How many evil features does a Kriss Super V have?

[massaiga]

We all know the list of evil features from 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
--(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
--(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
--(iii) a bayonet mount;
--(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
--(v) a grenade launcher;

I saw a "Mass compliant" version of the Kriss Super V and I found myself asking just how many "evil features" it actually has. Going through the list it clearly does not have a grenade launcher, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel - although I understand that threaded barrel is an option but is not stock.

So this leaves the folding stock and a pistol grip. Upon further thought I wonder whether the pistol grip really qualifies as "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon." The grip is behind the action, not below... that's not just a mag well in there. The action is what makes the Kriss so special.

Animation of the Super V action:
http://www.kriss-tdi.com/media/kriss_tech.swf

I know that the "Mass compliant" version is coming into the state with a pined stock. Is the pined stock really necessary to stay below two "evil features" ?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Four Seasons has it on display now...very cool....but very retarded from the original design

 

[Turbocharged]

Wow, that's a very good point.
I had seen the Kriss before, but whether or not it actually has a pistol grip (or what is considered a pistol grip by the commywealth), never occured to me.

 

[vellnueve]

The pistol grip is the evil feature for MA purposes. Anything else would be a serious gray area treading on black.

 

[massaiga]

The pistol grip is the evil feature for MA purposes. Anything else would be a serious gray area treading on black.

But that is exactly what I am getting at. Just about every thing that has a pistol grip has a pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon. On the conservative side lets assume that they are all "conspicuous" because it is a subjective term and we all know that that is the opinion the AG would take.

Over the years we have all gotten into the habit of thinking "pistol grip = evil feature" because they all protrudes beneath the action of the weapon and so we make this assumption.

But the Kriss is something new and even though it has a pistol grip, it is not a pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon.

So my question stands... does anyone know of any case law that has better defined "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"? Has the AG ever stated an opinion of what they consider a pistol grip to be? My understanding is that the AG intentionally leaves these things vague and un-clarified so all I am working with is the actual text of the law.

Assuming a worst case for any ambiguous or subjective wording I just don't see how the grip on a Kriss could be an evil feature. I know that f-ed up things can happen in a court room and I have no desire to see anyone get in trouble and have to put this to the test. But if someone did get in trouble with an unpinned stock on a Kriss I think they could make a strong case.

-MS

 

[vellnueve]

I don't share your optimism. All they need to see is a pistol grip and you're done.

 

[massaiga]

I don't share your optimism. All they need to see is a pistol grip and you're done.

I hear you. It is hard to be optimistic in this state.

I'm not saying it would prevent the AG from prosecuting... I'm saying that if it went to court I bet you could find one person in twelve that understands the definition of the words "protrudes", "beneath" and "action."

-MS

 

[Titan]

Carl is fairly conservative when it comes to adhering to AG regulations.

I suspect he believes there is a pretty strong basis for believing the gun is MA compliant.

.

 

[EddieCoyle]

My guess (take it for what it's worth) is that because of the strap on the bottom, the 'pistol grip' on the Kriss is the equivalent of the thumbhole stocks that manufacturers used to use to skirt the AWB.

 

[MassMark]

Carl is fairly conservative when it comes to adhering to AG regulations.

I suspect he believes there is a pretty strong basis for believing the gun is MA compliant.

.

Never trust your freedom to a gun dealer...

 

[LoginName]

I concure with your definition, however it also sounds like a legal landmine (and splitting hairs), that if I were a manufacturer, FFL or gun owner I would not want to get caught up in (especially in this state)...

Defendant James Oliver pled guilty to one count of possession of a semiautomatic weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and (B)(i). The statute mandates a minimum sentence of ten years if a firearm used during drug trafficking "is a ... semiautomatic assault weapon...." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i). The only question presented on appeal is whether the firearm in question met the statutory definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon, thereby requiring the increased minimum sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B) defines a semiautomatic assault weapon to include "a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has... (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ... [and] (iv) a flash suppressor...." (emphasis added). The district court held that the firearm had both a flash suppressor and a pistol grip that extended conspicuously beneath the action. In doing so, the district court rejected the defendant's argument that the pistol grip did not protrude "conspicuously beneath" the action of the weapon because the grip was below and to the rear of, and not directly beneath, the action. Because the language "protrude conspicuously beneath" does not require the pistol grip to be "directly under" the action, we affirm the defendant's sentence

Snip...

The legislative history indicates that Congress intended to ban non-sporting rifles. Pistol grips, such as the one in this case, aid the shooter in firing one-handed — a task not often required in hunting. The alternative to a pistol grip under the magazine is typically a pistol grip in the wrist of the stock of a firearm, and the pistol grip in this case does not meet that description. This history demonstrates that the "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action" characteristic of an assault weapon is aimed at one-handed shooting. A conspicuously protruding pistol grip facilitates one-handed shooting, but it entirely escapes us how a pistol grip's being located below and slightly to the rear of the action makes the weapon any less likely to be used one-handed than if the grip is directly under the action. The policy underlying the definition thus clearly supports the "generally below" meaning of "beneath." In contrast, we are presented with no indication that some legislative purpose might support the reading of "beneath the action" as a precise limitation on the grip's location, rather than as a general direction for the protrusion that must be conspicuous

http://openjurist.org/390/f3d/482/united-states-v-oliver

 

[Titan]

Never trust your freedom to a gun dealer...

Understood.

However, without more guidance from the state, a lot of this is taking a flyer with your interpretation of the law anyway.

The discussion in this thread demonstrates that.
.

 

[vellnueve]

Carl is fairly conservative when it comes to adhering to AG regulations.

I suspect he believes there is a pretty strong basis for believing the gun is MA compliant.

.

The version FS carries is clearly MA compliant as it has the pistol grip and no other evil features. The stock is pinned.

My guess (take it for what it's worth) is that because of the strap on the bottom, the 'pistol grip' on the Kriss is the equivalent of the thumbhole stocks that manufacturers used to use to skirt the AWB.

IIRC, the thumbhole stock was considered a pistol grip by ATF. I believe they were used in order to get around import bans.

 

[drgrant]

Carl is fairly conservative when it comes to adhering to AG regulations.

This has nothing to do with the AG. Nothing. The AG does not regulate rifles at all.

I suspect he believes there is a pretty strong basis for believing the gun is MA compliant.

The basis is likely the manufacturer assuring him that the rifle is "Old AWB compliant" because I'm sure there are
numerous dealers in MA and NY (or wherever) where the gun is being sold where an AWB is still in effect.

However, without more guidance from the state, a lot of this is taking a flyer with your interpretation of the law anyway.

Not really. It's pretty cut and dry. The manufacturer likely has legal counsel that said "this is what you have to do to the gun to make it MA legal" and they pinned the stock and that was that.

Basically, in this thread, people are looking for a loophole/greyhole that doesn't exist... or at least the manufacturer doesn't believe it to exist.

-Mike

 

[Titan]

drgrant,

Thanks for the correction. You're right, of course, and I must have had a brain freeze. The AWB is the law that applies.

.

 

[glide]

I too would like some clarification on the Kriss' grip.

There is a similar discussion going on over at calguns.net and I believe the consensus was that it is NOT a pistol grip since it is not below the action (again; this is just others' interpretations of what the law says).

If that is the case I assume it would be considered a thumbhole like the PS90 or the FS2000 in which case you could unpin the stock.

Kriss seems to be playing it VERY safe with regards to MA sales. They won't even sell their G21 mag conversion kit to MA residents. So just because it comes pinned from the factory doesn't mean it HAS to be pinned.

Any of the attorneys on the board care to weigh in?

 

[drgrant]

I too would like some clarification on the Kriss' grip.

There is a similar discussion going on over at calguns.net and I believe the consensus was that it is NOT a pistol grip since it is not below the action (again; this is just others' interpretations of what the law says).

California interpretation of what is a PG and what is not isn't relevant here- the CA AWB is a completely different set of laws/rules from the old Federal (and thus the MA) AWB. Not to mention in CA the state actually gives interpretation on what things do and do not mean.

CA's "Roberti Roos" AWB is it's own festering pile of crap that is nothing like the MA AWB.... similar intentions, but completely different legal implementation and interpretations; and it also doesn't use federal law as its core like the MA AWB does.

Kriss seems to be playing it VERY safe with regards to MA sales. They won't even sell their G21 mag conversion kit to MA residents.

That's pretty typical, though. My guess is they don't want to deal with
the administrative overhead of collecting licenses and all that crap, among
other things.

So just because it comes pinned from the factory doesn't mean it HAS to be pinned.

Yes, but it's a fair likelihood that it does. That case law that LN posted is pretty convincing of that. An AK pistol grip is nowhere near the "action" and the court still affirmed that it constituted an evil feature despite the fact that the PG is not directly beneath the action.

IMO if this law was easily wall-hackable, someone would have done it by now. (Think about all the money someone could have made during the ban with such an idea.... ) The case law shows that at least the BATFE/fed determination of "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action" on a good day, is going to be extremely broad. It's a gamble to assume that the state would take a narrower viewpoint.

I can save you the trouble- I'm not an attorney, but pretty much any gun attorney in MA is going to tell you not to unpin it. Where's my retainer?

-Mike

 

[glide]

California interpretation of what is a PG and what is not isn't relevant here- the CA AWB is a completely different set of laws/rules from the old Federal (and thus the MA) AWB. Not to mention in CA the state actually gives interpretation on what things do and do not mean.

CA's "Roberti Roos" AWB is it's own festering pile of crap that is nothing like the MA AWB.... similar intentions, but completely different legal implementation and interpretations; and it also doesn't use federal law as its core like the MA AWB does.



That's pretty typical, though. My guess is they don't want to deal with
the administrative overhead of collecting licenses and all that crap, among
other things.




Yes, but it's a fair likelihood that it does. That case law that LN posted is pretty convincing of that. An AK pistol grip is nowhere near the "action" and the court still affirmed that it constituted an evil feature despite the fact that the PG is not directly beneath the action.

IMO if this law was easily wall-hackable, someone would have done it by now. (Think about all the money someone could have made during the ban with such an idea.... ) The case law shows that at least the BATFE/fed determination of "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action" on a good day, is going to be extremely broad. It's a gamble to assume that the state would take a narrower viewpoint.

I can save you the trouble- I'm not an attorney, but pretty much any gun attorney in MA is going to tell you not to unpin it. Where's my retainer?

-Mike

That's a fair argument and you're probably right. I guess its best to err on the side of caution while living in MA.

 

[Mass-diver]

I guess its best to err on the side of caution while living in MA.

Unfortunately that's the truth, which is shame because the Super V would be high on my list of future purchases IF you didn't need the pinned stock.

We need some billionaire gun nut to move to this state and just start challenging all these BS laws and regulations.

 

[drgrant]

Unfortunately that's the truth, which is shame because the Super V would be high on my list of future purchases IF you didn't need the pinned stock.

We need some billionaire gun nut to move to this state and just start challenging all these BS laws and regulations.

Even for a billionaire this one would be tough to do, at least in court. The problem is in order to make case law someone has to be put at risk. This means waving a felony in front of a bull and going "Ole! Ole". No billionaire, even with the best attorneys in the world, is going to do that, as it's still a risky proposition.

So, the other option is we wait for a dumb criminal to get caught with a Kriss with the stock unpinned, and then we underwrite his defense.... assuming the state even bothers to hit him with an AWB charge. None of these things are likely to happen at all, let alone all of them at once.

-Mike

 

[Mass-diver]

Even for a billionaire this one would be tough to do, at least in court. The problem is in order to make case law someone has to be put at risk. This means waving a felony in front of a bull and going "Ole! Ole". No billionaire, even with the best attorneys in the world, is going to do that, as it's still a risky proposition.

So, the other option is we wait for a dumb criminal to get caught with a Kriss with the stock unpinned, and then we underwrite his defense.... assuming the state even bothers to hit him with an AWB charge. None of these things are likely to happen at all, let alone all of them at once.

-Mike

Are you saying it's hopeless Mike?

 

[calsdad]

I concure with your definition, however it also sounds like a legal landmine (and splitting hairs), that if I were a manufacturer, FFL or gun owner I would not want to get caught up in (especially in this state)...




Snip...

The legislative history indicates that Congress intended to ban non-sporting rifles. Pistol grips, such as the one in this case, aid the shooter in firing one-handed — a task not often required in hunting. The alternative to a pistol grip under the magazine is typically a pistol grip in the wrist of the stock of a firearm, and the pistol grip in this case does not meet that description. This history demonstrates that the "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action" characteristic of an assault weapon is aimed at one-handed shooting. A conspicuously protruding pistol grip facilitates one-handed shooting, but it entirely escapes us how a pistol grip's being located below and slightly to the rear of the action makes the weapon any less likely to be used one-handed than if the grip is directly under the action. The policy underlying the definition thus clearly supports the "generally below" meaning of "beneath." In contrast, we are presented with no indication that some legislative purpose might support the reading of "beneath the action" as a precise limitation on the grip's location, rather than as a general direction for the protrusion that must be conspicuous



http://openjurist.org/390/f3d/482/united-states-v-oliver

Not to veer this thread too far off track - but since the very topic of conversation has been brought up because of what is detailed in the above italicized paragraph I just wanted to point something out and give people something to think about.

We are discussing the Kriss legality because the original assault weapon ban intent was to ban "non-sporting rifles". Since (at the time) the vast majority of hunters used wooden stocked (non "pistol gripped") rifles - it was easy for the gun banners to divide the gun owners and convince the Fudds to buy in and throw the "evil black rifle" owners under the bus.

There are always multiple ways to attack a problem.

The AR platform is becoming more and more popular as a hunting platform. I don't think it is anywhere near as popular as wooden stocked rifles - but that is something WE can change.

Pistol grip shotguns are not used generally for skeet or trap or hunting ( to my knowledge).

Attitudes change over time.

One way we can fight back against the gun banners, and suck more people into their web (thereby increasing our numbers and our power) - is to change the rules.

MAKE HUNTING AND TRAP SHOOTING ETC WITH PISTOL GRIPPED RIFLES/SHOTGUNS COMMONPLACE.

Over time attitudes will change and it will be accepted as the "right" type of firearm to use.

The power of the gun banners to ban based on "pistol grip" will be reduced if a pistol grip is now a "sporting" feature. The power of the Fudds to try and throw us under the bus will be reduced if they are getting dragged under too.

This is something WE can change - simply by what types of firearms we choose to use when hunting or using a shotgun.

Think outside the box - there are always multiple ways to defeat an enemy.

 

[seanc]

Pistol grip shotguns are not used generally for skeet or trap or hunting ( to my knowledge).

I thought Pistol grip shotguns were very common in the turkey hunting world?

 

[LoginName]

Not to veer this thread too far off track - but since the very topic of conversation has been brought up because of what is detailed in the above italicized paragraph I just wanted to point something out and give people something to think about.

We are discussing the Kriss legality because the original assault weapon ban intent was to ban "non-sporting rifles". Since (at the time) the vast majority of hunters used wooden stocked (non "pistol gripped") rifles - it was easy for the gun banners to divide the gun owners and convince the Fudds to buy in and throw the "evil black rifle" owners under the bus.

There are always multiple ways to attack a problem.

The AR platform is becoming more and more popular as a hunting platform. I don't think it is anywhere near as popular as wooden stocked rifles - but that is something WE can change.

Pistol grip shotguns are not used generally for skeet or trap or hunting ( to my knowledge).

Attitudes change over time.

One way we can fight back against the gun banners, and suck more people into their web (thereby increasing our numbers and our power) - is to change the rules.

MAKE HUNTING AND TRAP SHOOTING ETC WITH PISTOL GRIPPED RIFLES/SHOTGUNS COMMONPLACE.

Over time attitudes will change and it will be accepted as the "right" type of firearm to use.

The power of the gun banners to ban based on "pistol grip" will be reduced if a pistol grip is now a "sporting" feature. The power of the Fudds to try and throw us under the bus will be reduced if they are getting dragged under too.

This is something WE can change - simply by what types of firearms we choose to use when hunting or using a shotgun.

Think outside the box - there are always multiple ways to defeat an enemy.

There has been a shift towards the strategy you suggest... it all comes down to getting people outside the firearms community to listen.

Updating AR-15's Image

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is trying to rebuild the image of the AR-15 rifle and you can help. The NSSF has coined the term Modern Sporting Rifle to more accurately describe the AR-15 platform and is asking that shooters do the same. The NSSF asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles.

If AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

´ AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

´ The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for Armalite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

´ AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

´ AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

´ Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.

´ Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

´ AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

´ And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83725&highlight=nssf

 

[Mass-diver]

Not to veer this thread too far off track - but since the very topic of conversation has been brought up because of what is detailed in the above italicized paragraph I just wanted to point something out and give people something to think about.

We are discussing the Kriss legality because the original assault weapon ban intent was to ban "non-sporting rifles". Since (at the time) the vast majority of hunters used wooden stocked (non "pistol gripped") rifles - it was easy for the gun banners to divide the gun owners and convince the Fudds to buy in and throw the "evil black rifle" owners under the bus.

There are always multiple ways to attack a problem.

The AR platform is becoming more and more popular as a hunting platform. I don't think it is anywhere near as popular as wooden stocked rifles - but that is something WE can change.

Pistol grip shotguns are not used generally for skeet or trap or hunting ( to my knowledge).

Attitudes change over time.

One way we can fight back against the gun banners, and suck more people into their web (thereby increasing our numbers and our power) - is to change the rules.

MAKE HUNTING AND TRAP SHOOTING ETC WITH PISTOL GRIPPED RIFLES/SHOTGUNS COMMONPLACE.

Over time attitudes will change and it will be accepted as the "right" type of firearm to use.

The power of the gun banners to ban based on "pistol grip" will be reduced if a pistol grip is now a "sporting" feature. The power of the Fudds to try and throw us under the bus will be reduced if they are getting dragged under too.

This is something WE can change - simply by what types of firearms we choose to use when hunting or using a shotgun.

Think outside the box - there are always multiple ways to defeat an enemy.

I agree, the more people that own ARs the better. It's a lot harder to ban the most popular firearm in America than it is to ban a military weapon only used by white supremacist, militia members.

I'm an admitted fudd hater, but if they show any signs of hope, I offer to let them try one of my ARs or my Socom.

 

[calsdad]

I thought Pistol grip shotguns were very common in the turkey hunting world?

I'm not a hunter - but I do recall seeing ads from Benelli and other shotgun mfr's showing turkey guns - with pistol grips.

My basic point is: we can throw the whole "pistol grip" argument on it's head by simply changing our usage patterns on what types of guns we use for hunting - and we can suck the "fudds" into the middle of the gun ban argument by purposely making a choice to use pistol gripped firearms when hunting.

Politicians are ignorant to how firearms are used for the most part. If a large enough percentage of hunters use firearms with pistol grips - and replaceable magazines and adjustable stocks ( I can even see an adjustable stock as a useful hunting feature since it adapts to seasonal clothing) - they we FORCE the fudds into the middle of the gun ban argument if play the game right because the gun banners will not be able to distinguish an "evil black rifle" from a "sporting rifle" .

We take away the gun banners arguments by changing our usage patterns.

This is something that is totally under our control - it just takes a concious effort and maybe a little bit of propoganda. People follow trends. Hunters go out and buy fancy hunting rifles in all sorts of odd calibers just so they can say they did.

Make the usage a pistol gripped hunting rifles and shotguns a "trend" - get some high visibility people in the sport to start using them. It will drive product development by the mfr's - everybody else will buy the "new Savage pistol gripped bolt action .300 deer rifle" because it's the latest tech and the "in" thing to have.

Sit back and wait a few years until the mindset infiltrates fully and the average go-along ignorant gun owner does not know any better and just starts buying everything with a pistol grip.

Then let the politicians start bitching about how they want an assault weapon ban - and let them try to define exactly what an "asssault weapon " is by the features - when a good portion of the population of "sporting rifles" used by Fudds - now have those same features.

I see an effort like this as a companion argument I made back when everybody was scared about Obama and the potential for gun bans down the road. We all started worrying about who we could elect to fix the problem.

My argument was that a gun and ammo buying spree was the most effective deterrent to any legislation. Especially when it is carried to an extreme. Do it enough times and there will so many damn guns it will be IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of them except thru draconian measures ( which would justify the reason for those firearms existence in the first place if you believe the founding fathers).

Changing our usage patterns on "evil featured" rifles and shotguns would change the playing field. Sooner or later it would take away the politicians ability to define what an "evil feature" is. If they wanted to ban guns - they would have to search for another excuse. They might try the military caliber thing that is used in some other countries - but I think we already have that one pretty much under control since 9mm, .223, .308, 30.06 and most of the others are already in extensive use for "sporting purposes".

Make the damn politicians play catch up. Make them answer directly to the Fudd who wonders why the latest crop of gun banners wants to take away his fancy pistol gripped multi thousand dollar skeet gun.

Play the game a different way and make the politicians pay the price when they try to screw a larger voting block than just black rifle owners.

It's not like this is not already happening, with (like the respondent above said) turkey guns with pistol grips, Remington coming out with AR's as a hunting platform, etc. What I am saying is: up the game and consciously force thru the use of pistol gripped firearms as hunting and sporting firearms.

 

[seanc]

My basic point is: we can throw the whole "pistol grip" argument..<snip>.
Politicians are ignorant. <snip>

What needs to happen is that since Heller, the term "Sporting Purposes" needs to be completely removed.

 

[LoginName]

What needs to happen is that since Heller, the term "Sporting Purposes" needs to be completely removed.

From the gun control angle, "sporting purposes" applies to the importation of firearms and has little to do with firearms produced in this country.

Congress has broad powers when it comes trade and what is and what is not allowed to enter US borders.

With that, the Heller decision isn't going to help us any.

Any changes in the "sporting purpose" definition will have to come from the Legislature.

Where Heller does have the potential to provided some relief, is from the justices stating that "a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms'" is unconstitutional and that firearms "in common use" are protected.

 

[seanc]

From the gun control angle, "sporting purposes" applies to the importation of firearms and has little to do with firearms produced in this country.

Where Heller does have the potential to provided some relief, is from the justices stating that "a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms'" is unconstitutional and that firearms "in common use" are protected.

While you are correct, "sporting purposes" has far surpassed it's limitations as being solely an import designation.

I would argue that the whole "You don't need an Uzi for duck hunting" mantra/ theory is a direct result of any and all of the "sporting purposes" language. Now that Heller has clarified that the 2A is NOT about duck hunting and or a standing army it is time that the designation of any manner of "sporting puroposes" should go away.

And iirc there have been shotguns domestically produced that have been banned/ reclassified as DD due to their being "not consistant with sporting purposes". Specifically the USAS and Streetsweeper (both made in USA).