Login System 
IMPORTANT: Please note that you must now log in with your email address and not your username!
ARCHIVED
 backbencher
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2005  TX, USA
  
 Posts: 2216 Feedback: 0% (0) |
Posted: 7/4/2012 12:54:20 AM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT 
in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_123/578230_Weird_DOE.html Regardless of its originality or lack there of, it raises an interesting question - is a horizontal fore grip on a pistol legal? Every letter I've seen on foregrips from BATFE refers to vertical grips. The above is clearly not vertical. Grey area, probably illegal but BATFE hasn't yet ruled on it, or GTG? Gig 'em, backbencher |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 1:14:56 AM
The legal issue is a handgun is designed to be fired with one hand.
When you add a second grip point, you are designing it to be fired with two hands. it becomes a judgement call what the foregrip is for, and whether it changes the design to two-handed. |
|
|
|
Postal0311
Had anyone seen a pin?
Life Member
Joined: Sep 2004 FL, USA
Posts: 6128 Feedback: 100% (160) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/4/2012 1:16:15 AM
I am not the ATF, so I can not say for sure.
The ATF says a pistol is a firearm ment to be fired with one hand. I have no doubt that an additional pistol like grip, of any sort, would be found by the ATF as an AOW. Why don't you send them a letter and ask? |
|
|
backbencher
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2005 TX, USA
Posts: 2218 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/4/2012 1:31:01 AM
Originally Posted By Postal0311:
I am not the ATF, so I can not say for sure. The ATF says a pistol is a firearm ment to be fired with one hand. I have no doubt that an additional pistol like grip, of any sort, would be found by the ATF as an AOW. Why don't you send them a letter and ask? Good point, but I'd like some input from the experts here before I send one. What is the reasoning of ATF behind the AFG exemption? I think I would ask in regards to a Surefire light w/ integral pistol grip & trigger, perhaps also a GripPod mounted @ 90 degrees, & also one of those mag holder/grips. Gig 'em, backbencher |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 3:07:59 AM
[Last Edit: 7/4/2012 3:11:15 AM by StealthCRF]
ATF's ridiculous opinion aside, adding another vertical grip does not make a pistol "not a pistol"
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). Of course ATF holds that: A pistol or revolver modified as described is an "any other weapon” subject to the NFA because the weapon is not designed to be fired when held in one hand. So apparently "originally designed" (the law) is equal to "designed" (an opinion)  eta: but it's okay, when they get in a bind they start replacing "modified" with "manufactured"
|
|
|
|
felrom
Fighting Naturalist
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2010 TX, USA
Posts: 2319 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/4/2012 9:04:25 AM
Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By Postal0311: I am not the ATF, so I can not say for sure. The ATF says a pistol is a firearm ment to be fired with one hand. I have no doubt that an additional pistol like grip, of any sort, would be found by the ATF as an AOW. Why don't you send them a letter and ask? Good point, but I'd like some input from the experts here before I send one. What is the reasoning of ATF behind the AFG exemption? I think I would ask in regards to a Surefire light w/ integral pistol grip & trigger, perhaps also a GripPod mounted @ 90 degrees, & also one of those mag holder/grips. Gig 'em, backbencher Ask about this too:  That bipod is standard on the Ruger Charger pistol. Is it legal to collapse the legs and use them as a VFG? The NFA is such a disaster.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 9:32:01 AM
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By Postal0311:
I am not the ATF, so I can not say for sure. The ATF says a pistol is a firearm ment to be fired with one hand. I have no doubt that an additional pistol like grip, of any sort, would be found by the ATF as an AOW. Why don't you send them a letter and ask? Good point, but I'd like some input from the experts here before I send one. What is the reasoning of ATF behind the AFG exemption? I think I would ask in regards to a Surefire light w/ integral pistol grip & trigger, perhaps also a GripPod mounted @ 90 degrees, & also one of those mag holder/grips. Gig 'em, backbencher Even without a VFG an AR still has a HANDguard as part of it's design so it will be made to fire with 2 hands no matter what. If we follow the definition of a pistol then an AR can never be considered a pistol without leaving the barrel exposed. I am sure any protruding grip would be considered an AOW but this whole pistol ,AOW stuff is a silly mess. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 3:18:12 PM
[Last Edit: 7/4/2012 3:23:17 PM by TitleII]
Originally Posted By bigjunk1:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By Postal0311:
I am not the ATF, so I can not say for sure. The ATF says a pistol is a firearm ment to be fired with one hand. I have no doubt that an additional pistol like grip, of any sort, would be found by the ATF as an AOW. Why don't you send them a letter and ask? Good point, but I'd like some input from the experts here before I send one. What is the reasoning of ATF behind the AFG exemption? I think I would ask in regards to a Surefire light w/ integral pistol grip & trigger, perhaps also a GripPod mounted @ 90 degrees, & also one of those mag holder/grips. Gig 'em, backbencher Even without a VFG an AR still has a HANDguard as part of it's design so it will be made to fire with 2 hands no matter what. If we follow the definition of a pistol then an AR can never be considered a pistol without leaving the barrel exposed. I am sure any protruding grip would be considered an AOW but this whole pistol ,AOW stuff is a silly mess. Those are not grips on the front of an AR pistol; that is a heat shield to protect the shooter from the hot barrel. That is why the heat shield has a metal lining 
For those with a quad rail system, that's not a grip, it is a system for mounting accessories. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! See how silly all these rules are. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/5/2012 10:51:38 AM
The definition specifically states VERTICAL forward grip. Vertical is 90 degrees straight down from the bore axis. So that is why an AFG is GTG, along with the above pictured horizontal grip. With the Charger, the bi-pod is a bi-pod. It is not intended to be used as a grip. It is also not vertical (legs at an angle). So if you happen to place a hand on one of the legs while firing, it would not be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2012 3:48:17 PM
The funny thing about pistols not being designed to be fired with two hands is that most polymer-framed pistols have a groved trigger guard specificially designed for two-handed shooting.
I truly believe that many at the ATF are as frustrated at many of the regs as we are and don't really care until confronted directly. Can anyone here prove beyond a doubt that someone was arrested by the ATF for having nothing more than a VFG on a pistol? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2012 4:17:41 PM
[Last Edit: 7/6/2012 4:24:30 PM by TitleII]
Originally Posted By QuietRiot11:
The funny thing about pistols not being designed to be fired with two hands is that most polymer-framed pistols have a groved trigger guard specificially designed for two-handed shooting. I truly believe that many at the ATF are as frustrated at many of the regs as we are and don't really care until confronted directly. Can anyone here prove beyond a doubt that someone was arrested by the ATF for having nothing more than a VFG on a pistol? Well, not exacly...the case went to court but AFT dropped the charges so there is no precedent except for the district that the case was tried in. AND of course there is more to the story that just a VFG. Now you want me to find the case...what did I get myself into. Cite as U.S. v. Davis, Cr. No. 8:93-106, Report of Magistrate, (D.S.C. June 21, 1993), and Order of Dismissal, September 24, 1993. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA |
|
|
|
bigcbass
Member
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2008 TX, USA
Posts: 1631 Feedback: 100% (5) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/7/2012 1:10:15 AM
|
|
|
felrom
Fighting Naturalist
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2010 TX, USA
Posts: 2323 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/7/2012 9:16:13 AM
Originally Posted By sawgunner73: The definition specifically states VERTICAL forward grip. Vertical is 90 degrees straight down from the bore axis. So that is why an AFG is GTG, along with the above pictured horizontal grip. With the Charger, the bi-pod is a bi-pod. It is not intended to be used as a grip. It is also not vertical (legs at an angle). So if you happen to place a hand on one of the legs while firing, it would not be a problem. Can we get someone to start making 89.5 degree grips? |
|
|
Circuits
Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 CO, USA
Posts: 6128 Feedback: 100% (21) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/7/2012 9:58:08 PM
The definition actually reads "more than one grip at an angle to the bore". It doesn't have to be exactly 90 degrees, and it doesn't have to be vertical.
A vertical foregrip is an example of what constitutes not being designed to fire with one hand, not an exhaustive and self-definitive list. |
|
|
backbencher
Member
Team Member
Joined: Nov 2005 TX, USA
Posts: 2257 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/8/2012 1:07:17 AM
Originally Posted By Circuits:
The definition actually reads "more than one grip at an angle to the bore". It doesn't have to be exactly 90 degrees, and it doesn't have to be vertical. A vertical foregrip is an example of what constitutes not being designed to fire with one hand, not an exhaustive and self-definitive list. Good to know. So let's brainstorm here - if I get one of those kaliforniaed grips, chop it off, & mount it parallel to the bore - ie, a pistol grip that sticks straight out to the rear, I can add a VFG? Yes, it would look stupid, just trying to figure out all the permutations here. This month's Recoil has a KRISS on the cover, which has a pistol grip, and like the Mauser 96 pistol, has a magazine well in front of the pistol grip. Which I'm sure they didn't stipple, for obvious reasons. Gig 'em, backbencher |
|
|
Jack_Of_Some_Trades
Member
Team Member
Joined: Apr 2001 CA, USA
Posts: 873 Feedback: 100% (1) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/10/2012 12:38:43 PM
Originally Posted By TitleII:
Originally Posted By QuietRiot11:
The funny thing about pistols not being designed to be fired with two hands is that most polymer-framed pistols have a groved trigger guard specificially designed for two-handed shooting. I truly believe that many at the ATF are as frustrated at many of the regs as we are and don't really care until confronted directly. Can anyone here prove beyond a doubt that someone was arrested by the ATF for having nothing more than a VFG on a pistol? Well, not exacly...the case went to court but AFT dropped the charges so there is no precedent except for the district that the case was tried in. AND of course there is more to the story that just a VFG. Now you want me to find the case...what did I get myself into. Cite as U.S. v. Davis, Cr. No. 8:93-106, Report of Magistrate, (D.S.C. June 21, 1993), and Order of Dismissal, September 24, 1993. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA and I seem to recall that there was a 9th circuit case where it was ruled that adding a VFG to pistol (a Calico IIRC) did not create an AOW. But I have only seen a summary of the decision, not the decision itself. |
|
|
ARCHIVED
