Please let it die...........

Keeps coming up like bad Chinese food.

Interesting topic, but no resolution yet.

Quoted: Keeps coming up like bad Chinese food. Interesting topic, but no resolution yet.

Indeed.

hmmm factoring in this description could mean pistols are OK  with the VFG!?!?!?

Quoted: This firearm would utilize a detachable magazine installed outside the pistol grip.

The ATF letter mentions that the magazine attaches to the weapon outside the pistol grip. The fact that it says that implies that if the mag is inserted into the pistol grip, a different rule would apply. Or, it might NOT mean that. But it probably does.

Since I have a CMMG 7.3 pistol coming after they get back from the Shot Show this caught my interest.  I emailed Webarms and got the following response.  BATF was non-responsive after several handoffs, the courts [US v Davis (1993) and US v Fix (2001)] indicate it's ok (no real case law) and an arms ffl/seller says it's ok.  Webarms obviously feels comfortable about the issue.  I'm not going to get into the whole can you, should you.  I have my own opinion but I thought you all might find Webarms response of interest, or not.

----- Original Message -----
From: webarms
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:47 AM
Subject: OA93


****,

I forgot to mention that the specific regs state that an AOW is a smooth bore and does not include rifled barrels wheather it be a pistol or rifle.

So we see it as being legal for a civilian because it does have a rifled barrel and is not a smooth bore. That is the difference.
You will still need to check local laws though.

Thanks,
Web Arms

Quoted: Since I have a CMMG 7.3 pistol coming after they get back from the Shot Show this caught my interest.  I emailed Webarms and got the following response.  BATF was non-responsive after several handoffs, the courts [US v Davis (1993) and US v Fix (2001)] indicate it's ok (no real case law) and an arms ffl/seller says it's ok.  Webarms obviously feels comfortable about the issue.  I'm not going to get into the whole can you, should you.  I have my own opinion but I thought you all might find Webarms response of interest, or not. ----- Original Message ----- From: webarms To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 5:47 AM Subject: OA93 ****, I forgot to mention that the specific regs state that an AOW is a smooth bore and does not include rifled barrels wheather it be a pistol or rifle. So we see it as being legal for a civilian because it does have a rifled barrel and is not a smooth bore. That is the difference. You will still need to check local laws though. Thanks, Web Arms

Yikes... so much confusion could get a bunch of folks into big trouble all to save a couple hundred bucks (is having your voting and gun-ownership rights stripped really worth the risk?). I agree that the specific definition for AOW does not specifically include a forward vertical grip added to an already built 'pistol', but right or wrong, I sure would not risk my freedoms to install a front grip and not pay the ATF expected $200 - if it is currently expected. This is one of those items that you may want,  just for the convenience of being able to say you're approved, pay and be done with it.

Here are the facts and the code:

The National Firearms Act Title 26, United States Code INTERNAL REVENUE CODE CHAPTER 53 -- MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS § 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 NFA

So at first glance it looks like the "and not capable of firing fixed ammunition" is the pertinent part.

Fixed ammunition. That self-contained unit consisting of the case, primer, propellant charge, and projectile or projectiles.

It apears that, "and not capable of firing fixed ammunition" excludes AR-type pistols (or most modern pistols for that matter) from the highlighted pistol and revolver exclusion from being called an AOW.

So what do we have left? I believe the commas in the first half will be interpreted to imply 'or' - not 'and':

"A weapon that can be concealed, and discharged through the energy of an explosive,"
"or a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell,"
"or 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."

This is ghey gray enough to be interpreted either way. My $200 bet would be on the front side rather than a bunch of litigation on the back side just to prove a point. Some points are just too expensive to be proven...

I would like very much to hear what the BATFE has to say specifically about adding a VFG an already built pistol.

But I doubt I'll be very surprised by the vague and non-defining response.

BTW... here is the def for 'pistol' by the NFA:

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).

Seems to exclude anything held with two hands (forward grip virtical or horizontal), doesn't it?

I keep seeing a $200 dolllar tax associated with an AOW application (or form 1).  The truth is, all it takes is $5 and a form one to build an AOW.

If someone else has already poointed this out... then sorry for the repeat.

I stand corrected

Quoted: I keep seeing a $200 dolllar tax associated with an AOW application (or form 1).  The truth is, all it takes is $5 and a form one to build an AOW. If someone else has already poointed this out... then sorry for the repeat.

$5 transfer, $200 to build.

Quoted: BTW... here is the def for 'pistol' by the NFA: 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). Seems to exclude anything held with two hands (forward grip virtical or horizontal), doesn't it?

Here's what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had to say about that in United States v. Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001):

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."

U.S. v. Fix was not designated for publication, and therefore "may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3."  Basically, 9th Cir. R. 36-3 says that unpublished opinions aren't binding precedent and you can't cite an unpublished opinion in a court within the 9th Circuit except to show law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estooppel.  That rule has no effect on courts outside of the 9th Circuit where you can cite the case as persuasive authority.


Here's what the U.S. Magistrate Judge said in United States v. Davis, Cr. No. 8:93-106 (D.S.C. June 21, 1993) (unpublished disposition):

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).

Just keep in mind that while Fix and Davis say the right things, neither is controlling precedent in any other case.

Also keep in mind that the Judges of the Ninth Circuit apparantly don't know much about the NFA.  Take, for instance, their statement "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."  As anyone who knows the first thing about federal firearms laws knows, a "sawed-off shotgun" is classified under the NFA as a short barreled shotgun, not an AOW