Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/29/2005 7:36:56 PM EDT
And it's not about a vertical foregrip! ;)

I am considering a Bushmaster Carbon 15 Type 97S Pistol as I was able to handle one this weekend at a local gun show. I know I can't mount a vertical foregrip on it without violating the AOW rules.

But what about adding the TDI Arms OFEK-1?

Here's a quick photochop of what it might look like. I also added a Phantom Flash Suppressor just to see how it would look.

http://webpages.charter.net/d_nye/az-C15P97S.gif

So would this be legal? Or would this raise the ire of the BATFE?

Thanks for all the help in the other AR pistol threads!
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:35:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 11:36:32 PM EDT by Kaliburz]



Good question...... guess it depends on what BATFE agent busts ya ....


Looking at the link and at the product description, it say " Forearms Grip & Flashlight Adaptor"

Now, if I wanted to be "mean", the AOW ruling interpreted in a conservative way, I would say that ANYTHING that has GRIP in its description, would be bad.....

If you were to put a flashlight mount (and is described ONLY as a flashlight mount), but by chance "could" be used as a grip (w/ or w/out discomfort) would be okay IN MY OPINION. (And I'm not a lawyer or anyone who is that "informed", just an end user using common sence.)


(If you did get it, and use it, do it w/ the company of friends you trust, no strangers.....)


edit-
Or just pay the tax for an AOW stamp and you won't have to worry!
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 11:44:08 PM EDT
I wouldn't think that'd be any different than the handguards.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 12:43:15 AM EDT
it's not perpendicular to the barrel. It's parallel. Therefore, IMHO, perfectly legal.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 4:39:09 PM EDT
I agree, not perpendicular so it is legal.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:45:12 AM EDT
Well perpendicular is 90 deg angle so if you had vfg that was angled a little bit would that be ok? even if it was at a 45 deg angle then it is half way between the two. I wonder at what point does the atf say it is perpendicular.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:56:34 AM EDT
Anyone want to post a copy of the regs? This is an interesting question...
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 9:53:10 AM EDT
The rule states an additional grip "at an angle" from the barrel. It does not specify what the angle is.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 10:51:15 AM EDT
Sooooo would this violate the rule then?

I would think "at an angle" to the barrel doesn't mean parallel, but I'm not the rule writers.

Should this br brought to the BATFE?
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:11:53 PM EDT
Parrallel is not at an angle, unless you say "it's gotta a 0 degree offset".
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 4:35:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Big-Bore:
I agree, not perpendicular so it is legal.



That raises annother question, I heard talk about someone putting a carry handle on the underside of the barrel (much like the flashlight above). TECHNICALLY that would not be a perpendicular grip. One could, if so inclined use the foreward end of the handle as a thumbhole grip. Is this the same difference as between pistol grip and thumbhole that we saw during the ban? (and still in california)
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 6:14:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kaliburz:
Anyone want to post a copy of the regs? This is an interesting question...



That's the rub; outside of the BATFE statements to the effect that "verticle foregrips on pistols makes them no longer pistols and are thus AOW's," I can't find any regs.

This is the closest thing to an official executive branch policy on this:
(Disclaimer: I have not seen the actual letter like BigBore's letter tacked to this forum, so this is 3rd-4th hand)


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226
NOV 25 1997 F:SD:FTB:GKD
3311
Dear Mr. :
This refers to your letter of November 6, 1997, requesting
information on the manufacture of a firearm to be classified as an
"any other weapon," as that term is defined in the National
Firearms Act (NFA).
You describe the proposed firearm as being manufactured using an
AR15 type lower receiver that has never been assembled as a
complete firearm and installing a "pistol length barrel," a rear
pistol grip, a vertical foregrip, shrouded barrel and a flash
hider. This firearm would utilize a detachable magazine installed
outside the pistol grip.
A firearm manufactured from the described components and in the
described manner would not be a pistol as defined in either Title
27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 178 or 179, nor would
it be classified as a rifle or shotgun, not being designed to be
held and fired from the shoulder. Further, it is not classified as
a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 921(a)(30), hence it is not subject to the
prohibition on the manufacture, transfer or possession of
semiautomatic assault weapons as provided in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 922(v).
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously
held that a firearm of the type described in your letter is
classified as an "any other weapon" and is subject to all of the
provisions of the NFA. Such a firearm could legally be
manufactured and transferred by a Class II manufacturer. An
unlicensed individual could manufacture such a firearm by first
submitting an AT Form 1, APPLICATION TO MAKE AND REGISTER A
FIREARM, to ATF. Upon receipt of the approved form, the individual
could then proceed to manufacture the firearm.
- 2 -
Mr.
We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Edward M. Owen, Jr.
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch




BUT I have a thread in the legal forum that links to a 9th Cir case from 2001 that states that a weapon "originally designed" as a pistol DOES NOT become an AOW merely through the addition of a VFG.
See US v. Fix, 4 Fed.Appx. 324 (9th Cir 2001) linked here: General • Legal Section • If this is legal...

I'm currently struggling with this issue and the "AR pistol fired with buffer tube against shoulder is/is not an SBR", and I think the difference is in the "originally designed" aspect of the pistol definition and the "designed or redesigned" elements of the rifle definition. Again, but that's another thread...

Cheers, Otto
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 9:24:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 9:27:02 PM EDT by Kaliburz]
Figures.... the govt doing things so that no one knows the truth....

edit-

.....or they make things so 'grey' so that it could go either way.... sort of scaring people from not trying it....aka to instill fear to control....




Top Top