Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/23/2006 3:39:54 AM EDT
I went to a gun show over the weekend and a local shop had set up some tables. They had a KelTec PLR-16 pistol with a forward vertical grip attached.

I asked, "Doesn't that grip make it an AOW under the Class III rules?"

The guy stared back at me with a big question mark over his head. He said, "I don't think so."

I told him, "I'm not a lawyer, I even don't play one in the movies, but I'm pretty sure that's a violation if you don't have BATF paperwork on it."

He just kinda shrugged his shoulders and said they'd check on it, commenting that it's so hard to keep up with all the rules.

As I understand it, mounting that grip without paperwork was illegal. Shouldn't a dealer know this stuff?

Any thoughts?
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 3:42:15 AM EDT
Technically it is an AOW but I think the vertical grip may have to be permanently attached. I would not risk it however.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 4:04:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:
Technically it is an AOW but I think the vertical grip may have to be permanently attached. I would not risk it however.



It was bolted on with a clamp around the barrel.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 4:15:08 AM EDT
I beleive you would be right AOW
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 4:21:15 AM EDT
as far as i understand, it's technically an AOW but there's a bit of a debate going on with that. Something about it not having the grip when it left the factory and not as the manufacturer intended it or something. someone might come along and post up the ATF letters that have been written on this issue.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 4:23:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 4:23:44 AM EDT by Cypher214]

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
I went to a gun show over the weekend and a local shop had set up some tables. They had a KelTec PLR-16 pistol with a forward vertical grip attached.

I asked, "Doesn't that grip make it an AOW under the Class III rules?"

The guy stared back at me with a big question mark over his head. He said, "I don't think so."

I told him, "I'm not a lawyer, I even don't play one in the movies, but I'm pretty sure that's a violation if you don't have BATF paperwork on it."

He just kinda shrugged his shoulders and said they'd check on it, commenting that it's so hard to keep up with all the rules.

As I understand it, mounting that grip without paperwork was illegal. Shouldn't a dealer know this stuff?

Any thoughts?



95% of the dealers I have come into contact with know dick about gun laws. They are especially ignorant about the stuff they should know about like regulations regarding transfers. Typically anything they don't know the answer to they just say it is illegal and refuse to believe otherwise.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 4:26:41 AM EDT
ask Nationwide if he got a reply from the ATF asking that question several months ago....he came to the conclusion that on a pistol is is not an AOW, and therefore legit....although I think all these laws are not legit to begin with, if Nationwide is correct, then the front vertical grip is okay on the pistol
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 4:30:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 4:33:24 AM EDT by ANGST]
Actually is would be NFA rules


The ATF has decided attaching a forward grip to a pistol makes it an AOW . However there is nothing in the law specifiacally stating that, and it would PROBABLY not be held up in court if they tried, but I don't think anyone wants to play that game with the ATF

from the NFA FAQ :

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 tot eh 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.
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 4:30:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:
ask Nationwide if he got a reply from the ATF asking that question several months ago....he came to the conclusion that on a pistol is is not an AOW, and therefore legit....although I think all these laws are not legit to begin with, if Nationwide is correct, then the front vertical grip is okay on the pistol



Yeah, they sure don't think their job is to make life easy for the citizens.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 9:03:11 AM EDT

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.



OK...


ATF does not regard the decision as binding.


Of course not. If it would limit government power and increase a citizen's rights, it must be bad.


The prosecution was dismissed at the request of the Government
before any review of that determination by the trial judge.



A strategic move to head off a decision that would have been binding. How weasely.

This is our government, eh? Just whose country is this, anyway?
Top Top