I know this subject has been beat to death but I am still not satisfied with the info I have found or the lack of info I have found. Yesterday I spent about 3 hours surfing the ATF sight and could not find the info Bushmaster sent me about putting the forward grip on the pistol. There is a lot of discussion and descriptions on what makes a pistol but no where could I find where it says the fore grip makes a pistol a AOW. If someone knows exactly where that is in CFR or the BATFE web site please post it. This subject is active in several different discussion forums and all seem to be confused on if it is legal or not.  

I did order several parts for my PLR 16 from Bushmaster and no where did I find any info nor was I told it was illegal to install the front grip. Until the package arrived was there any indication it was. I just wonder if Bushmaster is not sure of the rules and just puts the disclaimer with it to cover their ass.  

I do not see how in the hell this would be against the law to own. My buddy and I were discussing this and his thoughts were who in the hell would even know you have this. We only shoot on private land with no one else around. He said why don't you just take the grip off when transporting it and then install when you shoot. Bushmaster makes a cool broom handle grip that just requires a twist to install and uninstall. The one I have uses an allen wrench and it could be stowed in the hollow handle. Heck bushmaster even sells a plug for the handle.  

I have even asked several other buddies I work with (LE) about this situation with the fore grip installed on a pistol. I am here to tell you I got the trout look from everyone of them. Not one of them even knew what I was talking about until I explained it to them. Heck I was even unaware of this until I got into these discussion forums. I knew there were some rules when the old assault rifle ban was in effect but thought all of that crap went out the window when it expired.

Quoted: I know this subject has been beat to death but I am still not satisfied with the info I have found or the lack of info I have found.

You and me both supv26. I've yet to see any proof that anyone has been convicted of any offence concerning a foregrip.

If I were to go to a public range I doubt I'd use the foregrip just because of the fuss some would make that think they know what's what but I too shoot on my land sooo...

It is not listed in their rules and regulations book but exists only in letters and rulings the ATFE have handed down.  
A hell of a lot of people have gone down this road and you have read the answers and seen the rulings the ATFE have handed down if you have searched this topic any at all.  But if you are still confused, and I am confused on how you could still be confused, you are going to have to write the ATFE and get your own letter from them before you are, as you put it, satisfied.
The vertical foregrip had nothing to do with the AWB or its expiration.

Here is a copy of one of those letters the ATFE sent to someone in 1997:
                 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
            Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
                    Washington, D.C. 20226
                        NOV 25 1997             F:SD:FTB:GKD
                                                3311
Dear Mr. :
This refers to your letter of November 6, 1997, requesting
information on the manufacture of a firearm to be classified as an
"any other weapon," as that term is defined in the National
Firearms Act (NFA).
You describe the proposed firearm as being manufactured using an
AR15 type lower receiver that has never been assembled as a
complete firearm and installing a "pistol length barrel," a rear
pistol grip, a vertical foregrip, shrouded barrel and a flash
hider.  This firearm would utilize a detachable magazine installed
outside the pistol grip.  (note that the only thing in the description
that is NOT part of a normal AR pistol build is the second vertical fore grip)
A firearm manufactured from the described components and in the
described manner would not be a pistol as defined in either Title
27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 178 or 179, nor would
it be classified as a rifle or shotgun, not being designed to be
held and fired from the shoulder.  Further, it is not classified as
a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 921(a)(30), hence it is not subject to the
prohibition on the manufacture, transfer or possession of
semiautomatic assault weapons as provided in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 922(v).
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously
held that a firearm of the type described in your letter is
classified as an "any other weapon" and is subject to all of the
provisions of the NFA.  Such a firearm could legally be
manufactured and transferred by a Class II manufacturer.  An
unlicensed individual could manufacture such a firearm by first
submitting an AT Form 1, APPLICATION TO MAKE AND REGISTER A
FIREARM, to ATF.  Upon receipt of the approved form, the individual
could then proceed to manufacture the firearm.
                             - 2 -
Mr.
We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.
                       Sincerely yours,
                           [signed]
                      Edward M. Owen, Jr.
               Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

And for the second time in one day....

 

Could it be that the "flash hider", that was listed, was the problem? If I'm not mistaken the "flash hider" was illegal in 1997.

I see your point Noner. But this letter is vague, in my mind anyway, and is open to inturruption concerning the question at hand. It certainly wouldn't be considered [I[best evidence in a court of law.

The single most frustrating thing I've found about trying to interrupt the law is that common sence has nothing to do with it which makes assumptions dangerous. Ergo, if the law in question isn't clearly outlined it leaves the question open for the Judge to decide. And from the little I've read Federal Judges have not held the foregrip illegal.

But hey, what do I know? Nothing! I'm just a dumb as dirt, head of stone, old Marine who's not convinced one way or the other.

I agree with you RGT!! That letter is very vague!. I have seen that letter or one similar to it somewhere else and it kind of leaves you wondering what the heck they are talking about. I work VERY closely with written law everyday of my life and this letter beats all! No where can anyone find if it IS legal or if it ISN'T legal. To me it kind of just "beats around the bush" Now I am not bashing the federal laws or law makers but there hasn't been anything written in black and white and most have to agree. The analogy that it is illegal is apparent but not the actuality of it!

LOL

Quoted: This is one of the toys for 2006 I will be adding to my collection. Just an FYI, I received an "official" reply from BATF about my inquiry for a vertical fore grip and they confirmed the addition of the vertical grip makes it an AOW. Which, I'm pretty sure, all of us suspected as such anyway.

HERE is the thread.

Quoted: Quoted: This is one of the toys for 2006 I will be adding to my collection. Just an FYI, I received an "official" reply from BATF about my inquiry for a vertical fore grip and they confirmed the addition of the vertical grip makes it an AOW. Which, I'm pretty sure, all of us suspected as such anyway. HERE is the thread.

I received an "official" reply from BATF about my inquiry for a virtical fore grip and they confirmed the addition of the vertical grip does not make it an AOW.

Of course the above isn't true. I didn't send or receive a letter from the BATF but I think you get the point. If I did have such a letter I would produce it and put this who really cares anyway? subject to rest.    

Quoted: Proof is what is needed.

I see we agree on one thing at least Noner.  

For the record. I'm not trying to prove everyone else wrong and I'm not saying it's Okay to use a fore grip. I would just like to see the statute that clearly out outlines the illegal use of the fore grip. As you said, "Proof is what is needed".

I agree that there is a lot of confusion on this (and most other ATF issues) because you can’t go to a single source and get a definitive answer on a question.

There was a case in SC where an individual was prosecuted for a number of NFA violations.  One of the violations was a forward grip mounted on an HK SP89, which the ATF said constituted an AOW and the individual did not have a tax stamp.  In the case, the judge threw out the charge and said that simply adding a forward grip does not violate the ATF’s definition of a pistol.  To date, this is the only case law on an adding a forward grip to a pistol.  The search function is not working today, but you can find the actual case and write-up here.  I’ll look through it tonight and post the actual case when I have more time.  

So to summarize:
- Adding a forward grip to a pistol is not listed as prohibited in the ATF’s rules and regulations.  
- In the only case on this topic, the judge threw out the charges because he said adding the grip didn't violate the law.
- A letter from the ATF soliciting their opinion simply tells you the way the ATF interprets the law, but it is not law.  Think of it as the position the ATF would take when they prosecute you.  

So the answer is as clear as mud.  If you really want to get the answer you have to legally build an AOW and request a refund after your tax was paid.  When the ATF declines your refund, sue them and see if you win the case.  Most of us aren't made of money, so we just pay the $200 tax if you have the need for an AOW.  

Here's the definitions from the Code of federal regulations;

Pistol. 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).

So I guess they are saying that if it has a foreward grip, it is not designed to be fired with one hand?

Quoted: Here's the definitions from the Code of federal regulations; Pistol. 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). So I guess they are saying that if it has a foreward grip, it is not designed to be fired with one hand?

Yeah, but think about this:  The key word is "designed".  So if the firearm is originally "designed" and manufactured in a pistol configuration, and you add a forward pistol grip, you can still shoot it as originally "designed".  Nothing about adding a forward pistol grip will interfere with shooting it one handed.  

Someone might say, "But now, you can shoot the pistol with 2 hands, doesn't that go against the original design?"

Which you can reply, "Yes, but every pistol can be shot using 2 hands.  Like shooting in the weaver or isosceles stance."  If this is bad, then a lot of people are in trouble.

All tools can (and will) be used in ways different from what the original design intended.  (How many people use a flat head screw driver just for driving screws?)

Mind you, I'm not going to be a test case for this.  ATF makes their own rules which defy logic and reason and  interpreting the law in whatever way suits them best.  Still, I think that calling a pistol with a vertical foregrip an AOW, is BS...

Sorrty for dragging this topic back up, but why does everyone seem so worried about sending a letter to the BATF?  

It seems like a simple enough thing to do.

Quoted: Sorrty for dragging this topic back up, but why does everyone seem so worried about sending a letter to the BATF?   It seems like a simple enough thing to do.

For multiple reasons:

1)You are officially on the ATF's Radar now since you sent the letter.  They may stop by for a visit if they remotely feel that you may be breaking the law...

2)There is No need to rock the boat if the boat don't need to be rocked...Translation: Your letter could royally screw up the way things are right now and cause a change in the "Norm" of NFA weapons as we know it.  Nobody wants to be known as the guy on AF15 who had the "so and so" law/ruling changed for the worst because he had to send a damn letter inquiring about something "Stupid"

Now these are just my .02 and can be taken with a grain of salt.

U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington, DC 20226 Adding a Vertical Fore Grip to a Handgun “Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand…. Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29). Under an implementing regulation of the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined 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). 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). ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. To lawfully add a vertical fore grip to a handgun, a person must make an appropriate application on ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm.” The applicant must submit the completed form, along with a fingerprint card bearing the applicant’s fingerprints; a photograph; and $200.00. The application will be reviewed by the NFA Branch. If the applicant is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law, and possession of an “AOW” is not prohibited in the applicant’s State of residence, the form will be approved. Only then may the person add a vertical fore grip to the designated handgun. A person may also send the handgun to a person licensed to manufacture NFA weapons. The manufacturer will install the fore grip on the firearm and register the firearm on an ATF Form 2. The manufacturer can then transfer the firearm back to the individual on an ATF Form 4, which results in a $5.00 transfer tax. If the manufacturer is out of State, the NFA Branch will need a clarification letter submitted with the ATF Form 4 so that the NFA Branch Examiner will know the circumstances of the transfer. Questions can be directed to the NFA Branch or the Firearms Technology Branch. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does a person liscenced to make NFA weapons have to pay $200 to make the weapon?

Quoted: PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE: www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/041006-vert_grip.htm The ATF have just released more info on vertical grips.

Just released?

This letter, from the BATF, go to show the long excepted fact that the BATF (NOT the Federal Courts) interrupts the law to mean that the fore grip on a hand gun is illegal. I doubt you'll find anyone that wll disagree with the BATF stand on this matter.

Here's my take on the BATF. They're like a District Attoney in that they have, for the lack of a better term, muscle in the Court system. They (the BATF) can, like a Distrit Attoney, charge a person with a crime BUT the Judge has the final word!

It's my belief that, to date, no Federal Judge has ruled that a fore grip on a pistol is illegal. That's to say that, it's my belief, every charge involving a fore grip and pistol, brought before Federal Judge, has been dismissed.

As I've stated earlier, I truly don't care one way or the other! But I do enjoy a good debate.  

BTW. It's a real nice morning here in North Central Florida so I think I'll grab the Bushy 97S, head out back and punch some holes in paper.  

Quoted: This letter, from the BATF, go to show the long excepted fact that the BATF (NOT the Federal Courts) interrupts the law to mean that the fore grip on a hand gun is illegal. I doubt you'll find anyone that wll disagree with the BATF stand on this matter.

Until we have a court opinion and not just one judge's written inclination before a final ruling, stating that the ATF's interpretation that a VFG on a handgun makes it an AOW under the NFA and CFR, be careful placing too much emphasis on "the one case ... the judge threw it out" reasoning.

The issue RGT cites above is usually called the Chevron doctrine.

"[T]he Chevron doctrine [states] that courts should defer to a reasonable agency interpretation of a statutewhen the statute itself is ambiguous. Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Agencies, not courts, are the preferred vehicle for resolving policy conflicts engendered by statutes. Agency officials may have been involved in the drafting of the statute. Agencies have greater expertise in regulatory areas. And Congress intended that agencies should "fill in the gaps"; intentionally or inadvertently left when statutes are drafted."

Taken from Supreme Court Elucidates Chevron Doctrine

Therefore, ambiguities are resolved in favor of the interpreting agency, if 1. the agency has a (reasonable) public interpretation of the ambiguity,  and 2. there is an ambiguity in the law.

The "one case..." issue, above, looks as if the judge disagreed that there was an ambiguity in the law, which can change between judges and/or court systems -- the same thing with rulings as to what is "reasonable", neither of which I'd want to bet my freedom and ability to own and shoot firearms on as the test-case defendant.

Cheers, Otto

WOW! Now that's way over my head.  

But just for the sake of this discussion we say that a judge "thru out the case". Wouldn't that set a precedent that could be cited and inturn influence the out come of another like court case?

Lets take it a bit further and say, just the sake of our discussion here, that there has been more than one case where the judge has dismissed the charge of the fore grip. Would that make a difference in the chevron doctrine argument?

Like I said, this is way over my head so please excuse my questions.

Quoted: WOW! Now that's way over my head.   But just for the sake of this discussion we say that a judge "thru out the case". Wouldn't that set a precedent that could be cited and inturn influence the out come of another like court case? Lets take it a bit further and say, just the sake of our discussion here, that there has been more than one case where the judge has dismissed the charge of the fore grip. Would that make a difference in the chevron doctrine argument? Like I said, this is way over my head so please excuse my questions.

They look like good questions to me, and I don't have definite answers, BUT I can explain the process a bit more.

The laws and interpretations we are discussing (specifically the ATF's interpretation that adding a VFG to a pistol makes it an AOW -- so we are all clear that this is not a thread highjack) are Federal issues, so the opinions would have to come through federal courts, not the result of any state criminal charges (the vast majority of criminal cases).

It is my understanding that federal district courts have regular jury trials in federal criminal matters, just like state courts; for there to be an "opinion" there would have to be an appeal to a court of appeals and the appeals panel drafts the opinion-- Kent was such a case. US v. Kent (175 F.3d 870)(11th Cir.(Ga.), May 04, 1999)
That appelate panel opinion becomes the law of the land for that circuit.  Other circuits may adopt the reasoning consistant with another circuits' opinions but they don't have to. Another appeal to the Supreme Court that results in an opinion is obviously binding on all circuits.

If a conviction is upheld or overturned on appeal, the answer to your first question would be a limited "yes," but as you state, it would be limited to factually similar cases (unless the prosecutor distinguishes the material facts of the case, then most bets are off).

The other route is through the civil court system: T/C Contender made a pistol/ rifle combo, paid the NAF SBR "making" tax, then sued the federal gov't to get it back.  This resulted in a Supreme Court decision (opinion interpreting federal law) in a civil case that is cited as precedence even in criminal cases (i.e. US v. Kent).  I don't recall the Chevron doctrine playing a large role in the case, in part because IIRC the SC looked at the situation and found the ATF had not addressed it as an ambiguity that they were charged with interpreting prior to the litigation.

The SC determined that the law was ambiguous and applied the doctrine of lenity, in that when there are both legitimate and illegal uses for an item, lacking evidence of criminal behavior, the legitimate use must be assumed. (In the T/C case, using a pistol with an extra long barrel and shoulder stock to make a legal rifle or a short-barreled rifle, the legal rifle assembly was assumed to be the intent. therefore, no tax required)
U.S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 112 S.Ct. 2102 (1992)

-----
Your second question deals with two different areas.  Courts must either deal with the agncy's interpretation and follow the Chevron doctrine points (is there ambiguity? is there an agency that is responsible for this law? did the agency issue an interpretation? is the interpretation reasonable? etc) or determine along the way that there is not a clear agency interpretation to follow (apparently the ATF did not address pistols with added carbine parts prior to the T/C case)
In other words, the court must deal with the Chevron doctrine, either implicetlt or explicitly, in making any ruling when, as here, the agency has an identifiable interpretation to an ambiguity in the law.If enough judges in enough circuits throw out the NFA AOW criminal charges for VFGs on handguns, that probably would bring a chilling effect on the agency's interpretation. More than likely though, there would be a split in the circuits and the SC may or may not decide to look at the matter.  This is a very long process, and involves many criminal defendants.

Morals of the story: 1. don't volunteer to be the test case criminal defendant, and 2. don't buy that VFG in anticipation of the ATF overturning its interpretation any time soon.

----
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.
(I only know of this one way to convert a regular pistol to an AOW, but are there any other ways?)
The Chevron Doctrine would have to be overcome, and the doctrine of lenity (which actually split the SC in a 3+2 vs. 3+1 descision) may not help. The district court ruling may or may not be appealed.
BTW I highly recommend this civil court route over someone contesting a criminal charge of making an unregistered AOW, using the same arguments as they would in the civil case.
Challenging the law in a civil contest does not 1. break any laws, and 2. does not jeopardize your future firearms ownership if you loose (and therefore become a convicted felon).


Sorry, that is a rather long-winded reply, but to some good questions.

Cheers, Otto

U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington, DC 20226 Adding a Vertical Fore Grip to a Handgun “Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand…. Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29). Under an implementing regulation of the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined 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). 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). ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. To lawfully add a vertical fore grip to a handgun, a person must make an appropriate application on ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm.” The applicant must submit the completed form, along with a fingerprint card bearing the applicant’s fingerprints; a photograph; and $200.00. The application will be reviewed by the NFA Branch. If the applicant is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law, and possession of an “AOW” is not prohibited in the applicant’s State of residence, the form will be approved. Only then may the person add a vertical fore grip to the designated handgun. A person may also send the handgun to a person licensed to manufacture NFA weapons. The manufacturer will install the fore grip on the firearm and register the firearm on an ATF Form 2. The manufacturer can then transfer the firearm back to the individual on an ATF Form 4, which results in a $5.00 transfer tax. If the manufacturer is out of State, the NFA Branch will need a clarification letter submitted with the ATF Form 4 so that the NFA Branch Examiner will know the circumstances of the transfer. Questions can be directed to the NFA Branch or the Firearms Technology Branch. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok ATF so you can't add one to a "handgun" without a Tax stamp, but what about a "pistol."  As far as I can tell the term "handgun" doesn't replace "pistol, " instead they are two seperate terms in the law.  

Also they keep on missing the fact that the definition of "any other weapon" explicitly excluded "pistols" with rifled bores.  Ah but it doesn't exclude "handguns" so I guess they are right in that case.

Just remember its a "pistol," not a "handgun" if you go to court over this.

so we just pay the $200 tax if you have the need for an AOW.

AOW's are only $5.00 IIRC

Ok , I'm throughly confused now.

Can I send my legal AR15 pistol to an MFG , have them slap on a forward grip , register it , then
transfer it back to me?

And do THEY have to pay $200 ( which of course they would charge me)?

Also - can an AOW have a Buttstock attached?

I'm not a lawyer, or an expert on gun control laws, but I'll try to answer.

Quoted: Ok , I'm throughly confused now. Welcome to trying to understand anything the BATF has issued an "interpretation" on. Can I send my legal AR15 pistol to an MFG , have them slap on a forward grip , register it , then transfer it back to me? If the manufacturer has the proper BATF paperwork to make NFA weapons, yes.   And do THEY have to pay $200 ( which of course they would charge me)? They would have to pay the tax for manufacturing an AOW, then you would have to pay the transfer tax when it is transfered to you (two taxes). Also - can an AOW have a Buttstock attached? That would make it a short barreled rifle (SBR) and would (if I'm not mistaken) require a separate tax stamp.

Handgun?  Pistol?  Heck, most seem people interchage the terms.

Looking at that link, nearly the same terem are used in defining a "handgun" and "pistol".  

“pistol” is defined 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).

“Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand…. Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).

Sounds like the defention of "IS" or "SEX" (aka Billy and the intern.....)  Means different things to different people.

Quoted: I'm not a lawyer, or an expert on gun control laws, but I'll try to answer. Quoted: Ok , I'm throughly confused now. hing Can I send my legal AR15 pistol to an MFG , have them slap on a forward grip , register it , then transfer it back to me? If the manufacturer has the proper BATF paperwork to make NFA weapons, yes.   And do THEY have to pay $200 ( which of course they would charge me)? They would have to pay the tax for manufacturing an AOW, then you would have to pay the transfer tax when it is transfered to you (two taxes). Actually, an FFL/SOT manufacturer would not have to pay the making tax, which is the benefit of sending your gun to an SOT to do the making.  $70 fee for the SOT + $5 transfer and you save $125 over doing it yourself. Also - can an AOW have a Buttstock attached? That would make it a short barreled rifle (SBR) and would (if I'm not mistaken) require a separate tax stamp.

$200 = AOW tax stamp
$200 = 15 minutes with a defense lawyer

Pick how you want to spend your money....


If you want a buttstock, just SBR it, and you can have a VFG on it for "free"

They would have to pay the tax for manufacturing an AOW, then you would have to pay the transfer tax when it is transfered to you (two taxes). Actually, an FFL/SOT manufacturer would not have to pay the making tax, which is the benefit of sending your gun to an SOT to do the making.  $70 fee for the SOT + $5 transfer and you save $125 over doing it yourself. Also - can an AOW have a Buttstock attached? That would make it a short barreled rifle (SBR) and would (if I'm not mistaken) require a separate tax stamp.

So, if I took my ar pistol and had the proper gunsmith put a stock on it, or had the proper gunsmith put a short barrel on my full length AR it would be $125 also?

Quoted: So, if I took my ar pistol and had the proper gunsmith put a stock on it, or had the proper gunsmith put a short barrel on my full length AR it would be $125 also?

http://www.atf.gov/alcohol/info/atftaxes.htm

Transferring an AOW (AR pistol with a vertical forgrip) is $5 for each transfer.  

Transferring any other NFA firearm (SBR, full auto, etc) is $200 for each transfer.  

Making any NFA firearm is $200 for each firearm.

A)  You cannot do it with registering as an AOW.
B)  All pistols are handguns, not all handguns are pistols.
C)  See A) above.

Handgun CAN be an AOW  IF a Vertical Grip is attached... (what about Horizontal?)

Pistol CANNOT be an AOW (yep two mutually disclusive words Handgun/Pistol)

Logic (yep .. we know B-FATE {to me better than BATFE} never uses logic unless it is to their advantage) would state that a Vertical Grip is allowed on a PISTOL (like my PISTOL marked and documented AR)

And of course it looks like B-FATE does not like to put a date on a decision as murky as this so that it has no easy clarification in the future...

Ted...

Quoted: Can I send my legal AR15 pistol to an MFG , have them slap on a forward grip , register it , then transfer it back to me? If the manufacturer has the proper BATF paperwork to make NFA weapons, yes.   And do THEY have to pay $200 ( which of course they would charge me)? They would have to pay the tax for manufacturing an AOW, then you would have to pay the transfer tax when it is transfered to you (two taxes). Actually, an FFL/SOT manufacturer would not have to pay the making tax, which is the benefit of sending your gun to an SOT to do the making.  $70 fee for the SOT + $5 transfer and you save $125 over doing it yourself.

Where'd the $70 come from?

After reading so much I can't remember where it was (but it was a BATF statement) I recall something about the VFG needing to be attatched permanently to make it an AOW.
So what about a detachable mounted horizontally?

BTW-I don't want to write the letter or be the guinea pig............

Soooooooo according to GCA 68, by using a two handed hold on my Kimber, it instantaineously turns it into an AOW?
So any handgun that requires the use of 2 hands, due to weight or the power of the cartridge, is an AOW?
Could we be getting sucked into a conspiracy charge just by discussing this?


Please comply with all stated and unstated regulations, handed down from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Ice, Chips, Dip, Hot Dogs, Hamburgers, Ribs, Steak, Bbq Chicken, Potato Salad, Back Rubs, Strippers, Baked Beans, Chili and Pie. For the children.

In the absense of an actual LAW, it would be legal to put a detachable Vertical Foregrip on a AR pistol, regardless of the opinion of the tech branch.

HOWEVER, if a BATFE agent decides to charge you, you will have to go to court and fight it out.

And taking Bushmaster's word on the law is ignorant. Bushmaster is not a law firm, and they will not sell ANY M-16 fire control part to a person without a copy of a Tax Stamp, because of an OPINION from the BATFE, even though you can have every M-16 FCG part minus the auto sear, (because you have to drill the reciever for it, and THAT makes it a MG) in your gun without it firing full auto.

Anyway, I've seen MAC's with the leather strap on them attached to the front of the gun, and no one every questions that, so why would the fact that the grip is solid make any difference?

?pistol? is defined 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).


?Handgun? is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand?. Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).

Wouldn't the serrated concave front  of the triger guard of my smith and most of my other pistols for that matter constitute a foregrip under the law?  Look at the trigger guard on  most modern pistols.  They are being designed specifically to be shot with both hands.  I guess this makes most handgun manufacturers at fault with the law.
hock.gif

IMO:  BATFE's administrative opinion re: VFG/pistols (rifled bore) will not withstand judicial review.  They are not citing a specific statute but rather, they are rendering an opinion as to a definition.  It's only a matter of time before case law codifies it one way or the other.

I'd like to hear what case law says about detatchable handles, but I don't want to be involved in the case!

Quoted: <center><table width=85% border=0><tr><td width=100% class=textQuote><hr height=1px color=black noshade>Quoted: This letter, from the BATF, go to show the long excepted fact that the BATF (NOT the Federal Courts) interrupts the law to mean that the fore grip on a hand gun is illegal. I doubt you'll find anyone that wll disagree with the BATF stand on this matter.<hr height=1px color=black noshade> Until we have a court opinion and not just one judge's written inclination before a final ruling, stating that the ATF's interpretation that a VFG on a handgun makes it an AOW under the NFA and CFR, be careful placing too much emphasis on "the one case ... the judge threw it out" reasoning. The issue RGT cites above is usually called the Chevron doctrine. "[T]he Chevron doctrine [states] that courts should defer to a reasonable agency interpretation of a statutewhen the statute itself is ambiguous. Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Agencies, not courts, are the preferred vehicle for resolving policy conflicts engendered by statutes. Agency officials may have been involved in the drafting of the statute. Agencies have greater expertise in regulatory areas. And Congress intended that agencies should "fill in the gaps"; intentionally or inadvertently left when statutes are drafted." Taken from Supreme Court Elucidates Chevron Doctrine Therefore, ambiguities are resolved in favor of the interpreting agency, if 1. the agency has a (reasonable) public interpretation of the ambiguity,  and 2. there is an ambiguity in the law. The "one case..." issue, above, looks as if the judge disagreed that there was an ambiguity in the law, which can change between judges and/or court systems -- the same thing with rulings as to what is "reasonable", neither of which I'd want to bet my freedom and ability to own and shoot firearms on as the test-case defendant. Cheers, Otto

But it says the courts may defere interpretation to a reasonable agency.  Is the BATF a reaasonable agency? LOOL  LOL

What if you added a short monopod or bipod to it and used that to hold it? its not a VFG . . .

THE DEFINITION OF HANDGUN DOES NOT APPLY TO THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT!


First the only definiton that applies to the NFA (found in Title 26 Internal Revenue) is the DEFINITION OF PISTOL.

The DEFINITION OF HANDGUN is ONLY FOUND IN THE GUN CONTROL ACT WHICH IS TITLE 44 US CODE.


THE DEFINITION OF HANDGUN IS NOT FOUND IN NOR DOES APPLY TO THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

The BATFE is saying that the definition of 'handgun' suddenly and magically applies to making NFA firearms.

I'm just amazed at how many individuals here seem like they're very interested in becoming case law for this.  I have a PLR-16 and although I would love to attach my folding vertical foregrip on it, I'm not about to risk my job, my house, and my future.

Besides, long before vertical foregrips were installed on ARs we were using the front of the magazine wells as such.  Why can't we do so now?

Because its our right thats why we want to know!!!!!!!!!!

May just be me, but I would err on the side of safety here, and pay the tax stamp and whatever your SOT / Class III dealer charges to do the transfer. This is one of those things that just isn't worth risking IMO. Odds are you will never get in trouble, but something like that could turn a bad day into a bad life.