Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
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?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:15:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HBruns:
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.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:15:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:16:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 8:17:28 AM EDT by BlueEyedEvil]

Tag for resulting shitstorm.

Oh yeah but this does NOT apply to LEO.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:17:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kpel308:
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..
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:19:36 AM EDT
Dupe....

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

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

Originally Posted By NAM:
Dupe....

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




Been looking, have not seen it.
Link?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:25:11 AM EDT
VFGs are silly nonsense anyway. They should be banned on long guns as well.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:26:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kpel308:
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
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:29:35 AM EDT
This isn't exactly new.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:30:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HBruns:

Originally Posted By NAM:
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.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:30:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:
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.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:32:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 11:17:43 PM EDT by RABIDFOX50]

Originally Posted By Spade:
This isn't exactly new.



Not new indeed but just as stupid as all the rest of ATF's BS!
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:34:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:
VFGs are silly nonsense anyway. They should be banned on long guns as well.



Yeah cuz using the magazine/mag well is awesome.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:38:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NAM:

Originally Posted By HBruns:

Originally Posted By NAM:
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!
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:40:23 AM EDT
The ATF can kiss my ass on "constructive intent"

Yeah, I said it.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:43:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HBruns:
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.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:45:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kpel308:
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
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:46:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 8:47:25 AM EDT by HKOVERKILL]
.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 9:12:03 AM EDT
Its BS! Just like everything the ATF comes up with
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 9:18:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 9:26:57 AM EDT
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"

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

Link Posted: 4/11/2006 9:43:43 AM EDT
Hasn't this been the law since the late 1980's?

I might have to contact my congress critter on this.

Link Posted: 4/11/2006 9:44:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 9:45:14 AM EDT by Alien]

Originally Posted By Fat_McNasty:

Originally Posted By kpel308:
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.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 9:44:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:
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.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 9:51:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2006 9:54:15 AM EDT by SayUncle]
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?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:01:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
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..
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:06:17 AM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:08:05 AM EDT
what about on AR pistols and the Kel Tec PLR? Those have front grips, though they're not vertical
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:10:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
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.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:10:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
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?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:10:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:
VFGs are silly nonsense anyway. They should be banned on long guns as well.



You're joking, right?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:14:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HBruns:

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
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/
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:15:57 AM EDT
NOT new,
same reason you couldn't be adding a handgrip to the front of a AR15 pistol.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 10:17:51 AM EDT
First I've heard of this; it doesn't affect me other than pissing me off. Idiotic rules...
Top Top