Forward pistol grips on pistols, is the atf wrong?

[Kush]

The atf's reasoning for why you can't have a forward pistol grip on a pistol:

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html

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.

Did they not see this part of the law they just quoted:

… 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).

How are you changing what the weapon was originally designed to do by adding a forward pistol grip or am i missing something here?

 

[Telekinesis]

The ATF is never wrong! How dare you accuse our most benevolent law enforcement agency of trying to confuse the people just so that they can arrest more of us!

The short answer is that gun laws don't make a bit of sense and you just have to go with whatever the ATF thinks the law means that week. They're fairly consistent about this (until you get into the angled fore grip area...) but there are other inconsistencies that will drive you mad if you let it.

For example, an 18 year old in most states can buy a pistol, and in some states actually get a CCW for that pistol, but heaven forbid he actually try to buy ammo for it! That would be terrible for him to be able to buy the ammo for that gun that he can legally carry concealed! (note its not illegal for him to HAVE the ammo, just to buy it from a FFL :banghead

And yes, there are ways around that law. They may not all be completely legal, but they work.

 

[tyeo098]

Because you're making an AOW.

 

[Ghost Tracker]

...is the AFT wrong?

Well, let me put it this way. It's not worth saving the $200 AOW stamp...to argue with 'em.

 

[Bubbles]

How are you changing what the weapon was originally designed to do by adding a forward pistol grip or am i missing something here?

By adding the forward pistol grip you are changing the original design of the firearm. Therefore, you have manufactured a new firearm. That new firearm is described in the law as an AOW.

 

[Kush]

How are changing the original design? You may be changing your pistol but it was still originally designed for use with one hand, making it still a pistol under the law, isn't it. Also, have I manufactured a new firearm every time i have changed the stock on it or mounted a scope?

 

[mortablunt]

The ATF is never wrong!

A pistol with a foregrip or a stock is either an SBR or and Any Other Weapon. The latter category was intended to deal with anything the boffins couldn't think of at the time.

 

[Ghost Tracker]

Well dang it Kush, there you go confusing logic with the law. You don't have to convince us that it's counter-intutive...or even stupid. But we still feel plum obligated to convince YOU that very good debaters have gone to prison before you for buttin' heads with the ATF.

 

[Bubbles]

Also, have I manufactured a new firearm every time i have changed the stock on it or mounted a scope?

It depends. Doing so for resale requires a Type 07 manufacturing FFL. Doing so at the behest of a customer who already owns the rifle and optic is gunsmithing and requires a Type 01 dealer FFL.

 

[Dmitri Popov]

Since when has the ATF actually cared about the law? This is ATF land, where THEIR word is LAW.
Besides, the Constitution is SOOO over-rated...

 

[TexasRifleman]

You are making the horrible mistake of trying to apply logic and reason to gun laws. You simply will never be able to reconcile that with the fear mongering that has gone into creating all of these laws.

But, it's fun to watch you try.

Bottom line is that yes, your argument may make sense to you but it probably won't matter to your jury.

 

[femoralis]

You know, I seem to remember this was actuallly brought up in a legal case once, and the court went with your interprepation, Kush.

Does anyone recall the case?

 

[femoralis]

I found the case I mentioned. Kush is right, I think, and at least one court agrees with him. Actually, I think there may be at least two such cases. Here's one.

The case is: US v. Davis

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/us_v_davis2.txt

Here's the court's decision:

24. The 9 millimeter and .22 caliber pistols seized by ATF
were modified by adding an additional grip.

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).

--------------

Apparently then the BATFE dropped the charge against Davis, to avoid having to change their stupid and illegal ruling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_forward_grip#cite_note-0

 

[F-111 John]

Stop trying to use logic in determining how and why the ATF rules are as they are. Does it make sense that it is illegal to import a semiautomatic AK-47 variant, but you can import most of the pieces and add a few domestically manufactured parts and have a lawful weapon?

Does it make sense that you can purchase a brand new AR lower that has never been built as a rifle, and legally build it as a pistol, then later rebuild it into a rifle, but you cannot take an AR lower that has at one point been built as a rifle and use it to build an AR pistol?

Does it make sense that you cannot purchase a handgun at age 18, but you can legally own a handgun?

 

[oneounceload]

How are changing the original design? You may be changing your pistol but it was still originally designed for use with one hand, making it still a pistol under the law, isn't it. Also, have I manufactured a new firearm every time i have changed the stock on it or mounted a scope?

Because now the gun is capable of being used with two hands and not one - now you have an AOW

 

[F-111 John]

Because now the gun is capable of being used with two hands and not one - now you have an AOW

A Draco AK pistol or an AR pistol can have a horizontal foregrip that allow a two handed hold that does not constitute an AOW, but a vertical grip does constitute an AOW.

Like I said, don't try to apply logic to ATF rulings.

 

[Bovice]

I read online that this particular AR-patterned gun is NOT an AOW, yet it looks like an AR pistol with a vertical foregrip on it. I think it has to do with the overall length of the gun. Here's a link to it http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS_XO-26.html

 

[N003k]

Bovice, since that's over 26" in length, the ATF isn't considering it a pistol it seems. Thus it is an 'Other' and that's probably why they got around the AOW classification. It'd be like getting one of those belt fed m1919 semi autos, and somehow jury-rigging a forward pistol grip on it. It wasn't a pistol to begin with, despite not having a stock, so, still wouldn't be a AOW. That's my reading anyways.

I'll join in and agree with everyone else saying applying logic to the ATF's rulings and gun laws is a waste of time and effort.

 

[Zoogster]

You know, I seem to remember this was actuallly brought up in a legal case once, and the court went with your interprepation, Kush.

Does anyone recall the case?

I believe it was a South Carolina Federal District Court case.


If I recall though the ATF had charged the person with multiple counts, so when the forward vertical grip was ruled legal by the court on a pistol the ATF requested that charge be dropped.
The charge was dropped and the result is no precedent was set.
Had the charge remained the decision would have stood, and could have easily resulted in Federal law in the 4th district allowing vertical forward grips on handguns.


The ATF knew this and they cleverly maneuvered to avoid precedent being set. They still got the defendant on other charges so removing the possible precedent set by dropping that specific charge didn't impact giving the prison time they wanted.


(Different Districts of the United States have different federal law, based on the same federal law, due to different precedents set that alter the law over time. This actually means on various issues things legal federally in some districts can be federal crimes in others. District Courts sometimes avoid these conflicts and cite other district cases in reaching a decision, but sometimes they feel quite differently and set different case law.
This can be confusing to someone that thinks federal law applies the same throughout the United States. It doesn't small differences in federal law exist from district to district.
The Supreme Court can hear such cases involving conflicts between districts to iron out such problems, and give an interpretation of the law that applies to all districts, removing the conflict.

So even had the precedent been set it would have just applied to the states in the 4th District until and if heard by the Supreme Court, at which point a national interpretation of the law would have been established that could have gone any number of ways.)

Does it make sense that you can purchase a brand new AR lower that has never been built as a rifle, and legally build it as a pistol, then later rebuild it into a rifle, but you cannot take an AR lower that has at one point been built as a rifle and use it to build an AR pistol?

Actually that is no longer correct. The ATF has finally complied with the Supreme Court ruling establishing legal interpretation in this area of law, Earlier in the year they determined that if the firearm starts out as a pistol it can be used in both pistol and rifle configurations, going back and forth, without any NFA violations.
If it starts as a rifle it cannot.
When in rifle configuration it must be over 26" overall and have a barrel over 16", and when in pistol configuration cannot have a stock attached with a barrel under 16" or under 26" overall, or have a vertical forward grip installed.
So a single firearm can be switched back and forth from handgun to long gun, and long as it is not assembled in a way that gives it any NFA features.
This means for example you are not breaking the law using something like a MecTec conversion on a pistol, and then later putting a normal pistol slide back on that pistol as a result of it having been a 'rifle' as was the case with the ATF's prior interpretation.
This also means two identical ARs in identical configurations may not legally be the same. The guy putting his AR that he bought as a rifle into pistol configuration because he knows other people that go back and forth (and he doesn't realize the legal distinction) will be committing a felony. While the guy putting his AR pistol into rifle configuration, and then going back to pistol configuration whenever he wants is committing no crime.
So if you look at two identical ARs set up as a pistol, one may be an illegal unregistered NFA item, while the other is a perfectly legal non NFA item that can be in a pistol or rifle configuration at will. All based on what they originally started out as on paper.

 

[F-111 John]

Actually that is no longer correct. The ATF has finally complied with the Supreme Court ruling establishing legal interpretation in this area of law, Earlier in the year they determined that if the firearm starts out as a pistol it can be used in both pistol and rifle configurations, going back and forth, without any NFA violations.
If it starts as a rifle it cannot.

Is that not what I said? How was I incorrect?

 

[Sam1911]

I think it has to do with the overall length of the gun. Here's a link to it http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS_XO-26.html

Exactly as N003K said, in that case, it is not an AOW because it is over the 26" minimum as spelled out in the NFA. It is a "firearm" like a PGO shotgun, or a semi-auto belt-fed tripod-mounted m1919 (without stock).

Not a rifle, not a pistol, a "firearm" -- but because it isn't "concealable" (over 26"), not an AOW.

 

[Sam1911]

Is that not what I said? How was I incorrect?

You were exactly right!

I'm guessing Zoogster was so used to correcting the old interpretation that he didn't notice you had actually given the current one!

 

[Ghost Tracker]

Bovice, I called & spoke to the Franklin Armory folks about the XO-26 because I wasn't clear about the legality. Because it's +26", the vertical foregrip of okay with the ATF. It's not "concealable". Again, the logic completely evades me.

 

[Zoogster]

You said:

but you cannot take an AR lower that has at one point been built as a rifle and use it to build an AR pistol?

Now you can take one that has at one point been a 'rifle' as in rifle configuration it just can't be a rifle from the factory.
So it can be built at one point as a 'rifle' so to speak, as long as it was not a rifle according to the FFL it came from.
Previously the ATF interpretation was that if it was ever assembled into a rifle, even if it was an AR pistol to start, it could never again be an AR pistol.
Making all conversions a one time one direction only thing.
They reversed that interpretation this year, complying with an old SCOTUS ruling. A ruling that established in law that the great utility of being able to go from pistol to rifle and back was protected.
The ATF had been stubborn and after losing in court declared they had won anyways by claiming it just applied to a single firearm, as if a SCOTUS ruling applies to a single instance and not the application of the underlying law in question when the interpretation of a law is the basis of what is being determined by the SCOTUS and the whole reason for the case being heard to begin with.
Now that doesn't mean the SCOTUS was right, but the ATF cannot just ignore them because they don't like the implications of a SCOTUS decision and reinterpret a loss as a win in defiance of their ruling. Which is what they had been doing until this year. They were saying essentially that the court decision meant what they had wanted all along and been arguing for and lost, just for every single other firearm except that specific one.

 

[Sam1911]

Is that not what I said? How was I incorrect?

You were exactly right!

I'm guessing Zoogster was so used to correcting the old interpretation that he didn't notice you had actually given the current one!

Now it's me that's reading right past what was actually said. Zoogster is correct in his correction.