User Panel
Posted: 12/25/2008 12:48:09 PM EDT
Yes or no?
Legal by the Feds or need SBR permit? |
|
Quoted:
actally a AOW but yes a NFA item yup, it is a no go to put a VFG on a pistol. |
|
Send the dog to the neighbor's house and get out the fire extinguishers. It's going to be a busy nite! Good Luck, We're all pullin' for ya.
|
|
Quoted:
Yes or no? Legal by the Feds or need SBR permit? I wouldnt even KEEP a vertical grip in the home if you have either a Sig 556 pistol or an HK SP89. |
|
Quoted:
actally a AOW but yes a NFA item Yep, pistol with VFG is an "Any Other Weapon," NFA-regulated but it's a $5 stamp tax instead of $200. |
|
As said it would be considdered an AOW and cost you 200 to make it into an AOW.
You are better off to spend the 200 to make it an SBR then you can put your stock on it and the VFG or take the stock off of it and leave the VFG on it. Its still an SBR even if it doesnt have the stock on it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes or no? Legal by the Feds or need SBR permit? I wouldnt even KEEP a vertical grip in the home if you have either a Sig 556 pistol or an HK SP89. I would, fuck the ATF. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
actally a AOW but yes a NFA item Yep, pistol with VFG is an "Any Other Weapon," NFA-regulated but it's a $5 stamp tax instead of $200. its still 200 to make an AOW ....... it is only 5 dollars to transfer it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes or no? Legal by the Feds or need SBR permit? I wouldnt even KEEP a vertical grip in the home if you have either a Sig 556 pistol or an HK SP89. I would, fuck the ATF. + 1 |
|
IIRC, there is no law against this, but the ATF doesn't seem to care. Someone more knowledgeable may shed some light on this.
|
|
Funny, at a buddy's shop the other day. They had added a VFG on a PLR-16 because it "looked cool".
He got the real face when I told him about his NFA violation and the other violations he was in store for at club fed. It was quickly removed. |
|
24. The 9 millimeter and .22 caliber pistols seized by ATF
were modified by adding an additional grip. 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). 28. The government has agreed to dismiss Count 13 of the indictment, concerning the possession of a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Thompson/Center Arms, 112 S.Ct. 2102. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Wherefore, it is recommended that Count 13 be dismissed upon motion of the government. As to the motion to dismiss concerning the silencer kit, this court concludes that the kit is a silencer as defined by the statute and that the motion to dismiss should be denied. As to the motion concerning the KG9 bolt, this court recommends that the motion be held in abeyance until the parties conduct the agreed upon test fire. 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. [signed] William M. Catoe, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge June 21, 1993 Greenville, South Carolina FOOTNOTES 1. The delay in filing this recommendation was due to problems in obtaining the transcript of the hearing, which was received by this court on June 16, 1993. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal Number: 8:93-106 v. ORDER GORDON T.DAVIS, and SANDA G. DAVIS And now, this 24 day of September, 1993, the within Motion is granted, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that Indictment and Superseding Indictment Number 8:93-106, against the Defendants, GORDON T. DAVIS, and SANDRA G. DAVIS, be and the same is hereby dismissed without prejudice. [signed] HONORABLE G. ROSS ANDERSON, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, S.C. |
|
Appreciate the info, gentlemen.
Relax. Nobody installed a vertical fore grip on any pistol. In fact, the pistol hasn't even arrived yet. My brother ordered one, and I knew a folding stock of any kind would make it an SBR, but wasn't sure about the foregrip, so I asked. Now we know the law, nobody owns a foregrip, and nobody even owns the pistol yet. Dogs are safe, so far, and should remain so for the forseeable future. Hang on, someone's at the door... |
|
Well, putting a bipod on there is obviosly OK, or Ruger wouldn't sell any more chargers.
This begs the question, what about a grip pod? |
|
Are you in a Fed facility, yet?
The FUG and or a stock, even if not attached, is considered intention to build an SBR... You may win the legal battle but it doesn't cost the ATF a nickel and will cost you, what $50,000 or $100,000 to keep from changing your sexual orientation for 10 years or so. Think about it, there is no 'win' there. Just submit it to be an SBR and wait until you have the stamp then buy the stock and grip. All is good then. |
|
Quoted:
District Judge = Doesn't carry any weight outside that particular district (a very small area in the grand scheme of things). Circuit or Supreme Court would be something entirely different.
[signed]
HONORABLE G. ROSS ANDERSON, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, S.C. Kharn |
|
Quoted:
actally a AOW but yes a NFA item This shit has been tried twice without conviction. Anyone know of a conviction? If a VFG makes a sig 556 pistol an AOW by ATF definition (yes, I have read the letter), then a sig 556 pistol is ALREADY an AOW. The entire argument hinges on what was "designed to be fired with one hand". A sig 556 pistol WAS NOT designed to be fired with one hand. Nor was an AK pistol, nor an AR pistol. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
District Judge = Doesn't carry any weight outside that particular district (a very small area in the grand scheme of things). Circuit or Supreme Court would be something entirely different.
[signed]
HONORABLE G. ROSS ANDERSON, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, S.C. Kharn From what I understand the govt refused to appeal the thrown out charges though What does that mean? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes or no? Legal by the Feds or need SBR permit? I wouldnt even KEEP a vertical grip in the home if you have either a Sig 556 pistol or an HK SP89. Neither would I. Constructive intent. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
actally a AOW but yes a NFA item This shit has been tried twice without conviction. Anyone know of a conviction? nope but why take the ride $200 tax stamp is cheaper than a 20K attorney |
|
Quoted:
Send the dog to the neighbor's house and get out the fire extinguishers. It's going to be a busy nite! Good Luck, We're all pullin' for ya. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
actally a AOW but yes a NFA item Yep, pistol with VFG is an "Any Other Weapon," NFA-regulated but it's a $5 stamp tax instead of $200. Are you sure? |
|
Quoted:
I would fuck the ATF. The reverse is actually much more likely. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
actally a AOW but yes a NFA item This shit has been tried twice without conviction. Anyone know of a conviction? nope but why take the ride $200 tax stamp is cheaper than a 20K attorney Isn't an AOW $5 rather than $200? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
actally a AOW but yes a NFA item This shit has been tried twice without conviction. Anyone know of a conviction? nope but why take the ride $200 tax stamp is cheaper than a 20K attorney Isn't an AOW $5 rather than $200? $200 to create $5 to transfer |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes or no? Legal by the Feds or need SBR permit? I wouldnt even KEEP a vertical grip in the home if you have either a Sig 556 pistol or an HK SP89. That's bullshit. As long as you have a legal use for whatever you have, you're GTG. |
|
Quoted:
That's bullshit. As long as you have a legal use for whatever you have, you're GTG. so do any of you guys with VFGs on your rifle dispose of any handguns with light rails on them you may have owned ? remember when CTD had a glock with a pistol grip attached to the light rail on the cover |
|
Quoted:
Thats their normal response when a citizen wins and they believe they cant win on appeal. Refusing to appeal prevents the case from going higher (winners cant appeal) and having broader reach; basically, its damage control.
Quoted:
Quoted:
District Judge = Doesn't carry any weight outside that particular district (a very small area in the grand scheme of things). Circuit or Supreme Court would be something entirely different.
[signed]
HONORABLE G. ROSS ANDERSON, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, S.C. Kharn From what I understand the govt refused to appeal the thrown out charges though What does that mean? Kharn |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Thats their normal response when a citizen wins and they believe they cant win on appeal. Refusing to appeal prevents the case from going higher (winners cant appeal) and having broader reach; basically, its damage control. Quoted: Quoted: District Judge = Doesn't carry any weight outside that particular district (a very small area in the grand scheme of things). Circuit or Supreme Court would be something entirely different.[signed] HONORABLE G. ROSS ANDERSON, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, S.C. Kharn From what I understand the govt refused to appeal the thrown out charges though What does that mean? Kharn IOW, no binding precedent, the ATF has continued to claim (seen the letters in other threads) that a VFG on a pistol makes an AOW even though it's not possible under the statue. Logic does not apply to the ATF, never has, never will. You'd be my hero if you had the money and balls to take them to task, ideally through getting the tax stamp, then suing for a refund on grounds that it wasn't necessary. This would be the way to do it as you would be safe AND have standing. Frankly I don't see how the case could be lost unless the judge was quite simply a lying piece of shit. The statute is plain as day. |
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.