I know the technical details . Some said they were writing. Did anyone get an answer?

Oh I'm sure if enough write they will make it an illegal addition.

How better to know if they interpret it as an illegal/unruly addition now? The only way to confirm is to write.

lafmedic1 is inquiring about those who supposedly have already written a letter.

Well considering it's called an "Angeled Fore Grip" I would think the question is answered.
As far my other statement, the ATF gets swamped with all these AR pistol "Can I" questions.  99% of the time, it's a question trying to find a loop hole.
And every letter merits another look at the AR Pistol configuration by the BATF.
You think maybe they will get fed up and say, fine, no more AR pistols? You can just pay your $200 Tax Stamp and call it an SBR. Then you can put anything you like on it.

Any second stock on a pistol at an angle and below the line of the bore is an AOW.  Vertical just means below the line of the bore.  It's a directional descriptor not an angular one.  The statute says stock at an angle.  That means any angle, 1 to 179 degrees below the bore is all the same.

I know this (what was stated above). The OP was just asking "I know the technical details . Some said they were writing. Did anyone get an answer?"

I can imagine what the ATF's response would be, but the OP would like to read the response. I was just pointing out what the OP was specifically asking. It seemed like the question was misunderstood.

Im guessing there has been no response as I have looked around pretty good in other places. Im wondering if they are still deciding.

 Why bother trying to parse the Definition that the  ATF     MADE UP

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

NOTE THE DATE     Before 2006 a pistol with a forward grip  WAS NOT an AOW.

They just keep on making up new "Laws " out of whole cloth............

.

I wrote a letter to them and sent it out earlier this week... Had a myriad of questions for them as well as a question about the legality of the Magpul AFG (included a picture) on a pistol build. I'll let you know when I get a response, although I doubt it will be anytime soon.

I'm curious where the line will be, especially when handstops are included, and what lengths/heights they might settle on.  Hooray for arbitrary rulings from unaccountable government bureaucracies!

What part of "everyone quit bugging the BATFE on this stuff!" did yall not get?
The more we ask them, the more excuses the write up to TAX US for things.  Next they'll say you can't have a bipod, reversing their previous OPINION and everyone with a 10/22 pistol with a bipod will have 30 days to pay the tax and register them or prove they were destroyed or be liable for a felony....
Remeber, these are the same idiots that declared a SHOE STRING an NFA item after someone sent them a LETTER, asking them if it was legal to use it for rapid firing their weapon.

[Beats head on desk]

That letter has nothing to do with pistols.  It only addresses handguns.  They are different.  Although it's a moot point, because the NFA doesn't allow for more than one stock on a pistol either (well, more than one below the line of the bore at at an angle).

Not trying to be a jerk but what would you suggest we do? Just slap it on and volunteer ourselves to be a test case? Just not put it on because we're too afraid to? What is your solution if not ask?



 

Isn't an AR Pistol a handgun?



 

Isn't it pretty easy to figure out on your own.  The ATF seems to think adding a second grip to a handgun/pistol makes it no longer designed to be fired with one had.  Vertical, horizontal, below the bore, above the bore, etc doesn't matter if you use their logic.  If you add a second grip it is no longer designed to be used one handed....

I'm not going to say I agree or disagree with them, but that seems to be the general point of their logic.  2 grips = 2 hands = not a pistol.

It is interesting that they don't think a hand guard, hand stop combo makes it designed for being two handed.  Odd I guess.

I don't see them ever saying anything about bipods, since they are just a rest, and you can still fire it one handed while using the bipod.

my point is, by continuing to bring it to their attention, we are setting ourselves up to get screwed.  There is no GOOD answer, but asking them is certainly a bad idea.  The more we ask, the better the chance we'll get a live chamber in this game of russian roulette.  As someone else pointed out, they are creating "legal opinion" from whole cloth, or arbitrarily, with no real LAW being written.  
My best advice, if you are worried that it might be a no-no, don't do it.  Keep pushing the envelope, they might just ban that...or they might go even more heavy handed and say all AR pistols must be bare barrel, with no handguard or heat shields forward of the magazine well, etc etc etc.  Even worse, they could just say all ARs are rifles and anybody with a short barrel has to register it as an SBR.

Quit poking the lazy bear.

No, they are defined differently, one in the National Firearms Act and one in the Gun Control Act.  

While the definition of pistol would include handguns, the handgun definition does not include pistols.   The difference mainly is that handguns are designed to be fired by one hand but pistols may be designed to be fired by two.  Pistols have forearms which is part of the stock designed to be held by the off hand.  It is not designed to be fired by one hand.

An AR-15 pistol is a pistol and not a handgun.  Just to be clear.

Once again, don't confuse handguns and pistols (although the ATF does all the time because it's confusing even for them).

A pistol can be designed to be fired by two hands but it can have only one short stock at an angle below the line of the bore (from a strict interpretation of the NFA, where the ATF opinion is derived).  However, at least one state has ruled this ATF opinion to be invalid.  I think it was South Carolina or North Carolina.  It wasn't precedent setting however as it was a charge that was one of several that was dropped and never argued by the ATF.

Handguns are designed to be fired by only one hand so that's a no brainer.

It was South Carolina.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_forward_grip

I should edit that Wiki page.  It's not quite correct.

So when is someone going to challenge the NFA in court?  Given the wide use SBR's in the military today, the basis of the Miller decision is shaky (not that it was really a case worthy of precedent setting status), and the fact that taxes or fees as a method preventing otherwise legal activity is an "infringement" of ones rights (while not specifically stated in court opinions, it is a logical extension of case law surrounding poll taxes)... The make up of the SCOTUS today the most favorable we have had in years...

Again, not saying I agree with them that adding a grip makes it NFA, but it is pretty clear that is what they think.  Judging by their past wording vertical grips or horizontal grips wouldn't make any difference.  I would be willing to bet that the only reason they don't get pissy about the regular AR15 pistol hand guards is because of the hot gas rod under them.

I would be interested in seeing how the defined pistol vs handgun things would apply, but that wiki page is completely useless, and the links at the bottom result in access denied.  :)

I have read about every letter out there that's been posted (I do search for them) and no one has addressed horizontal grips on pistols.  Most are what could be described as private letter opinions.  I really don't know how much weight they hold other than to confuse the rest of the population once they are all published together.  Between the myriad of different authors, it really is a confusing mess (most likely because the authors are somewhat confused, yes the ATF is confused).

The 2006 open letter ruling from the Justice Department (the link posted above) is the only one that really is meaningful and only addresses handguns.  I'll say that again.  It only addresses handguns.  Do I need to say that again?

The other Wiki link that is broken is US vs. Davis.  http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/us_v_davis2.txt

Here's what the South Carolina Federal District Court Found.

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).

As to the motion to dismiss concerning the two pistols, this
court concludes that the weapons are "pistols" as defined and are
not "any other weapons," and that the motion to dismiss as to the
pistol counts should be granted.

That open letter and that court case are really the only two meaningful documents that exist.  Every other letter out there doesn't really mean anything other than the ATF is confused and doesn't really know what it's doing.  However, they are the hammer so you have to be careful.

Here is what really needs to happen.  A very poignant and well written letter needs to be written and posted here on Arfcom.  Once we all agree on that specifics of the letter, we should all ask for private taxpayer rulings from the IRS which is really the appropriate place to send a tax question.  Once the IRS is flooded with dozens or hundreds of the very same, well crafted letter, they will most likely forward it on to the Justice Dept so that another open letter will be published regarding pistols and pistols only.

While point number 27. seems to me to say that adding a second grip does not make a Pistol into an AOW, that still has little to do with writting the ATF a letter about the AFG.  The ATF has stated their opinion on second grips and this court ruling seems to say otherwise.  The only thing to do at that point is to go to court.  Writting letters to the ATF doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything.

If you were to write them about anything it should be whether they have changed their legal opinion about secondary grips after this court ruling.

We really need someone to take them to court that is not also up on criminal charges about silencers, machineguns, etc.  It would be much easier to get a clean ruling on secondary grips, vertical or not.

Reading the above posted letter an AR15 "pistol" seems to meet the definition of both a Pistol and a handgun.  Wow OMG so mind blowing, a pistol is a also a handgun.

- From the letter.... -

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).

- Just not seeing your point that an AR15 is not a handgun, and a pistol...

Ok, let's see if you can tell me why this exists and is not an AOW (has never been declared an AOW by the ATF).  This is an exercise and I will give you an explanation when you fail.  

http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2500/2523.htm


By the way, you never did explain what the little thingy on the SP89 was.  I'll answer that.  It's a handstop.

When did they stop importing SP89's?  The AT 94K (SP89 clone) has no hand guard at all... I also read in another thread that ATF had considered the Knight's hand stop a "grip" for the purpose of AOW determination...

I agree that the language of the law(s) do not support their interpritation, and that they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, but they are still the ones that can mess up ones day pretty bad...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 1927 Thompson Pistol is considered a Curio and Relic, similar to the many original C&R pistol that come with an attachable stock but are not considered a short barreled rifle.  If you manufactured one today you would go to prison.

The SP89 doesn't have a second grip, it has a handstop.  You are arguing in two different threads with two different people about two different topics.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  The court ruling you quoted does look promising, but the rest of your talk has been utter crap.

Stop spreading misinformation about AOW weapons before you get someone put in prison.  The ATF position on grips is pretty clear so far, and like it or not they will haul you off to jail.

Wrong, they were produced from 1977 to 1995.  The answer is that it's neither a pistol or a handgun (for technical purposes).  

The reason short barreled rifles were deemed dangerous is due to the fact they are concealable and controllable.  It's concealing and controlling that was the issue with Congress in 1934 as it is today.  Congress didn't want people to be able to conceal something that was also deadly accurate to a distance.  As with most AOW, it's the concealing aspect which was most at issue.  That's why you can't disguise weapons as other things like umbrellas and wallets.  So, what is the Thompson.  Well, it looks like a pistol but because it's overall length is longer than a short barreled rifle it doesn't really fit the criteria the Congress was worried about.  So since it isn't concealable like a short barreled rifle and not as controllable, the second vertical stock was allowed.  You'll notice, that Thompson still produces this gun but now it's overall length is short enough to make it within the concealable realm and so it doesn't have the second vertical grip (it still has the forearm for the off hand; it's not a handgun however).  

I'm not sure what criteria firearms makers go through with the ATF when producing firearms.   However, the ATF has little control over people making their own firearms except for the hammer they carry, "we will prosecute you".  That doesn't make them correct but it's up to the individual to decide if it's worth it to test them.  It's best to understand the laws as best possible whether the ATF is wrong or not.  The ATF is not the final word, they are just the hammer.  

I don't have a problem with you not understanding.  Your fear is what the ATF would prefer.  I don't have a problem with that either.

Sorry about the confusion with Dferg10.  You got that part right.

It's absolutely not clear.  If it were, we wouldn't be talking about it today.  The only open letter from the Justice Department  only addresses handguns, not pistols.  And they chose not to argue the pistol definition in the only Court case we know about.  Clear as mud.

In the interest of not argueing with the troll anymore I will direct anyone reading this stupid argument on handgun vs pistol to the sticky that states the ATF's opinion on grips.


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=122&t=458387

I'm sure everyone here has read it, but I hate to see someone get in trouble reading the crap this guy is posting.  Maybe at some point we will see an actual letter about the AFG, but this is as close as it gets so far.

Now, why don't you post the sticky that talks about pistols.  You know, Congress defined each with their own separate definitions.  Perhaps you missed that point.

By the way, that is the Justice Department's opinion not the ATF, there is a difference there, too.  That sticky is the 2006 Open letter that is mentioned in Wikipedia and was linked to in this thread, AKsRule, 8th post.  You really should pay attention.

Nope.  Tries to scare you by mentioning the NFA and then ignores it and only talks about handguns.  Tricky ain't it?   Have you really read that?

Don't get me wrong, they will arrest you but they will have to argue the NFA and it's not there as South Carolina was astute enough to read through the BS.  One can argue the NFA but it's pretty weak in relation to the punishment.  But it really depends on the Court.  Probably get hanged in California but I'm in Arizona.  We love guns here and you all probably know what we think of the Feds.  And we'll all be carrying concealed on Thursday! no permit necessary!  Woo hoo!

+1  

For the record, I can't stand those vertical hand grips.  I think they are stupid, but to each his own.

I hate +1, too.

When reading and interpreting law, EVERY SINGLE WORD IS RELEVANT, EVERY SINGLE WORD IS IMPORTANT, EVERY SINGLE WORD HAS MEANING.  And it's amplified when it's an Act of Congress.

These laws are written in plain English and yet time and time again people can not read and understand English.

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).

WHEN HELD IN ONE HAND, WHEN HELD IN ONE HAND, WHEN HELD IN ONE HAND!  

In the English language, WHEN HELD IN ONE HAND, is not a requirement structure.  Fortunately, though, it shouldn't be hard for the layman to grasp since there is tangible proof of the lack of requirement by the existence of every Pistol that is designed and manufactured to be fired by two hands.

To be honest, that is tough for some people to understand because they just don't grasp English construction.  It's a tricky language, though, I must admit.

Now let's look at a definition that makes a requirement.

“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).

DESIGNED TO BE HELD AND FIRED BY THE USE OF SINGLE HAND!

In this construction, there is a REQUIREMENT  of being held and fired by a SINGLE hand.

Now this is really going to blow your mind.  When reading the 1934 definition for Pistol in and of itself, one could make the argument that Congress meant firing by the use of a SINGLE hand.  However, when Congress defined Handgun in 1968 it used language that differentiated HANDGUN from PISTOL and completely weakened any ambiguity in the 1934 law for PISTOL.  In other words, the 1968 law strengthened any argument of the requirement to fire a PISTOL with a single hand.

Once again, Pistol and Handgun are not the same as they each have their own distinct definitions as defined by separate Acts of Congress.  No entity can make them the same except by another Act of Congress.

Horse, deaten, to death.