Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/24/2005 7:36:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2005 7:36:00 AM EDT by new-arguy]
www.webarms.com/Gun%20Suppliers/Olympic%20Arms/olympic%20arms.htm


Do you think they know what they are doing with the optional add on?
Link Posted: 11/23/2005 8:08:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
www.webarms.com/Gun%20Suppliers/Olympic%20Arms/olympic%20arms.htm


Do you think they know what they are doing with the optional add on?



Probably not. They even put one on for the picture.
Link Posted: 11/23/2005 8:08:36 PM EDT
Don't see what your getting at?
Link Posted: 11/23/2005 8:09:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Don't see what your getting at?




AOW-NFA
Link Posted: 11/23/2005 8:13:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Don't see what your getting at?





I don't see the issue either. A pistol grip on a pistol has been beaten to death here......
Link Posted: 11/23/2005 8:17:39 PM EDT
here it goes again

Anyway, I'm going on record to say "I dont see the problem with it!"
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 6:29:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2005 6:32:07 AM EDT by repub18]

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Don't see what your getting at?





I don't see the issue either. A pistol grip on a pistol has been beaten to death here......






A vertical foward grip?
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 6:33:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Don't see what your getting at?





I don't see the issue either. A pistol grip on a pistol has been beaten to death here......






A vertical foward grip?



Is not prohibited by ANY legislation or case law that can be found. Further, courts have ruled that it is specifically NOT and AOW to have a second vertical grip
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 6:35:20 AM EDT
That same site has a "full-auto" upgrade available.
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 6:38:09 AM EDT
Indeed. I even found an example where a glock 23 found with a front grip did not classify it as an AOW. If I remember right, since the pistol was still designed to be fired with one hand, and the second pistol grip wan NOT PERMINANT it was not an AOW.

Anyway...
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 6:38:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Don't see what your getting at?





I don't see the issue either. A pistol grip on a pistol has been beaten to death here......






A vertical foward grip?



Is not prohibited by ANY legislation or case law that can be found. Further, courts have ruled that it is specifically NOT and AOW to have a second vertical grip




Case? I am just scratching my head here because it has always been my understanding that a VFG on a pistol is an AOW.
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 6:42:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Don't see what your getting at?





I don't see the issue either. A pistol grip on a pistol has been beaten to death here......






A vertical foward grip?



Is not prohibited by ANY legislation or case law that can be found. Further, courts have ruled that it is specifically NOT and AOW to have a second vertical grip




Case? I am just scratching my head here because it has always been my understanding that a VFG on a pistol is an AOW.



US v Davis (1993) and US v Fix (2001)
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:05:17 AM EDT
so the majority here says that it is kosher with no added forms or payments that a forward vertical grip is ok to have on a pistol?

i always though it was considered an aow if there was a vfg. anyone have hard proof?
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:08:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
i always though it was considered an aow if there was a vfg. anyone have hard proof?



Other than the law and court rulings???
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:10:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
i always though it was considered an aow if there was a vfg. anyone have hard proof?



Other than the law and court rulings???



wasnt there an atf thing going around that stated a pistol with a vfg is considered an aow? let me try and find it.
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:17:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By repub18:

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Don't see what your getting at?





I don't see the issue either. A pistol grip on a pistol has been beaten to death here......






A vertical foward grip?



Is not prohibited by ANY legislation or case law that can be found. Further, courts have ruled that it is specifically NOT and AOW to have a second vertical grip




Case? I am just scratching my head here because it has always been my understanding that a VFG on a pistol is an AOW.



I'm pretty sure you're right. I know I can't put one on a HK SP89
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:21:48 AM EDT
found it!

letter from atf from that member innocent_bystander got, found in the archives and if anyone or poster subjects to me re-posting it please im me and i will remove it.



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226

NOV 25 1997 F:SD:FTB:GKD
3311


Dear Mr. :

This refers to your letter of November 6, 1997, requesting
information on the manufacture of a firearm to be classified as an
"any other weapon," as that term is defined in the National
Firearms Act (NFA).

You describe the proposed firearm as being manufactured using an
AR15 type lower receiver that has never been assembled as a
complete firearm and installing a "pistol length barrel," a rear
pistol grip, a vertical foregrip, shrouded barrel and a flash
hider. This firearm would utilize a detachable magazine installed
outside the pistol grip.

A firearm manufactured from the described components and in the
described manner would not be a pistol as defined in either Title
27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 178 or 179, nor would
it be classified as a rifle or shotgun, not being designed to be
held and fired from the shoulder. Further, it is not classified as
a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 921(a)(30), hence it is not subject to the
prohibition on the manufacture, transfer or possession of
semiautomatic assault weapons as provided in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 922(v).

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously
held that a firearm of the type described in your letter is
classified as an "any other weapon" and is subject to all of the
provisions of the NFA. Such a firearm could legally be
manufactured and transferred by a Class II manufacturer. An
unlicensed individual could manufacture such a firearm by first
submitting an AT Form 1, APPLICATION TO MAKE AND REGISTER A
FIREARM, to ATF. Upon receipt of the approved form, the individual
could then proceed to manufacture the firearm.

- 2 -

Mr.

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.


Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Edward M. Owen, Jr.
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch

Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:24:08 AM EDT
from all the threads im searching according to this US v Davis (1993) and US v Fix (2001) you might not be charged but you will be prosecuted.

meaning that if you really want to add a fvg it would be cheaper to fill out the form1 than defend yourself in court
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:29:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
from all the threads im searching according to this US v Davis (1993) and US v Fix (2001) you might not be charged but you will be prosecuted.

meaning that if you really want to add a fvg it would be cheaper to fill out the form1 than defend yourself in court



I might not be charged but WILL be prosecuted??? WTF???

Do you work for ATF?
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:30:30 AM EDT
if anyone deides on challenging the court or the batfe and wins please let me know!


i will buy you a case of beer when its all said and done!
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:30:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
found it!

letter from atf from that member innocent_bystander got, found in the archives and if anyone or poster subjects to me re-posting it please im me and i will remove it.



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226

NOV 25 1997 F:SD:FTB:GKD
3311


Dear Mr. :

This refers to your letter of November 6, 1997, requesting
information on the manufacture of a firearm to be classified as an
"any other weapon," as that term is defined in the National
Firearms Act (NFA).

You describe the proposed firearm as being manufactured using an
AR15 type lower receiver that has never been assembled as a
complete firearm and installing a "pistol length barrel," a rear
pistol grip, a vertical foregrip, shrouded barrel and a flash
hider. This firearm would utilize a detachable magazine installed
outside the pistol grip.

A firearm manufactured from the described components and in the
described manner would not be a pistol as defined in either Title
27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 178 or 179, nor would
it be classified as a rifle or shotgun, not being designed to be
held and fired from the shoulder. Further, it is not classified as
a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 921(a)(30), hence it is not subject to the
prohibition on the manufacture, transfer or possession of
semiautomatic assault weapons as provided in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 922(v).

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously
held that a firearm of the type described in your letter is
classified as an "any other weapon" and is subject to all of the
provisions of the NFA. Such a firearm could legally be
manufactured and transferred by a Class II manufacturer. An
unlicensed individual could manufacture such a firearm by first
submitting an AT Form 1, APPLICATION TO MAKE AND REGISTER A
FIREARM, to ATF. Upon receipt of the approved form, the individual
could then proceed to manufacture the firearm.

- 2 -

Mr.

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.


Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Edward M. Owen, Jr.
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch




And the courts have ruled that adding a second vertical grip to a pistol does NOT cause it to fall out of the definition of "pistol".

STOP SPREADING LIES AND UNTRUE INFORMATION you are confusing the sheep!!!
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:31:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
from all the threads im searching according to this US v Davis (1993) and US v Fix (2001) you might not be charged but you will be prosecuted.

meaning that if you really want to add a fvg it would be cheaper to fill out the form1 than defend yourself in court



I might not be charged but WILL be prosecuted??? WTF???

Do you work for ATF?




all of the archived threads state that was the case per atf
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:31:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
if anyone deides on challenging the court or the batfe and wins please let me know!


i will buy you a case of beer when its all said and done!



Already did! Fix and Davis.

I'll take Miller Light, please!
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:32:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
from all the threads im searching according to this US v Davis (1993) and US v Fix (2001) you might not be charged but you will be prosecuted.

meaning that if you really want to add a fvg it would be cheaper to fill out the form1 than defend yourself in court



I might not be charged but WILL be prosecuted??? WTF???

Do you work for ATF?




all of the archived threads state that was the case per atf



Ok, how can someone be PROSECUTED for an offence the ARE NOT CHARGED WITH??? Only lawyers and FEDS use such double speak
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:33:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
found it!

letter from atf from that member innocent_bystander got, found in the archives and if anyone or poster subjects to me re-posting it please im me and i will remove it.



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226

NOV 25 1997 F:SD:FTB:GKD
3311


Dear Mr. :

This refers to your letter of November 6, 1997, requesting
information on the manufacture of a firearm to be classified as an
"any other weapon," as that term is defined in the National
Firearms Act (NFA).

You describe the proposed firearm as being manufactured using an
AR15 type lower receiver that has never been assembled as a
complete firearm and installing a "pistol length barrel," a rear
pistol grip, a vertical foregrip, shrouded barrel and a flash
hider. This firearm would utilize a detachable magazine installed
outside the pistol grip.

A firearm manufactured from the described components and in the
described manner would not be a pistol as defined in either Title
27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 178 or 179, nor would
it be classified as a rifle or shotgun, not being designed to be
held and fired from the shoulder. Further, it is not classified as
a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 921(a)(30), hence it is not subject to the
prohibition on the manufacture, transfer or possession of
semiautomatic assault weapons as provided in Title 18 U.S.C.,
Chapter 44, Section 922(v).

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously
held that a firearm of the type described in your letter is
classified as an "any other weapon" and is subject to all of the
provisions of the NFA.
Such a firearm could legally be
manufactured and transferred by a Class II manufacturer. An
unlicensed individual could manufacture such a firearm by first
submitting an AT Form 1, APPLICATION TO MAKE AND REGISTER A
FIREARM, to ATF. Upon receipt of the approved form, the individual
could then proceed to manufacture the firearm.

- 2 -

Mr.

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.


Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Edward M. Owen, Jr.
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch




And the courts have ruled that adding a second vertical grip to a pistol does NOT cause it to fall out of the definition of "pistol".

STOP SPREADING LIES AND UNTRUE INFORMATION you are confusing the sheep!!!




so you are saying this letter from the atf is incorrect? full of lies? so you are saying that if the atf stated that the vfg on the pistol is in fact an aow wouldnt you have to defend yourself in the court before the court can rule that it does not cause it to fall out of the def of a pistol?
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:35:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:38:18 AM EDT
According to the AR guys, all the AK guys are wrong about a forward pistol grip on our AK pistols. The forward grip thing is taken as gospel on the AK side.
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:39:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
so you are saying this letter from the atf is incorrect? full of lies? so you are saying that if the atf stated that the vfg on the pistol is in fact an aow wouldnt you have to defend yourself in the court before the court can rule that it does not cause it to fall out of the def of a pistol?



Yes, I am saying this letter from ATF is incorrect.

Why do I have to defend myself against a bullshit charge like this when others already have???

It is estabolished in the CFR and in case law. ATF doesn't like it, and they are not likely going to tell you that you can do something they don't like.

HOWEVER, every instance of an alleged offence I can find for this "violation" ie. adding a second VFG to a handgun with a rifled barrel, the charge has been dismissed by the court or withdrawn by the Gov't (ATF) upon challenge in court.

PS. Still waiting for my BEER
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:39:28 AM EDT
i am not a lawyer or any type of fed agent.


just a mechanic trying to figure out whats what. there are atf letters stating that a pistol grip up front is considered an aow and now have a team member telling me it doesnt matter what the atf has said.



i am going to leave it as is until there is further proof, link or something stating "yes, you can add a vfg to your pistol"
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:41:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2005 7:42:01 AM EDT by eklikwhoa]

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
so you are saying this letter from the atf is incorrect? full of lies? so you are saying that if the atf stated that the vfg on the pistol is in fact an aow wouldnt you have to defend yourself in the court before the court can rule that it does not cause it to fall out of the def of a pistol?



Yes, I am saying this letter from ATF is incorrect.

Why do I have to defend myself against a bullshit charge like this when others already have???

It is estabolished in the CFR and in case law. ATF doesn't like it, and they are not likely going to tell you that you can do something they don't like.

HOWEVER, every instance of an alleged offence I can find for this "violation" ie. adding a second VFG to a handgun with a rifled barrel, the charge has been dismissed by the court or withdrawn by the Gov't (ATF) upon challenge in court.

PS. Still waiting for my BEER





but wouldnt all the money spent being taken to court cost more than the tax of $200 for the form1?


do you have pics of your pistol with a mounted vfg?
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:41:55 AM EDT
ATF letter 1n '97 or Fed Ct decion in '01? '01 court decision is controlling.
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:41:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
i am not a lawyer or any type of fed agent.


just a mechanic trying to figure out whats what. there are atf letters stating that a pistol grip up front is considered an aow and now have a team member telling me it doesnt matter what the atf has said.



i am going to leave it as is until there is further proof, link or something stating "yes, you can add a vfg to your pistol"



One thing to remember, all these letters posted on the internet aren't worth the paper they are printed on. In a court of law, based on what I have read only, the letters from ATF apply ONLY to the person(s) they are addressed to. So the "I read in a letter to Bob on the internet" should probably not be your first line of defense
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:42:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2005 7:43:45 AM EDT by nationwide]

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
so you are saying this letter from the atf is incorrect? full of lies? so you are saying that if the atf stated that the vfg on the pistol is in fact an aow wouldnt you have to defend yourself in the court before the court can rule that it does not cause it to fall out of the def of a pistol?



Yes, I am saying this letter from ATF is incorrect.

Why do I have to defend myself against a bullshit charge like this when others already have???

It is estabolished in the CFR and in case law. ATF doesn't like it, and they are not likely going to tell you that you can do something they don't like.

HOWEVER, every instance of an alleged offence I can find for this "violation" ie. adding a second VFG to a handgun with a rifled barrel, the charge has been dismissed by the court or withdrawn by the Gov't (ATF) upon challenge in court.

PS. Still waiting for my BEER





but wouldnt all the money spent being taken to court cost more than the tax of $200 for the form1?


do you have pics of your pistol with a mounted vfg?



I went a cheaper route yet! $0.37 Yep, I sent my own letter to ATF asking for clarification on this exact matter!

ETA: No, I do not have a pic of my pistol with a mounted vfg.
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:43:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2005 7:43:45 AM EDT by eklikwhoa]

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
i am not a lawyer or any type of fed agent.


just a mechanic trying to figure out whats what. there are atf letters stating that a pistol grip up front is considered an aow and now have a team member telling me it doesnt matter what the atf has said.



i am going to leave it as is until there is further proof, link or something stating "yes, you can add a vfg to your pistol"



One thing to remember, all these letters posted on the internet aren't worth the paper they are printed on. In a court of law, based on what I have read only, the letters from ATF apply ONLY to the person(s) they are addressed to. So the "I read in a letter to Bob on the internet" should probably not be your first line of defense



reson why i would rather not deal with the hassle of proving that the vfg on a pistol is kosher. someone else's court ruling could be my sentence
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:45:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
so you are saying this letter from the atf is incorrect? full of lies? so you are saying that if the atf stated that the vfg on the pistol is in fact an aow wouldnt you have to defend yourself in the court before the court can rule that it does not cause it to fall out of the def of a pistol?



Yes, I am saying this letter from ATF is incorrect.

Why do I have to defend myself against a bullshit charge like this when others already have???

It is estabolished in the CFR and in case law. ATF doesn't like it, and they are not likely going to tell you that you can do something they don't like.

HOWEVER, every instance of an alleged offence I can find for this "violation" ie. adding a second VFG to a handgun with a rifled barrel, the charge has been dismissed by the court or withdrawn by the Gov't (ATF) upon challenge in court.

PS. Still waiting for my BEER





but wouldnt all the money spent being taken to court cost more than the tax of $200 for the form1?


do you have pics of your pistol with a mounted vfg?



I went a cheaper route yet! $0.37 Yep, I sent my own letter to ATF asking for clarification on this exact matter!

ETA: No, I do not have a pic of my pistol with a mounted vfg.



i think if i ever wanted to i will do the same thing but not a big issue to me right now since i am filling out the form1 for my sbr let me know how the atf letter goes, and if you are ever in houston drop me a line for that beer
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:47:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
so you are saying this letter from the atf is incorrect? full of lies? so you are saying that if the atf stated that the vfg on the pistol is in fact an aow wouldnt you have to defend yourself in the court before the court can rule that it does not cause it to fall out of the def of a pistol?



Yes, I am saying this letter from ATF is incorrect.

Why do I have to defend myself against a bullshit charge like this when others already have???

It is estabolished in the CFR and in case law. ATF doesn't like it, and they are not likely going to tell you that you can do something they don't like.

HOWEVER, every instance of an alleged offence I can find for this "violation" ie. adding a second VFG to a handgun with a rifled barrel, the charge has been dismissed by the court or withdrawn by the Gov't (ATF) upon challenge in court.

PS. Still waiting for my BEER





but wouldnt all the money spent being taken to court cost more than the tax of $200 for the form1?


do you have pics of your pistol with a mounted vfg?



I went a cheaper route yet! $0.37 Yep, I sent my own letter to ATF asking for clarification on this exact matter!

ETA: No, I do not have a pic of my pistol with a mounted vfg.



i think if i ever wanted to i will do the same thing but not a big issue to me right now since i am filling out the form1 for my sbr let me know how the atf letter goes, and if you are ever in houston drop me a line for that beer



Cool. Hey, now don't get my wrong... ATF already has my $200 and Form 1 for an SBR right now!
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 7:59:47 AM EDT
No intended

However they way the letter was written to the ATF was unclear and allowed for a grey area. It was asking about getting a receiver and building an NFA. So if we are to receive a clear response we must first explain that we are starting with a pistol that has arready been manufactured as such and adding a vertical grip (not pistol grip) to the weapon and if this would be alright.

If one leaves any grey are for them to play with you will never get the strait answer you are looking for. I also would recomend that you and several other members send multilple letters at the same time and see how may different answers we get. If their system is flooded at once we may receive the answer we are looking for.
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 11:01:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fister:
No intended

However they way the letter was written to the ATF was unclear and allowed for a grey area. It was asking about getting a receiver and building an NFA. So if we are to receive a clear response we must first explain that we are starting with a pistol that has arready been manufactured as such and adding a vertical grip (not pistol grip) to the weapon and if this would be alright.

If one leaves any grey are for them to play with you will never get the strait answer you are looking for. I also would recomend that you and several other members send multilple letters at the same time and see how may different answers we get. If their system is flooded at once we may receive the answer we are looking for.




but would you rather build your own pistol or buy one of those ready built expensive ones?
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 12:46:12 PM EDT
how can atf say it's not a semi auto assault weapon ?
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 12:55:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2005 12:57:07 PM EDT by Fister]

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:

Originally Posted By Fister:
No intended

However they way the letter was written to the ATF was unclear and allowed for a grey area. It was asking about getting a receiver and building an NFA. So if we are to receive a clear response we must first explain that we are starting with a pistol that has arready been manufactured as such and adding a vertical grip (not pistol grip) to the weapon and if this would be alright.

If one leaves any grey are for them to play with you will never get the strait answer you are looking for. I also would recomend that you and several other members send multilple letters at the same time and see how may different answers we get. If their system is flooded at once we may receive the answer we are looking for.



but would you rather build your own pistol or buy one of those ready built expensive ones?



Yes but this is irrelevant Im trying to convey the point that a Pre Registered PISTOL is different than a stripped receiver reguardless of condition (assembled or stripped)

You must elimate all Grey area before asking a question like this.

Even if a stripped lower comes in you can always have it registered with them as a PISTOL instead of RECEIVER on the new white sheet and over the phone then theres no confustion.

If a dealer registeres the Lower as a rifle in the paperwork than at that point it is a rifle and reguardless of wether or not it has ever had a stock attached to it its a rifle and you cannot legally build a pistol from it after that.
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 1:02:09 PM EDT
WOW! It's a really good thing that Law enforcement agencies cannot make laws up - like the ATF. Oh wait, did I miss something here? Maybe they can make laws. They are not supposed to be making laws. But they are?

Maybe there should be a law against an agency from being able to make laws on their own... Oh wait, are there laws against agencies making up laws? Maybe we need another law to support the law against making up laws.....

I'm so confused now. Maybe we should all just be good sheep and don't question those who are put in charge of us, for our own good.... After all, they know better, right?

Where is that cool aid now?
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 2:02:57 PM EDT
I'm neither a lawyer nor a federal agent.

***The following is my opinion alone.***

I read the actual case text of US v. Fix and noticed a couple of lines stating that it had "not [been] selected for publication in the Federal Reporter."
I wasn't sure what that meant, so I looked it up.

Turns out, (as best as I can tell) that line means this case can not be used as precedent in any other case in the future. Unless the same guy is charged by the same agency for the same exact offense, in which case he can cite this decision in a double-jeopardy defense.

What this means to the rest of us, is that it's as if this case and its sebsequent decision never existed. So, to break it down even further, this case can not be regarded as an accurate representation of the law and can not be rested upon in support of any future case whatsoever.

There's another issue as well and from what I've read, some of the contributors to this thread have come close to this conclusion without hitting the nail on the head (as I see it). Even if this case was good law, it was decided in the 9th Circuit (which encompasses mainly the western part of the country). I think this means that the decision would only have been binding in the parts of the country within the 9th circuit. Meaning that the BATF would not only be free to prosecute a citizen in another part of the country (or circuit), but it would also be able to put on a stronger case, given the knowledge and experience it gained in figuring out why it lost this case. Now, there may be some feature of administrative law that mandates federal agencies regard circuit court decisions as binding in every other circuit, but I don't know of one.

Don't ask me how this all works, because I have no idea. So before anyone challenges me to a legal duel, I'll tell you now, I can't do much more legal analysis than you see above.

***The preceding has been my opinion alone and it's worth exactly what you paid for it***

Regards,
R
Link Posted: 11/24/2005 2:12:29 PM EDT
You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.
Link Posted: 11/25/2005 4:02:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MisterPX:
You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.





exactly what i have been trying to say
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 4:04:45 PM EDT
I can see on e'ISSUE' here...

That would be "ADDING' vs ORIGINAL MANUFACTURE

Technically, if you make a pistol WITHOUT the VFG and add one (AR pistol with VFG bolted to a a rail), that might be seen as different from making a pistol with a perminant VFG (ala AMD65 & HK SP89k)


Link Posted: 12/22/2005 4:29:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MisterPX:
You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.



Ditto.

Is a foregrip on a pistol an AOW? Technically no. Will you get charged? Yes.

Is the NFA constitutional? Technically no. Will they charge you? Yes.

Link Posted: 1/14/2006 3:46:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nationwide:

I went a cheaper route yet! $0.37 Yep, I sent my own letter to ATF asking for clarification on this exact matter!

ETA: No, I do not have a pic of my pistol with a mounted vfg.



Any reply yet?
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 7:07:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
I can see on e'ISSUE' here...

That would be "ADDING' vs ORIGINAL MANUFACTURE

Technically, if you make a pistol WITHOUT the VFG and add one (AR pistol with VFG bolted to a a rail), that might be seen as different from making a pistol with a perminant VFG (ala AMD65 & HK SP89k)





Exactly two very different things. Still someone needs to find this one out. Give me the information and I will send the damn letter myself and follow through with a digital scan of the document.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 7:10:23 PM EDT
Every time I think this thread has died it comes back to haunt my active topics.

Every time I read it there is no new info

Every time, I am sad
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:01:06 AM EDT
Shall
Not
Be
Infringed
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 11:46:55 AM EDT
we need to get a constituitional lawyer to fight the constitutional legalness of the NFA
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top