Mossberg Shockwave

[JRG]

Texas penal code 46.01 section 10

I can't get it to copy and paste properly on my phone but further down in that section, it states than unless is is an NFL licensed gun it is illegal to possess.

That section deals with a rifle and a shotgun. This Shockwave is neither. It is a firearm, not a rifle nor a shotgun and is marketed as such.

Joe

[carlson1]

From the Mossberg web site:
Classification of the 590 Shockwave

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives has confirmed the 590 Shockwave as a “firearm” per the Gun Control Act (GCA), but not a Class 3/NFA firearm. Click here to read a copy of the letter from the BATFE regarding federal classification of the Shockwave, dated 3/2/2017). NOTE: This letter only speaks to its FEDERAL status. There could be local/state laws that prohibit the sale of this gun in your state. Consult your State Police for clarification. Just as with any other pistol grip firearm, the buyer must be 21 years of age, and be a resident of the state where s/he is purchasing it.

In Texas, for it to be legal, it must have an 18" barrel and be 26" overall.

What is your source for the part that I bolded? These are the requirements for a "shotgun" in Texas. But I do not believe that term is defined in Texas law, and using the Federal law definition, this firearm is not a "shotgun" since it clearly is not intended to be fired from the shoulder.

Texas penal code 46.01 section 10

I can't get it to copy and paste properly on my phone but further down in that section, it states than unless is is an NFL licensed gun it is illegal to possess.

(10) “Short-barrel firearm” means a rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, or any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle if, as altered, it has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

The Shockwave was never a shotgun thus it is not "altered" from a shotgun or rifle. It is over 26" long and has never had a stock attached so it is perfectly legal. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I read it just as BATF and Mossberg interprets it.

[Lambda Force]

Hopefully any police who see it will see it your way and not decide to let the DA and judge sort it out.

[carlson1]

Hopefully any police who see it will see it your way and not decide to let the DA and judge sort it out.

I don't think it will be a problem. I believe it is the same as an AR Pistol. If the AR was ever a rifle it is always a rifle. There is no going from rifle to pistol although you can take an AR pistol and make it a rifle. After you make a rifle out of an AR pistol you can never take it backwards.

The key here is that the Shockwave is manufactured with a pistol grip and therefore is not intended to be fired from the shoulder. Due to this distinction, the firearm cannot be classified as a shotgun and therefore cannot legally be a short-barreled shotgun.

[Steve4kran]

I have one sitting at my local gun store with my name on it. I went and visited it yesterday. He will not proceed with the sale until he has his questions answered from the State of Texas. The Texas definition of a shotgun reads slightly different than federal does. Thus seeming to catch this weapon in Texas as a shotgun. Fingers are crossed!!

[Steve4kran]

http://blog.uslawshield.com/tag/mossberg-shockwave/

[Soccerdad1995]

I have one sitting at my local gun store with my name on it. I went and visited it yesterday. He will not proceed with the sale until he has his questions answered from the State of Texas. The Texas definition of a shotgun reads slightly different than federal does. Thus seeming to catch this weapon in Texas as a shotgun. Fingers are crossed!!

The article you quoted below this post says that there is no definition of "shotgun" in Texas law, which is different than what you are saying here.

IANAL, but if Texas has no legal definition of the term "shotgun" then why wouldn't we look to the definition that is provided in federal law, or the common language definition, both of which describe a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder? Am I at risk that my broom might be considered a "shotgun" if the state of Texas is going to just invent a definition from scratch?

[ninjabread]

Am I at risk that my broom might be considered a "shotgun" if the state of Texas is going to just invent a definition from scratch?

If your broom can fire shotgun shells, it doesn't seem unreasonable for a jury to decide it's a shotgun.

[hovercat]

Hopefully any police who see it will see it your way and not decide to let the DA and judge sort it out.

I don't think it will be a problem. I believe it is the same as an AR Pistol. If the AR was ever a rifle it is always a rifle. There is no going from rifle to pistol although you can take an AR pistol and make it a rifle. After you make a rifle out of an AR pistol you can never take it backwards.

The key here is that the Shockwave is manufactured with a pistol grip and therefore is not intended to be fired from the shoulder. Due to this distinction, the firearm cannot be classified as a shotgun and therefore cannot legally be a short-barreled shotgun.

Yet it cannot be a smooth bore handgun and be legal.

[Jusme]

I personally don't care about barrel length, the ability to shoot it one handed, or any other restrictions, the State of Texas places on a firearm. None of those things make a firearm more, or less, able to deliver sufficient firepower to kill someone. However, until we get the laws changed, they must be obeyed. No matter how Mossberg, or any other manufacturers markets the firearm.

The Shockwave, is not a gun I would want to shoot very often. I have a pistol grip that fits my 500, that, if I find, someone can have. I only want guns that I can feel confident of putting shots on target. And a 12 gauge in that configuration, would not provide that for me. JMHO

[Jusme]

Just so I'm not misunderstood. I have no derision anyone who wants to buy one of these. Mossberg did everything they could to build a firearm, that could not be banned under NFA regulations, and I applaud the effort to demonstrate the absurdity of these regulations. I just would not want to be the test case for prosecution under Texas law. While the law has some ambiguity as to the definition of a shotgun, very few jurors would conclude that a gun that fires shotgun shells, from a smooth bore fire arm, would be defined otherwise.
But if there are those who want to push the envelope, go ahead, as Charles said, jump out there and make it happen and we will sing your praises.
I would rather petition my State representatives, to change, or amend the law, to better mirror Federal law. JMHO

[Mxrdad]

[/quote] LOL phone autocorrect got me again.
Let's try NFA[/quote]

When will these dumb phones realize they aint as smart as they think they are????

[anygunanywhere]

Going to the Corpus gun show this weekend. I'm gonna see if anyone has one and if the markup isn't too obscene I'm gonna buy one because I want to be the first kid on the block to have one.

[Soccerdad1995]

Every time I am looking at a gun manufacturer's or online retailer's site, I feel a sense of pity for the poor souls who live in California, Massachusetts and other states where "we cannot sell you this gun".

It is really sad to think that Texas might join that list. I guess the best hope is for anyone who has one of these firearms to avoid Houston, Dallas, and Austin, so that if they are ever brought to trial, they will likely not have an anti-gun jury deciding to redefine the term "shotgun" to take out the part about being designed to be fired from the shoulder.

[Soccerdad1995]

Am I at risk that my broom might be considered a "shotgun" if the state of Texas is going to just invent a definition from scratch?

If your broom can fire shotgun shells, it doesn't seem unreasonable for a jury to decide it's a shotgun.

The ability to fire shotgun shells is not part of the definition of "shotgun" in Texas law, because there is no such definition at all. This whole discussion is about speculation that a Texas jury might decide to define a "shotgun" differently than the federal law definition (which does exist), and which describes a weapon that is designed to be fired from the shoulder. If a renegade jury could decide to ignore that part of the federal definition when making up a new Texas law definition, then why could they not also decide to ignore other parts of the federal definition such as the ability to fire any projectiles at all?

I am simply pointing out that if we are worried about juries assigning random definitions that conflict with other legal definitions of this term, then we should be worried about a lot of things being potentially defined as "shotguns".