If this is legal...



why is a VFG added to an already constructed, designed and operating AR pistol (*allegedly considered by the ATFE to) constitute an AOW?

I don't get it.
I thought I got it, but now I don't get it.

18 USC 921 Definitions
(29) The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;

26 USC 5845 Definitions
(e) Any other weapon
The term “any other weapon” means 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 a 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.


The alternative is that the Glock grip is not legal, I guess.

Quarterbore has a topic on this I'm still reading thru, but I'm gonna post this before I lose it...


Cheers, Otto

ETA: Quarterbore's forum thread:Two grips on a pistol, a review of the curent status....

Updated for pic 11/8

I have some updated info regarding the forum discussion on quarterbore.net.

The CFR citation for definitions has been changed in April to 27 CFR 479.11
(found here: CFR search)

   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).


The citation for US v. Fix is "4 Fed.Appx. 324"
Its from the 9th Cir in 2001.

The applicable language (again) is:

Fix argues that the government did not prove the Calico Liberty III, found during a search of his home and business, was a weapon that required registration.   Fix was convicted under 26 U.S.C. §  5861(d) of possession of an unregistered firearm.   In a related provision, "firearm" is defined by a list of eight weapons and a catchall provision of "any other weapon."   See 26 U.S.C. §  5845(a).  "Any other weapon" includes "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive," but not "a pistol ... having a rifled bore ..." See 26 U.S.C. §  5845(e).   Weapons not included in the definition of firearm in §  5845 need not be registered under §  5861(d).   Fix argues that his Calico was a pistol, met the exception in §  5845(e), and did not need to be registered under §  5861. We agree that the Government failed to prove a violation of §  5861(d) for two reasons. First, the weapon does not fit the definition required by the statute.   The provision defining "pistol" for the purposes of the statute is 27 C.F.R. §  179.11, which defines a pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand ...." The government argues that because the Calico was modified to be fired with two hands, it "falls out" of the definition of pistol and falls back into the definition of "any other weapon" in §  5845. This argument ignores the definition's requirement that the weapon be capable of being held with one hand at the time it was originally designed and made.   As written, this definition does not consider modifications of the weapon by the owner.   The Calico was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip. Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in § §  5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore.   We assume that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons.   A sawed off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun.   The Government's witness stated that the Calico Liberty III had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered "any other weapon." Accordingly, the conviction on Count V must be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence.

Everything else I've been able to verify.


Note that the ATF letter in the forum is about an AR pistol being constructed/"made" with a VFG at the time of assembly and does not address the issue of one added later to an otherwise  previously assembled and currently-legal AR pistol.

One issue not fully discussed in the forum is that the definition of a pistol is the only definition that discusses "originally designed, made" as oppossed to "designed or redesigned, made or remade"

Also note that the CFR definition of a pistol does not say "a (single) short stock designed to be gripped by (only) one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore"

In otherwords, a pistol must have a "pistol grip" and be capable of being fired one-handed; I would argue that the definition does not eliminate the posibility of a second verticle grip if the pistol is redesigned, and if such a grip is not necessary for firing.

Thoughts?


Cheers, Otto

Otto,

I just got your e-mail and I love this topic as I agree with you that the notion that a second pistol grip on a pistol is an AOW is very weak...  I really wish I could convince a company to challange this law as I think ot would be great to take most any pistol and use it with the forward grip...

I am just getting home from a trip but I will look at this case law when I get a chance...  Thanks for the heads up that you posted this!

Any new info?

Bueller?
Bueller?

Cheers, Otto

Quoted: Such term shall not include a pistol or a 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.

How does the Glock fail this?

Thanks!

Quoted: Quoted: Such term shall not include a pistol or a 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. How does the Glock fail this? Thanks!

It shouldn't for the same reasons that an AR pistol with a [later-added] VFG shouldn't.  However, such is not the ATF interpretation regarding AR pistols.
I don't see a legally distinguishable difference between a Glock, as shown above, and an AR pistol with a VFG, and the point of this thread was to gather info as to why the ATF does [possibly*] make a distinction.

(* I say "possibly" for I have not found any info where the ATF positively condones the above-configured Glock.)

BTW Skebe, it was your AOW thread in the AR Pistols forum that I had in mind when I ran across the Glock pic in a "Cheaper than" catalog that prompted this one.

Also BTW: Mochiron "skebe" to ka "sukebe" mo imi ga wakatterun da yo. Omoshirio...

Cheers, Otto

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Such term shall not include a pistol or a 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. How does the Glock fail this? Thanks! It shouldn't for the same reasons that an AR pistol with a [later-added] VFG shouldn't.  However, such is not the ATF interpretation regarding AR pistols. I don't see a legally distinguishable difference between a Glock, as shown above, and an AR pistol with a VFG, and the point of this thread was to gather info as to why the ATF does [possibly*] make a distinction. (* I say "possibly" for I have not found any info where the ATF positively condones the above-configured Glock.) BTW Skebe, it was your AOW thread in the AR Pistols forum that I had in mind when I ran across the Glock pic in a "Cheaper than" catalog that prompted this one. Also BTW: Mochiron "skebe" to ka "sukebe" mo imi ga wakatterun da yo. Omoshirio... Cheers, Otto

AFAIK, the glock grip shown here is *not* considered legal by the feds to install on a random glock pistol.  The glock's receiver has to be registered as either an SBR or an AOW first, at which point anything goes in terms of VFGs and Shoulder-stocks.

Quoted: AFAIK, the glock grip shown here is *not* considered legal by the feds to install on a random glock pistol.  The glock's receiver has to be registered as either an SBR or an AOW first, at which point anything goes in terms of VFGs and Shoulder-stocks.

Ah, ph713, you turn out to be prophetic for the retailer added this to their description for this month's catalog/on-line sales page,

"Not legal to carry, own or sell to residents living in California & other states.

Not a Glock factory accessory!
For law enforcement use only! It is ILLEGAL to install this on a Glock pistol except for law enforcement or military applications."

Cheers, Otto

Quoted: The alternative is that the Glock grip is not legal, I guess.

The "alternative" seems to be the case...

Thanks to all who participated in this thread.

Cheers, Otto