Adding a vertical handgrip makes it subject to the NFA!

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Adding a vertical handgrip makes it subject to the NFA!

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:09:20 AM EDT

BATFE's new interpretation:
- adding a vertical handgrip to a handgun now makes it subject to the NFA, and you must first run the paperwork, pay the tax, and wait for their approval before adding that handgrip.

BATFE's opinion

Is this a great country, or what?

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:15:22 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
BATFE's new interpretation:
- adding a vertical handgrip to a handgun now makes it subject to the NFA, and you must first run the paperwork, pay the tax, and wait for their approval before adding that handgrip.

BATFE's opinion

Is this a great country, or what?

Not NOW, it has been that way for years. Thats why you cant have a vertical grip on a HK SP89.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:15:48 AM EDT

[#2]

So, if you have a handgun with a rail, and a rifle with a rail on which you have a foregrip, they can claim constructive intent. Nice.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:16:56 AM EDT

[#3]

Tag for resulting shitstorm.

Oh yeah but this does NOT apply to LEO.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:17:29 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
So, if you have a handgun with a rail, and a rifle with a rail on which you have a foregrip, they can claim constructive intent. Nice.

Yup..

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:19:36 AM EDT

[#5]

Dupe....

There's another thread flaoting aroudn with a link to the ATF page itself.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:21:40 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Dupe....

There's another thread flaoting aroudn with a link to the ATF page itself.

Been looking, have not seen it.
Link?

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:25:11 AM EDT

[#7]

VFGs are silly nonsense anyway. They should be banned on long guns as well.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:26:10 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
So, if you have a handgun with a rail, and a rifle with a rail on which you have a foregrip, they can claim constructive intent. Nice.

So a 3rd Gen Glock 17, M4gery, A4gery now equals time in the pokey?

HS1

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:29:35 AM EDT

[#9]

This isn't exactly new.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:30:44 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Dupe....

There's another thread flaoting aroudn with a link to the ATF page itself.

Been looking, have not seen it.
Link?

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=277196

I tihnk someone missed the definition of ORIGINALLY.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:30:56 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
VFGs are silly nonsense anyway. They should be banned on long guns as well.

I will agree with as far as a handgun is concerned, but I think they make a difference in ergonomics on an EBR.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:32:26 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
This isn't exactly new.

Not new indeed but just as stupid as all the rest of ATF's BS!

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:34:39 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
VFGs are silly nonsense anyway. They should be banned on long guns as well.

Yeah cuz using the magazine/mag well is awesome.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:38:08 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dupe....

There's another thread flaoting aroudn with a link to the ATF page itself.

Been looking, have not seen it.
Link?

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=277196

I tihnk someone missed the definition of ORIGINALLY.

Yup, you're right. It's a dupe. I guess I'm no longer a dupe virgin!

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:40:23 AM EDT

[#15]

The ATF can kiss my ass on "constructive intent"

Yeah, I said it.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:43:28 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
BATFE's new interpretation:
- adding a vertical handgrip to a handgun now makes it subject to the NFA, and you must first run the paperwork, pay the tax, and wait for their approval before adding that handgrip.

BATFE's opinion

Is this a great country, or what?

I did not know this. thank you.

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:45:36 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
So, if you have a handgun with a rail, and a rifle with a rail on which you have a foregrip, they can claim constructive intent. Nice.

Old discussion subject. Been on the books for a long time.

All that matters, is that you have a "legal" use for said item. Some examples:

Rifle with rail and grip, handgun with rail - legal (ok for grip with rifle).
Vertical grip, no rifle, handgun with rail - constructive possession/intent (no legal use).
Complete AR15, complete M16 (or lower), extra short barrel upper - legal (replacement for M16).
Complete AR15, NO M16 (or SBR), extra short barrel lower - constructive possession/intent (no legal use).

On a personal note, I own a HK SP89, a registered sear, and a vertical grip for the 89.
As was stated, you cannot place a vertical grip on a handgun, unless you register it first, as an AOW (Any Other Weapon). You CAN, however, place a vertical handgrip on a SP89, AFTER you install a sear (would then fall under MG rules, not handgun).

HKO

Posted: 4/11/2006 8:46:36 AM EDT

[#18]

.

Posted: 4/11/2006 9:12:03 AM EDT

[#19]

Its BS! Just like everything the ATF comes up with

Posted: 4/11/2006 9:18:53 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So, if you have a handgun with a rail, and a rifle with a rail on which you have a foregrip, they can claim constructive intent. Nice.

Old discussion subject. Been on the books for a long time.

All that matters, is that you have a "legal" use for said item. Some examples:

Rifle with rail and grip, handgun with rail - legal (ok for grip with rifle).
Vertical grip, no rifle, handgun with rail - constructive possession/intent (no legal use).
Complete AR15, complete M16 (or lower), extra short barrel upper - legal (replacement for M16).
Complete AR15, NO M16 (or SBR), extra short barrel lower - constructive possession/intent (no legal use).

On a personal note, I own a HK SP89, a registered sear, and a vertical grip for the 89.
As was stated, you cannot place a vertical grip on a handgun, unless you register it first, as an AOW (Any Other Weapon). You CAN, however, place a vertical handgrip on a SP89, AFTER you install a sear (would then fall under MG rules, not handgun).

HKO

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry, but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

Posted: 4/11/2006 9:26:57 AM EDT

[#21]

I wish I had some of the dope ATF was smoking.
What do these guys do to come up with these rulings?

*puffs on a joint*
"Heh heh - ya know what I was thinking....man? I think....a shoestring...is a machine gun...think about it man..."
"That's so deep....call AG Gonzales...see if he has any cheetos...I got the major munchies....duuuuude you know what? Constructive intent...we don't even have to do any real police work...if somebody owns some parts and a certain gun, we can just say they had intent!"
"I'm freaking out mannnn"

Posted: 4/11/2006 9:39:49 AM EDT

[#22]

I would love to sit in on the meeting at BATFE NFA Branch that decided this....just to understand the "logic" of rulings like this.

Posted: 4/11/2006 9:43:43 AM EDT

[#23]

Hasn't this been the law since the late 1980's?

I might have to contact my congress critter on this.

Posted: 4/11/2006 9:44:39 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So, if you have a handgun with a rail, and a rifle with a rail on which you have a foregrip, they can claim constructive intent. Nice.

Yup..

I used to have a TRP Operator and I tried to slip my Knight's VFG onto the rail and the damn thing would not go on.

The rail on the TRP Operator isn't the same spec as a standard picatinny rail! Something that clamps pon a la scope rings or a light could go on it, but something that slides on like a VFG would not.

Posted: 4/11/2006 9:44:54 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
I would love to sit in on the meeting at BATFE NFA Branch that decided this....just to understand the "logic" of rulings like this.

You might end up shooting yourself before it was through. Seriously.

Posted: 4/11/2006 9:51:44 AM EDT

[#26]

A SC district court disagrees:

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).

Edit to add: Doesn't mean I'd try it. And is there any modern pistol (with the exception of some target models) designed to be shot with only one hand?

Posted: 4/11/2006 10:01:36 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Hasn't this been the law since the late 1980's?

I might have to contact my congress critter on this.

First time I heard of the ruling was back in the 80's...when I thought the TEC-9 was cool. I have of course repented my evil ways..

Posted: 4/11/2006 10:06:17 AM EDT

[#28]

A BILL
To clarify the definition of ‘any other weapon’ in the law
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Wrongful Interpretation Act'.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION.
Section 5845(e) Chapter 53 Title 26 United States Code is amended by:

Inserting the following between “rifled bores,” and “or weapons”:

‘ or a vertical fore grip,’

(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 a vertical fore grip, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Posted: 4/11/2006 10:08:05 AM EDT

[#29]

what about on AR pistols and the Kel Tec PLR? Those have front grips, though they're not vertical

Posted: 4/11/2006 10:10:07 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
what about on AR pistols and the Kel Tec PLR? Those have front grips, though they're not vertical

It's just vertical grips.....of course you can still use the mag well like a grip...and it's vertical.

Posted: 4/11/2006 10:10:36 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
what about on AR pistols and the Kel Tec PLR? Those have front grips, though they're not vertical

Yea... does that mean an ANGLED front grip is OK in BATFEs opinion?

Posted: 4/11/2006 10:10:39 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
VFGs are silly nonsense anyway. They should be banned on long guns as well.

You're joking, right?

Posted: 4/11/2006 10:14:04 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
what about on AR pistols and the Kel Tec PLR? Those have front grips, though they're not vertical

Yea... does that mean an ANGLED front grip is OK in BATFEs opinion?

Something like this.......

www.lusausa.com/