand...
Successfully ... on both counts (illegal shoot AND illegal use/possession of NFA item)? If not, then someone was just making noise about his choice of implement ... which is exactly that: noise. (Perhaps to draw attention away from a weak case and make it about the gun and not the legitimacy of the shoot? If so, big whoop -- because it doesn't alter any of the facts.)
 
surrealone said:
Successfully ... on both counts (illegal shoot AND illegal use/possession of NFA item)? If not, then someone was just making noise about his choice of implement ... which is exactly that: noise. (Perhaps to draw attention away from a weak case and make it about the gun and not the legitimacy of the shoot? If so, big whoop -- because it doesn't alter any of the facts.)
Click to expand...
You just proved all my points again , thanks.
 
I do know of a friend who seriously injured someone with a handgun in self defense. He got his pistol back quickly and there was no legal blowback. Nobody checked to see if he was using reloads, which according to similar internet lore, gets one in YUGE legal territory. :cool:

There's no legal basis for any legal problems with using a NFA item for self defense. It's internet folklore.

"My client even passed a FBI background check, had his finger prints taken and registered, to be SURE to be in compliance with the letter of the law!"

If someone was in trouble for shooting someone in self defense with an unregistered NFA item, 99% of the issue was the "unregistered NFA item" part, and its influence on the shooting in self defense part.
 
Last edited:
You guys are too much. 😂. All this thread has proven is how stupid and illogical all gun laws are. The 2A was pretty clear and concise, anything else is unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom