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!

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!

I wouldn't think that'd be any different than the handguards.  

it's not perpendicular to the barrel. It's parallel. Therefore, IMHO, perfectly legal.

I agree, not perpendicular so it is legal.  

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.

Anyone want to post a copy of the regs?  This is an interesting question...

The rule states an additional grip "at an angle" from the barrel.  It does not specify what the angle is.

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?

Parrallel is not at an angle, unless you say "it's gotta a 0 degree offset".

Quoted: 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)

Quoted: 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

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....