So I'm thinking of getting a AR receiver to use as a pistol build. I'm also considering using my trust and paying the $5 to make her a AOW and put a forward grip on her. My question is would I be able to use it with the grip on as a AOW CCW piece or not?  A quick glance of the CCW statute says nothing about AOW's being forbidden for use as a CCW piece.

I've got an IWB kydex holster for an AR pistol from FTardedIndustries. At first it was a bit awkward for 4:00 carry with a 30 rd mag. Finally I decided that I didn't care and went with the beta mag. Ended up going with a custom leather IWB for that, but I can honestly forget that it's even there. Worth every penny, and highly recommended.

Thanks for the input but I'm referring to the legality involving a NFA weapon as a carry piece. ^

Your AOW does not fit the definition of a handgun as the forward grip would make it designed or intended to be fired with 2 hands, even though it does not fall into a machine gun, SBR, or SBS classification.

This is only my opinion and does not constitute legal counsel.

If you're hell-bent on carrying something as you described, I would suggest a regular AR pistol with or without an arm brace, which falls into the letter of the law.

Get a Serbu Super Shorty.  
Still not practical for on body carry.

Also, an AOW is a $200 stamp to manufacture.  The $5 stamp is only for transfer.

Thanks for the heads up with the price. I thought the registration of a AOW was $5 also. Guess I don't need the forward grip that bad. I guess an option I could have utilized was to use the AOW AR pistol without the forward grip while carrying?  

I believe the angled forward grip is still acceptable, from an NFA perspective.  Should be details in the NFA or AR Pistol forums.  Not sure how this impacts CCW definitions.

From an NFA perspective, yes, you're probably right, however it clearly does not fit the definition of a pistol as legally defined in the WI concealed carry law. A grip is a grip, and if you put it on I think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone in a court of law that you intended, designed, or made it for use with just one hand.

As far as I know, we haven't had a test case of an AR-15 Pistol yet either.  

 

Why would there need to be a test case for an AR pistol if the receiver was sold as a pistol or documented as one on a 4473?

If an angled grip does not change the classification of the weapon, it doesn't change the classification of the weapon.

How many people fire a pistol with one hand? Show me any LEO training instructions that do not advocate steadying a pistol with your non firing hand.

Just sayin...

It is a pistol as defined by the GCA. WI statutes for handguns follow the GCA.

Do not add a VFG & you will remain within the legal definition of the law along with its intent, ATF wording, not mine. I do not carry my AR pistol on me, but it is in my vehicle as my CCW weapon from time to time.

Adding an additional grip to an AR pistol plainly makes it ineligible to be carried under the WI CCW law as it's written, regardless of it's classification (IMO).

And we're talking about laws as they are written, not common sense. Yes, I can fire a handgun more effectively with two hands, but they are designed to be used with one. I can use an arm brace as a stock, but it was designed to be used with one hand. It would be foolish to think that the commies in Madistan (if a case were appealed all the way it to the WI SC) wouldn't chomp at the bit to prosecute you for not following the letter of the law as it pertains to firearms.

Adding an angled foregrip is following the letter of the law. The classification defines the intended useage. The intended useage is not changed because the weapon is still a handgun (Weapon <26"). The wording of the definition in the CCW regulations is exactly the same as in the GCA. The ATF has ruled on this multiple times in multiple letters.

Nothing changes by the addition of the AFG.

GCAwording...

“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).

Also what you posted...

(bm) "Handgun" means any weapon designed or redesigned, or made or remade, and intended to be fired while held in one hand and to use the energy of an explosive to expel a projectile through a smooth or rifled bore. "Handgun" does not include a machine gun, as defined in s. 941.27 (1), a short-barreled rifle, as defined in s. 941.28 (1) (b), or a short-barreled shotgun, as defined in s. 941.28 (1) (c).

(j) "Weapon" means a handgun, an electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a), a knife other than a switchblade knife under s. 941.24, or a billy club.

Also note a "Firearm", as defined by the NFA, is not included in the list of excluded weapons. Therefore a AR Weapon => 26", under definition of the NFA (meaning a weapon =>26" with out a "Stock") is not included in the exclusionary list. Thusly one of these items sans a VFG, or with, is not included in the exclusionary list. I would also note that an AOW (Weapon < 26" designed to be fired with both hands) is technically not included in this exclusionary list. To be safe I would not have a VFG on a licensed AOW or a "Firearm" as defined by the NFA.

For reading of the BATFE ruling on an AFG Go Here

And you're right. But again, you're talking about federal law and how the BATFE has ruled on the AFG. While not changing the classification of the weapon itself, the state of WI may itself decide that it does not fit the state's definition of a handgun as written in the CCW law.

As a rough example I'll point out WA state's total ban on machine guns extends to even machine gun parts (RCW 9.41.220), while the feds really don't care if you throw an M16 bolt in an AR15 rifle, so long as it doesn't fire fully automatic. In some cases, the state is not beholden to the definitions or rulings as put down by the feds, and (right or wrong) they go their own way.

At the risk of branching out on a totally different argument, you're also correct that the law doesn't specifically include "firearms" or "AOWs" as an exclusion, but I'd also like to point out that they make it pretty cut and dry of what a "handgun" IS, and with the multitude of different AOWs/"firearms" out there, they may or may not fit the bill.

My point is that the WI CCW is not the defining authority on what the state (or feds for that matter) says a handgun is, it merely dictates what you may or may not carry concealed under your 2A permission slip.

So I guess my question would be; What if the state did decide to prosecute you for having an AFG on a pistol because they've decided it doesn't fit the definition of a handgun as written in the CCW law? Got me. Concealing a weapon unlawfully? They can't hit you with an unregistered NFA charge.

I would rather not find out.

I understand totally what you are saying. You do not wish to poke the sleeping beast so as to be placed in a moment of unjust judgement.

I on the other hand look at the written Law & then act in a manner to do as it states, not for pretense it is right, or wrong for that matter, but do as it gives assigned freedom, catagoricaly, to my own conscience.

If I be judged, I be judged then with a clear conscience. I have read the wordings & no where is there wording that goes against a Federal standard, analogous to say WA, so I work within the confines of those definitions & regulations as they were set forth. If someone wishes to prosecute on a different extrapolation, then their conscience shall bare witness to their own hearts. They be judged then by the measure they are having me judged. They may win one day, but another day, all the more important, they will come to understand their own judgement, especially that of their judgement of myself, as well as others.

Only the OP, & yourself, can do according to your individual consciences. I myself, do accordingly only to mine.

As it were, do I have an AFG on my "Truck Gun"? As it stands now, no. Do I view I have a right to do so & under clear conscience, yes, yes I do.

Furthermore, we must also contemplate the intended purpose defined in the CCW laws, as a means of preparedness, to be in aid to ourselves & to that of others: If I attach something to to my firearm that is not blatantly outside those definitions, by the excepted standard, but yet aids in the effectiveness of that aid then what real wrong has been done? In-fact I argue I am increasing the good that can be done. If some one wishes to have me judged by that measure, then by all means commence judgement.

I don't see anywhere that WI Statutes give 2 shits about something like an AFG.  WI Statutes mention pistols/handguns, they mention rifles and they mention short barrel rifles.   WI Statutes do not even mention AOW.  If the ATF does not consider it a AOW, WI Statutes certainly appear not to.  Just because you "can" use 2 hands does not make it not designed to use one.  WI enforcement certainly does not appear to have a problem with a TC pistol with a bipod, which you certainly could use to hold the handgun with 2 hands.  .The magwell and magazine in an AR pistol certainly could be used with 2 hands but it is still a handgun.  
It could be argued that WI Statutes allow for an AOW with its full blown forward grip to be used for CCW since it is not explicitly declared not a pistol by WI Statute.

Fail.  You should just pull one of your spare ones off the shelf, and use that.  

Always liked you, Glenn.

Sorry for clowning in your thread. This thread has been very informative, and now that I know about ATF's clarification that the Sig-Brace is GTG .... is suddenly very relevant to my interests.

Perhaps. ....