User Panel
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 |
|
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... |
|
|
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.
|
|
Nope... look at the parts in blue. |
||
|
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. |
|
They may not make the laws, but they can interpret them as they please. |
|
|
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. |
||
|
Please send the letter, and put this to rest.
If you feel the need, then prove everyone wrong. Proof is what is needed. (and yes I have asked many people to do this.) I personally will not put a foregrip on my pistols, so I have no need to test the theory. But if you dare, then please, by all means, find out before hand. |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
|
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE:
www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/041006-vert_grip.htm The ATF have just released more info on vertical grips. |
|
Does a person liscenced to make NFA weapons have to pay $200 to make the weapon? |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
AOW's are only $5.00 IIRC |
|
|
5 to transfer existing registered AOW's and 200 to create a new one. -Jason |
||
|
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.
|
|
|
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".
Sounds like the defention of "IS" or "SEX" (aka Billy and the intern.....) Means different things to different people. |
||
|
|
||
|
$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" |
|
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... |
|
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!
|
|
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? |
|
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.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.