If you wanna put your opnion in fine, but PLEASE base it on a quoted or linked law, statute or official document. PLEASE!
not the important part:
that letter is insane and just wrong. I would not be surprised to see a different response posted very soon from teh ATF. The part claiming it's not a pistol with a VFG is deliberately kept vague. The sentences about how it isn't a rifle or SAW are qualified, yet the sentence re: pistol is not.
the important part:
Still doesn't answer the question of a NON PERMANENT vfg. What the letter in teh previous thread is INFERRING (the weasels don't explicitly say it cause it would never hold in court) is that with a VFG, such a creation is designed to be fired with two hands. BUT if the pistol has an OPTIONAL vfg, there is no such vagueness.....
I'm not a huge fan of VFG's in general, but until I see that a non-permanent VFG on a PISTOL creates a AOW, then I don't see a problem....