The BATFE is revising the regulations that describe what a pistol is. They are looking for comments at this time:
Now, this does not directly affect AR-15 pistols BUT there are some interesting changes that will make some pistols out there NFA weapons in the future!
I also took notice of the definition of a pistol and it clearly still says:
§ 479.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Pistol. (a) A weapon originally
designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more
barrels when held in one hand, and
(1) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s)
of, or permanently aligned with, the
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be
gripped by one hand and at an angle to
and extending below the line of the
(b) The term shall not include any
weapon disguised to look like an item
other than a firearm, such as a pengun,
wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun
or gadget device, or any gun that fires
more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the
I still don't see where in the regs a pistol that has a forward grip added is an AOW!
More on my rant about that here:
So what the Hell does that translate into!?
Sounds like it outlaws cell phone guns, pager guns, etc.. Doesn't seem to affect AR pistols made from receivers transferred as "stripped" or "pistol".
Can anyone honestly say that their AR15 pistol was "designed to be held and fired with one hand"??? Something to think about!
Can anyone say that the Desert Eagle .50 was designed to held and fired with one hand? How about the single action .454 revolver? Can it be done? Sure, same thing with the AR pistol.
How many people that have been trained to shoot were trained that the best way to shoot any pistol is with one hand? Weaver stance mean anything to anybody?
+1 on the two hand grip. Only Mr. Hollywood would train with a one hand grip on ANYTHING.
AR pistols are such a waste. I'm embarrassed that so many knuckle draggers here own them.
They make the baby Jesus cry!
From the letter posted in the other thread:
So, following their logic, if I remove the stock from and add a shot barrel to my AR-15 rifle, aren't I "making" a pistol? Isn't it therefore legal to do so? I have taken a rifle and designed it to be a pistol, right?
Of course not. They will apply their logic as they see fit, which means inconsistently.
I'm sorry it took so long to post a reply, since I have to pick my hands up off the floor to type and all.
...and why are you trolling the AR pistol side if you have no interest in them, and are embarrassed by them?
I have no interest in prehistoric AK's, therefore I don't post there.
I can fire anything that I own with one hand. Yes it hurts and it's not a good idea to fire them all in one session that way....
Hitting a target requires both hands in most cases.
I am a little disappointed to hear you say what you said.
How about some folks trying to get their Senators to press BATFE on their homemade interpretation of existing stautes, especially regarding a vertical foregrip on a rifled bore pistol. Some legislators don't like regulatory agencies (especially BATFE) going around legislative intent. May accomplish nothing but sitting around and complaining sure won't correct anything. Here's a part of one recently sent to one of my senators:
<BR>Dear Senator XXXXXXXX,
To give you a little background on me, (introductory paragraph).
I have a concern regarding the BATFE and one of it's commonly held regulations that I believe is not supported by statute or judicial review. Furthermore, I feel BATFE oversteps its authority as described below and intimidates citizens from lawful ownership and lawful accessories to its legal arms by politically motivated promulgation of homemade regulations not supported by legislative intent, federal statute or judicial review. I would respectfully request that your office review the supporting information I have provided and if possible, confirm or dispel my position that the BATFE's ruling on adding a second grip to an AR15 pistol is in error. Please allow me to summarize as briefly as I can:
It is my contention under federal statute that an AR15 pistol:
1) Is a pistol as defined by 27 CFR sec. 179.11, which is not disputed by BATFE.
2) Has a rifled bore (undisputed by BATFE), which is clearly excluded from the federal definition of "Any Other Weapon"as defined in 26 USC sec. 5845(e).
3) BATFE tries to get around the AOW definition by saying that a pistol with a second grip added no longer meets the definition of a pistol because two hands can be used to fire the weapon. I contend that adding a second grip to a pistol is no different than adding a light or a scope or any other accessory. In addition, most pistols are fired with two hands and there is not a federal law barring the use of two hands to fire a pistol. Lastly, adding any accessory does not alter the original design of the pistol being capable of being fired with one hand. The ludicrous stretch by BATFE is insulting to our constitutional freedoms and has been shot down in Federal Court.
Senator, I know this is small potatoes compared to the many things you and your office have to deal with but in the end, it is our legislators that look out for the little guy against big government and bureaucratic abuses. I would most respectfully ask if your office, after researching the information provided and if you find yourself in agreement; would you consider contacting or sending a letter to the BATFE and press them on this one issue to get an answer satisfactory to your sense of what is consistent with statutory authority, legislative intent and judicial review. If you pursue that avenue, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to review their response.
XXXXXX XXXXXXX (R)
XXXXXXXXX, KS XXXXX
Per the ATF: ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and 10 years’ imprisonment.
I would like to briefly discuss my point of contention regarding BATFE's interpretation of adding a second grip to an AR15 pistol makes it an AOW. The federal regs define a pistol as follows:
27 CFR sec. 179.11 - "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
at an angle to and extending below the line of the
bore(s). The term shall not include any gadget device,
any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol, any
gun that fires more than one shot without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger, or any
small portable gun such as: Nazi belt buckle pistol,
glove pistol, or a one-hand stock gun designed to fire
fixed shotgun ammunition."
There is also a revolver definition, but it does not add anything
except a provision for guns with revolving cylinders, rather than
Note that this definition is only in the rules for the NFA, and
not the GCA. It is designed to interact with the AOW definition.
For example even though this definition excludes such things as the
.410 T/C Contender pistol from the pistol definition, it is also
not an AOW as it has a rifled bore. And it is also a handgun under
the GCA. The NFA statute does not define "pistol" or "revolver".
26 USC sec. 5845(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.
Thus the question to be answered in deciding if a weapon is an
AOW would be, does it fit into any of the three categories below:
1) Is the weapon both not a pistol or revolver, and capable of
being concealed on the person?
2) Or is it a smooth bore pistol or revolver? Examples of this
include the H&R Handy-Gun, or Ithaca Auto-Burglar gun. This does
not include weapons made from a shotgun. That would be a short
barreled shotgun. The receiver of a smooth bore pistol, in order
to be an AOW, must not have had a shoulder stock attached to it,
ever. The shoulder stock attachment deal on a very few H&R Handy
Guns, together with a stock, will make them into a short barreled
3) Or is it a combination gun, a shoulder fired gun with both
rifled and smooth barrels between 12" and 18" long, and which has
to be manually reloaded? Examples of this include the M-6 military
survival gun, with a single shot barrel in .22 Hornet, and a
companion .410 shotgun barrel, as well as most models of the
Marble's Game Getter.
Weapons that fit the first category above are commonly called
gadget guns; pen guns, stapler guns, cane guns, alarm clock guns,
flashlight guns, the list of objects is pretty long. A few have
been removed from the scope of the law because their collector
status makes them unlikely to be misused; original Nazi belt buckle
guns for example. See the C&R list for these.
ATF has made the decision that a handgun (but not a machine gun,
since a machine gun is not also an AOW) with more than one hand
grip at an angle to the bore is an AOW. This is based on the gun
a) being concealable on the person, and b) not meeting the
definition of a "pistol" in the regulations promulgated under the
NFA, since they say a pistol has a single grip at an angle to the
bore. However, at least one federal magistrate has decided that if
the grip is added later, the gun is not "originally designed" to be
fired by holding in more than one grip, and thus putting a second
grip on a pistol does not make it an AOW. ATF does not regard the
decision as binding. The case is U.S. v. Davis, Crim No. 8:93-106
(D.S.C. 1993) (Report of Magistrate, June 21, 1993). The
prosecution was dismissed at the request of the Government before
any review of that determination by the trial judge.
An AOW is defined to be "...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 smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12" or more, less than 18" in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any weapon which may be readily restored to fire. 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 USC sec. 5845(e). The ATF has made the decision that a handgun with more than one grip is an AOW based on the gun a) being concealable and b) not meeting the definition of a "pistol" in the regulations promulgated under the NFA, since they say a pistol has a single grip at an angle to the bore. However, at least one federal court has decided that if the grip is added later, the gun is not "originally designed" to be fired by holding in more than one grip, and thus putting a second grip on a pistol does not make it an AOW.
In United States v. Fix, the circuit court basically said that BATF's attempt to shoe horn a pistol which later has an added grip in the AOW category is total nonsense. The problem is that BATF's interpretation ignores 2 things and here is a quote from the decision:
"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, HN2"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, [**5] 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. HN3The 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 [**6] 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."
I find it amusing that you troll a forum dedicated to something that embarrasses you, and that you even give a shit what other people own.
You truly must be a superior and benevolent being, to bear such empathy for so many misguided souls. Either that, or you are just an ass.
Pardon me while I go wash my knuckles before dinner.
btw - Do you have an opinion regarding my ownership of a golfball launcher for my SKS? Not that I give half a crap what you think, but my buddy and I had some great fun launching golfballs across the Suwannee River this past weekend. Glad you weren't there. Ass.
Please don't feed the !!
Adding the word "fixed" would make those cute little .22 revolvers with a folding grip AOW's...
That's from 2005 and almost nobody commented.