ForeGrip (Vertical Grip) on Ar15 Pistols or Kel-Tec PLR16 Pistols - Page 2

AR-15 » AR Pistols

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ForeGrip (Vertical Grip) on Ar15 Pistols or Kel-Tec PLR16 Pistols (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 11/14/2006 5:19:48 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

What can be done: Someone can take a pistol, file the paperwork and pay the tax to convert it to an AOW, upon approval attach a VFG, and then sue the federal gov't to get the money back.

Cheers, Otto

This sounds like the most sensible way to challenge this at this point.

Posted: 12/11/2006 2:55:59 PM EDT

[#2]

can someone send me a copy that states it not legal to put a fore grip on a pistol????

[email protected]

Posted: 1/9/2007 2:10:03 PM EDT

[#3]

Seems the simplist thing to do would be have a quick detach grip of some kind. There, end of story. Plus being "quick detach without tools" would put it into the non-permenantly attached category, which might be an exception.

Posted: 1/17/2007 11:29:33 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What can be done: Someone can take a pistol, file the paperwork and pay the tax to convert it to an AOW, upon approval attach a VFG, and then sue the federal gov't to get the money back.

Cheers, Otto

This sounds like the most sensible way to challenge this at this point.

When I win the lottery, I'll throw away about a half mil on lawyer fees taking this one to SCOTUS. Until then as a serf, I'll have to settle with paying the Emperor's $200 tax and go on home that much poorer.

wganz
¶

Posted: 1/26/2007 12:27:32 PM EDT

[#5]

Check this out:

http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/merchant.mvc?page=MSP/PROD/22_FOREGRIP/GPA-000-GP1

Posted: 1/26/2007 12:30:28 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What can be done: Someone can take a pistol, file the paperwork and pay the tax to convert it to an AOW, upon approval attach a VFG, and then sue the federal gov't to get the money back.

Cheers, Otto

This sounds like the most sensible way to challenge this at this point.

When I win the lottery, I'll throw away about a half mil on lawyer fees taking this one to SCOTUS. Until then as a serf, I'll have to settle with paying the Emperor's $200 tax and go on home that much poorer.

wganz
¶

I'd prefer you throw those legal fees at challenging the 1986 machine gun ban.

Posted: 2/1/2007 1:29:55 AM EDT

[#7]

If I have got a 30 round mag to hold onto I don't need a foregrip. Add a sling to fully extend against and this is a very accurate weapon out to 100+ yards. I would prefer this method instead of testing the ATF.

Posted: 2/3/2007 9:38:13 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Seems the simplist thing to do would be have a quick detach grip of some kind. There, end of story. Plus being "quick detach without tools" would put it into the non-permenantly attached category, which might be an exception.

You mean a throw lever on a VFG??

Posted: 2/15/2007 6:26:23 AM EDT

[#9]

This is just an idle theroy, something that randomly popped into my head while reading this and similar threads. Just playing devil's advocate here.

What if, you had an AR style pistol and removed all or part of the main grip, to make it "unuseable" (I know part has to be there to retain the selector switch detent). May or may not be permanent. Without a rear grip, could you then add a foregrip as a replacement?

The gun still has only one grip. The ATF letter doesn't nessasarily state it has to be the origininal grip.

I know removing the rear grip and having just a trigger sounds silly, but bear with me for the supposition.

Posted: 2/15/2007 12:41:21 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
This is just an idle theroy, something that randomly popped into my head while reading this and similar threads. Just playing devil's advocate here.

What if, you had an AR style pistol and removed all or part of the main grip, to make it "unuseable" (I know part has to be there to retain the selector switch detent). May or may not be permanent. Without a rear grip, could you then add a foregrip as a replacement?

The gun still has only one grip. The ATF letter doesn't nessasarily state it has to be the origininal grip.

I know removing the rear grip and having just a trigger sounds silly, but bear with me for the supposition.

Essentially making it a bullpup configuration.
It has intruiged me as well, back even, in my AK days.
I was told by know-nothings that the receiver against the upper arm would still qualify as a stock, which clearly is falicious BS.

I think a short Receiver Extension and a Bullpup configuration (using steel rods attached from the new trigger to the actual trigger would work. Witness the bullpup conversion kit for the AK (can't remember the name of it).

When my finances accomodate, I hope to develop one.
If/when, I'll be certain to update you folks.

Best,

Posted: 2/15/2007 4:30:31 PM EDT

[#11]

Essentially making it a bullpup configuration.
It has intruiged me as well, back even, in my AK days.
I was told by know-nothings that the receiver against the upper arm would still qualify as a stock, which clearly is falicious BS.

I think a short Receiver Extension and a Bullpup configuration (using steel rods attached from the new trigger to the actual trigger would work. Witness the bullpup conversion kit for the AK (can't remember the name of it).

When my finances accomodate, I hope to develop one.
If/when, I'll be certain to update you folks.

Doesn't the definition of a "stock" have something to do with a cheek weld and/or bracing against the shoulder?

Sort of reminds me of the old Bushmaster "Arm Gun" which I am trying to find a picture of and coming up empty. The Vektor CR-21 is akin to a bullpup AK

world.guns.ru/assault/as26-e.htm

Turning an AR pistol bullpup, I admit, wasn't my line of thinking exactly but is an interesting idea none the less!

Posted: 4/16/2007 10:11:19 PM EDT

[#12]

My two cents is this...

An AR Pistol any make model or style that has at least the pistol handgaurds on it... meaning a shrouded barrel... IS NOT INTENDED TO BE FIRED BY ONE HAND SO WHY THE HELL NOT PUT A GRIP ON THE HANDGAURD!

Furthermore... if you're going to pay the $200.00 to register the pistol as an aow... just add a stock and classify it as an SBR... WOW! now you can accurately fire it and have the vert grip.... FREAKING AMAZING!!!!!!

Posted: 4/17/2007 6:37:07 PM EDT

[#13]

I believe its only a $5 tax stamp to register an AOW

Posted: 4/25/2007 9:48:28 PM EDT

[#14]

[EDITED]

Posted: 4/30/2007 9:15:38 PM EDT

[#15]

I just read on another forum and they were questioning about putting a side grip (non vertical but horizontal)on a quad rail. anyone have any thoughts to this?

I can't believe to add a vertical grip it cost $200

Posted: 6/5/2007 6:39:39 PM EDT

[#16]

When I bought a semi MAC-11 many years ago, it came with a foreward grip on it. That was the whole point of having a threaded barrel. That big clunky thing NEEDED a foreward grip. There's really no way to shoot it with one hand. Years later, the ATF came out with their infamous "letter" that says this makes it an AOW. Basically, they can make and change the rules as they go along. Kind of like how the Akins Accelerator was NOT a machinegun, and now that say it is.

The ATF has too much power, and like most govt. agencies, they are confusing and not efficient. The only thing that can be done is to elect pro-gun candidates every chance you get who will hopefully make reforms.

Needless to say, law-abiding people like us jump through hoops to try and comply with all these laws, while criminals are too busy raping and murdering to concern themselves with any of these stupid laws.

Posted: 9/14/2007 4:41:17 PM EDT

[#17]

I can't believe our country has come to this ? We are all discussing a vertical grip on a pistol ? Why isn't the ATF doing something useful ? Like charging and prosecuting president Clinton for his role in the dealings with a infamous Chinese general to import 8 million dollars worth of fully automatic weapons and distribute them to gang members on the streets of L.A. ? Did you all know they actually caught him in the middle of the deal ? They never even charged the liberal scum, just let him walk away because he was president ! WTF ? How is it honest hard working men and women like us keep getting the shaft for stupid shit ? I think it is high time someone starts watching and regulating the ATF's actions !

Posted: 9/14/2007 4:56:55 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
I believe its only a $5 tax stamp to register an AOW

200 to make and register. 5 to transfer. However a SOT could make for nada and transfer for 5 to you

Posted: 9/22/2007 8:38:28 PM EDT

[#19]

If you think about the whole reason for the tax stamp, its to get money, not because its scary looking. One definition of tax is "A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government"

Another definition is "A tax is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [ . . .] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."

In other words your supporting the people with your $200 who regulate the firearms for the reason of taxing you in the first place.

You get in trouble for not registering it because they did'nt get their money. Another definition of not paying a tax is "When taxes are not fully paid, civil penalties (such as fines or forfeiture) or criminal penalties (such as incarceration)[3] may be imposed on the non-paying entity or individual."

Which means like all bans and regulations....its all about money and power.

They made it such a hassle I don't even bother with the special feature. I live in a state that dos'nt allow much as it is anyway.

So pretty much IMO they are saying either pay your taxes or goto jail when it comes to NFA or AOW firearms. People need to realize the government is about money and power. Everything they do is for those 2 reasons alone if you look at what they do on a daily basis, but honestly I think I'm preaching to the choir here.

Posted: 9/23/2007 8:35:56 AM EDT

[#20]

Back to the original point, "Handgun" and "Pistol" are not interchangeable words. Since ATF has stated that you cannot have a forward grip on a "Handgun" then what about a "Pistol"? Secondly, someone pointed out that these two terms surfaced at different times yet as others pointed out, almost all modern "handguns" have a second grip- i.e. trigger guard that accomidates a second hand grip such as a Glock. Since these are legal then it sets presedence to adding a detachable forward grip to an AR style "pistol". Sure it's easy to register your pistol as an SBR but now your stuck in your state and having to ask permission to cross state lines which is rediculous. Not to meantion you are on the "radar" so to speak.

I wish someone with a vast understanding of the various ATF edicts can bring this to a point and can ask ATF specifically where it is outlined in the law that adding a detachable pistol grip to a pistol is in fact illegal.

Posted: 10/7/2007 7:04:26 AM EDT

[#21]

After reading this, my head hurts................

Posted: 10/14/2007 11:42:05 PM EDT

[#22]

But check this out. It says pistols with rifled bores are NOT to be considered an AOW.

<<The NFA further defines the term “any other weapon” (AOW) as 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 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. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e).>>

Don't pistols have rifled bores?

Posted: 10/15/2007 1:32:25 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
ok, here's the easy answer.

1. ATF make the rules. (not anyone else) (this is the easy answer, not the long drawn out one)

2. LEO's hardly ever know anything about guns, let alone gun related laws.

3. Bushmaster is a manufacturer and is more likely to know the laws, because of ATF audits and visits.

4. Dealers and Retail outlets are NOT a source of information regarding the LAW.

What it all boils down to, is the fact that your pistol is no longer a pistol, and not a rifle, according to ATF rulings, and they are the final determination of the "interpretation" of the law.

If you are willing to take that chance, send them a letter, and ask them.

I have been asking people for the last year to mail a letter off, and see for your selves.

I've made the calls, I've asked the questions and I've talked to the ATF feild agents who came to my home. (I can even reffer you to a very talkative Industy Operations Investigator for the ATF.)

I personally dont want to take the chance to become a "case study" after I am dragged to court by the ATF. (you really really dont want to become famous as the guy who "tested" the ATF laws and won or regretably lost in court)

I know this doesnt answer your question, but then again, it has been beat to death.
-Jason

Why did ATF agents come to your home ?

Posted: 10/15/2007 1:51:47 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
can someone send me a copy that states it not legal to put a fore grip on a pistol????

[email protected]

PLR-16 and Carbon 21 boh have them ..

Posted: 10/18/2007 5:01:39 AM EDT

[#25]

This may sound stupid but how can the batf make up "Rules" as they want. This is a rule not a law. laws have to passed through a system which requires people who agree and disagree to vote on the law. If this is the case why wouldn't the batf just say no AR15 pistols at all and not have to deal with any questions. I didn't know that the batf was a governing body which was allowed to make laws or as they call them "Rules".

Posted: 10/28/2007 9:05:44 PM EDT

[#26]

I once had a semi-auto tommy gun that was manufactured as a pistol and was so marked on the receiver. It came from the factory, "auto-ordinance", with a forward mounted vertical pistol grip as well as the rear pistol grip.

Instead of the 10" barrel that was on the original, automatic tommy gun which would have ordinarily been legal on a pistol, this gun came with a 13" barrel, supposedly to make the gun's overall length long enough to fall outside the, "concealable" length that caused it to be a technical "pistol".

If it is no longer "concealable" and is beyond some specified overall length, which I no longer recall, then it was legal (and still should be) to install a forward vertical pistol grip.

I'll try to find the information on the tommy gun thread this week.

Posted: 10/28/2007 9:43:22 PM EDT

[#27]

The overall length is 26". If your pistol is 26" or longer it should be able to have a second pistol grip with no NFA hastle, because it is not considered concealable.

EDITED: Please VERIFY this info and post a source if possible. -Jason (Moderator)

Posted: 11/4/2007 7:48:32 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
The overall length is 26". If your pistol is 26" or longer it should be able to have a second pistol grip with no NFA hastle, because it is not considered concealable.

I'm not saying your wrong, but where did you get this info from?

Posted: 11/17/2007 4:47:35 PM EDT

[#29]

+ 1000!!!

Quoted:
This may sound stupid but how can the batf make up "Rules" as they want. This is a rule not a law. laws have to passed through a system which requires people who agree and disagree to vote on the law. If this is the case why wouldn't the batf just say no AR15 pistols at all and not have to deal with any questions. I didn't know that the batf was a governing body which was allowed to make laws or as they call them "Rules".

Posted: 11/24/2007 7:50:14 PM EDT

[#30]

Maybe this is old news, but has anyone seen US v. Davis?

25. Title 26, United States Code Section 5845(e) defines “any other weapon” as:
… any weapon or device capable of being concealed from which
a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosion
… Such term shall not include a pistol or 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.
26. A “pistol” is defined in Section 5845 as
A weapon originally designed, made and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one
hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of or
permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock
designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and
extending below the line of the bore(s). 27 CFR 178.11
(emphasis added).
27. Even after being modified with grips, the pistols are still “pistols” as defined above and not “any other weapon” as defined by 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e).

Posted: 11/25/2007 1:27:21 PM EDT

[#31]

Pred

Very interesting... do you have a link?

ETA: Wikipedia? You've got to be kidding...

Posted: 11/25/2007 2:03:35 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Maybe this is old news, but has anyone seen US v. Davis?

25. Title 26, United States Code Section 5845(e) defines “any other weapon” as:
… any weapon or device capable of being concealed from which
a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosion
… Such term shall not include a pistol or 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.
26. A “pistol” is defined in Section 5845 as
A weapon originally designed, made and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one
hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of or
permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock
designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and
extending below the line of the bore(s). 27 CFR 178.11
(emphasis added).
27. Even after being modified with grips, the pistols are still “pistols” as defined above and not “any other weapon” as defined by 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e).

Pred,

You were making me go crazy (wife says I could walk). A pistol is not defined in Section 5845 in the 2005 book I have from the atf. I did see your definition in 27cfr 479.11.
I see where you are coming from on this one. After briefly skimming the definitions, the pistol definition is one of, if not the only definition that I saw that uses the phrase: weapon "originally" designed, made, and intended..... [quotes for emphasis].The other definitions all seem to use designed, redesigned, made, remade,...... HMMM? Any volunteers to be the first guinea pigs to test it out in the legal arena?

eta The phrase: weapon "originally" designed, made, and intended.... is in 27cfr 478.11 also. The term "Handgun" is also defined as (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;

So technically, if you (hypothetically) added a front grip to a pistol ($200 tax paid first, etc.) it is no longer a handgun.

Posted: 11/25/2007 2:17:34 PM EDT

[#33]

I was searching through the web last night to see if there was a change in the law. I stumbled upon a Wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Forward_Grip

A Vertical Forward Grip (somewhat self-defining) is a vertical grip that is designed to attach to a firearm for the forward hand (or "off hand"). These aid in the maneuverability of the firearm, since the natural angle of a persons outstretched hand is more oriented to grasping objects at a vertical angle, rather than a horizontal one perpendicular to the body.

*
o It is unlawful to attach a vertical forward grip to a handgun without proper authorization from the ATF. Attaching a vertical forward grip to a handgun makes it an AOW (Any Other Weapon, as defined by the 1934 National Firearms Act).

The ATF's position on this is that attaching a vertical forward grip is unlawful. But in has been proven that their position on this is wrong.

In the case of US v. Davis, the court ruled that a pistol with a vertical fore grip is not an Any Other Weapon because it’s still a pistol:

25. Title 26, United States Code Section 5845(e) defines “any other weapon” as:
… any weapon or device capable of being concealed from which
a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosion
… Such term shall not include a pistol or 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.
26. A “pistol” is defined in Section 5845 as
A weapon originally designed, made and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one
hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of or
permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock
designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and
extending below the line of the bore(s). 27 CFR 178.11
(emphasis added).
27. Even after being modified with grips, the pistols are still “pistols” as defined above and not “any other weapon” as defined by 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e).

Posted: 11/25/2007 2:50:15 PM EDT

[#34]

wiki.....

Posted: 12/11/2007 9:08:27 AM EDT

[#35]

I just put a surefire on the bottem rail and it becomes a very nice handle

Posted: 1/5/2008 2:11:29 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
I just put a surefire on the bottem rail and it becomes a very nice handle

Think about a USGI anglehead flashlight with a ARMS throwlever mount epoxied on the head... "stealth" vertical grip!

I think surefire has beat me to market with the M900A.

Posted: 1/5/2008 4:15:01 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I was searching through the web last night to see if there was a change in the law. I stumbled upon a Wikipedia article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Forward_Grip

A Vertical Forward Grip (somewhat self-defining) is a vertical grip that is designed to attach to a firearm for the forward hand (or "off hand"). <snip>
The ATF's position on this is that attaching a vertical forward grip is unlawful. But in has been proven that their position on this is wrong.

In the case of US v. Davis, the court ruled that a pistol with a vertical fore grip is not an Any Other Weapon because it’s still a pistol:
<snip>
27. Even after being modified with grips, the pistols are still “pistols” as defined above and not “any other weapon” as defined by 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e).

Would be interesting to write a letter to the ATF to ask them to clarify and reconcile their position with this case.

wganz

Posted: 1/5/2008 4:49:04 PM EDT

[#38]

I originally posted this in the other vfg thread:

The vfg charge in Davis was dropped because there is no present law to charge him with breaking. The atf letter "made" a hybrid law by taking the "Handgun" definition from the GCA and using it in the NFA. The law does not allow for this. The court had no other choice than to throw out the charge because they do not make legislation either. It is obvious, in this situation, that the atf is making rulings based on laws that do not exist.

ETA - Gun Disaster-"Of course if you run into the ATF or somebody who knows the law then you might have a problem and be in court".

This is why the charge was dropped - the judge in the Davis case DID know the law.

I think your statement would have been correct if it read - Of course if you run into somebody who knows the law then you should never wind up in court.

Posted: 1/23/2008 1:34:36 PM EDT

[#39]

All of this, and nobody wants to personally give it a try?!?!?!?

....damn it, I guess I'm with the rest of you. I just don't understand how an AR "pistol" can be reasonably fired by one hand.

Posted: 1/24/2008 12:57:19 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I just don't understand how an AR "pistol" can be reasonably fired by one hand.

The same as a .500 SW magnum with 10" barrel or what ever they run these days.

Posted: 4/17/2008 2:48:22 PM EDT

[#41]

This could be a defense... Sold to anyone as a PISTOL!!!!

http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tcn/1998/aug/aug98p5.htm

OB_1

Posted: 4/25/2008 3:54:24 AM EDT

[#42]

So let me get this straight. It's been well documented that the ATF would consider you in posession of an illegal SBR if you owned both an unregistered AR lower and a sub-16" barrell. By that logic they would consider you in poession of an illegal AOW if you owned both a Glock 23 and a Versipod. WTF?

Somebody needs to put a stop to these guys.

Posted: 4/29/2008 4:21:04 PM EDT

[#43]

I looked on the site. They are not selling the forend grip with the pistol model. They may show a little "advertising" with it on, but they do not include the front grip with it.

It was a very good arguement while it lasted tho....

height=8

Quoted:
This could be a defense... Sold to anyone as a PISTOL!!!!

http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tcn/1998/aug/aug98p5.htm

OB_1

Posted: 4/29/2008 9:59:55 PM EDT

[#44]

Look at the picture of the 1927A5. See the front pistol grip? This is what was sold as a PISTOL. I HAD ONE!!!!

OB_1

Posted: 4/30/2008 7:14:16 PM EDT

[#45]

They were grandfathered under the law that doesn't exist that restricts VFGs on pistols.

Seriously.

Posted: 5/1/2008 7:52:19 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
They were grandfathered under the law that doesn't exist that restricts VFGs on pistols.

Seriously.

+1

Posted: 5/7/2008 2:36:58 PM EDT

[#47]

How about this?

Not in line with the bore!!!

<a href="http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ergosiderailstgi0.gif" target="_blank">

Chris

Posted: 5/7/2008 10:32:45 PM EDT

[#48]

^Still perpendicular, though.

^

Posted: 5/17/2008 10:43:33 PM EDT

[#49]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a state where AOWs are legal - pay the $5 and don't get an ass pounding for an NFA violation.

(isn't the AOW tax only $5?)

Doug -

Posted: 5/17/2008 11:39:14 PM EDT

[#50]

It's a $5 tax to buy an AOW that has already been manufactured. If you are the one manufacturing the AOW, the tax is $200 to "make" the weapon.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ForeGrip (Vertical Grip) on Ar15 Pistols or Kel-Tec PLR16 Pistols (Page 2 of 3)

AR-15 » AR Pistols

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us