[yongxingfreesty]

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=104903213

check out that foregrip, always thought it was illegal to add any kind of vertical foregrip. but correct me if I am wrong.

thanks

[briansp82593]

AOW, a felony right there waiting to happen, but major gun magazines do it too G&A on their cover has one...
Great example G&A, way to promote felonies, and in the article mentions nothing about the legalities of adding a vertical grip to a pistol.

[yongxingfreesty]

i think i saw that G&A issue. was it a plr16 w/ surefire light/grip combo?

[moss590]

ive had one for years on my kel-tec i got it from a gun dealer and i have no special licence and have never been in any trouble for it

[AR2A]

Hmmmm...That's sweet! I want one! Does that fall into the SBR qualifications? I think that's a whole new ball park if it does.

[Trebor]

ive had one for years on my kel-tec i got it from a gun dealer and i have no special licence and have never been in any trouble for it

It is illegal to put a vertical foregrip on a handgun without getting ATF approval and paying the tax for either a "AOW" or possibly a "SBR". (I can't recall which it is, technically)

The reason they sell the foregrip is so you can put it on a RIFLE. Putting the same foregrip on a handgun is ILLEGAL. It is JUST as illegal as making a sawed off shotgun.

The only reason you've "never been in any trouble for it" is because you've just never happened to have the gun around a cop who knows the law well enough to recognize hat it is illegal. All it takes is one time to ruin your whole day, and possibly your life.

[nalioth]

Yeah, ignorant users post their felonious activities all the time on gunbroker.

There was an AK pistol there a while back with a VFG.

There was a tricked out Glock (you could hardly see it for all the crap strapped to it) there a while back with a VFG, too.

[hankdatank1362]

I find it ironic that he entitled it the "Ultimate Combat Weapon"...

Maybe he means that it gives you "Real Ultimate Power"...

From http://realultimatepower.net...
Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.



And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



If you don't believe that ninjas have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.



Ninjas are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. These guys are totally awesome and that's a fact. Ninjas are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet. I can't wait to start yoga next year. I love ninjas with all of my body (including my pee pee).





Q and A:.





Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about ninjas?

A: Ninjas are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, ninjas are very careful and precise.



Q: I heard that ninjas are always cruel or mean. What's their problem?

A: Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other mammals, ninjas can be mean OR totally awesome.



Q: What do ninjas do when they're not cutting off heads or flipping out?

A: Most of their free time is spent flying, but sometime they stab. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)



This is undeniable proof that the weapon in question is indeed for mall ninjas.

[blackcash88]

ive had one for years on my kel-tec i got it from a gun dealer and i have no special licence and have never been in any trouble for it

Yet...

[jaholder1971]

Twenty bucks says this thing splits out into a bipod, thereby pretending to be something it's not?

[Gator]

He probably just didn't know and got a lot of email telling him he was asking for trouble. It's (http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=105009198) back up for sale without the foregrip.

[Matt-J2]

Huh, never knew a vertical foregrip on a pistol was illegal. Course, it's also never occurred to me to put one on a pistol, either.

[Dgreno]

Look closely at the "new" pictures. He photochopped the VFG off the gun. Its kind of obvious. He must have gotten a few emails, probably from THR members...

[Eightball]

We should swamp him with emails, asking why his forward handguard has differing 90-degree cuts out of it depending on the angle in which it was viewed, as well as if he has paid his federal stamp yet.

[freakshow10mm]

A pistol with a vertical fore grip is an AOW subject to a $200 making tax or $5 transfer tax.

[yongxingfreesty]

here are the pics, found through my history.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/yongxingliang/pix395000046.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/yongxingliang/pix394999468.jpg

[HeavyDuty]

ive had one for years on my kel-tec i got it from a gun dealer and i have no special licence and have never been in any trouble for it

Yet.

[MrAnteater]

Yes, its just one law from a long list of nonsense.

[skwab]

I lost my focus after reading Hank's Ninja post - that stuff is too funny. I guess I never realized that like any mammal the Ninja can be mean or totally awesome - that'll come in handy the next time I run across one.

[Steve C]

Since when did the addition of a vertical grip on a handgun become a prohibited act?

AOW refers to sawed off shotguns, short barreled shotguns, shotgun pistols or short barreled rifles.

The only thing you can't add to a handgun is a shoulder stock that converts it into a "short rifle". There are exceptions for some listed curios and relics, notably the Broom handle Mauser and P08 Luger which have been made exempt for collectors.

If the firearm was manufactured and sold as a pistol you can put all the do-dads, grips, tripods, etc. you want on it other than a shoulder stock.

If the firearm was manufactured and sold as a rifle or shotgun you need to maintain minimum required overall length and minimum barrel length if you don't want to register it as an AOW.

[freakshow10mm]

An AOW is:
"...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 smooth
bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell,
weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12" or
more, less than 18" in length, from which only a single
discharge can be made from either barrel without manual
reloading, and shall include any weapon which may be readily
restored to fire. 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 U.S.C. sec.
5845(e).

Thus the question to be answered in deciding if a weapon is an AOW would be, does it fit into any of the three categories below:
1) Is the weapon both not a pistol or revolver, and capable of being concealed on the person?
2) Or is it a smooth bore pistol or revolver? Examples of this include the H&R Handy-Gun, or Ithaca Auto-Burglar gun. This does not include weapons made from a shotgun. That would be a short barreled shotgun. The receiver of a smooth bore pistol, in order to be an AOW, must not have had a shoulder stock attached to it, ever. The shoulder stock attachment deal on a very few H&R Handy Guns, together with a stock, will make them into a short barreled shotgun.
3) Or is it a combination gun, a shoulder fired gun with both rifled and smooth barrels between 12" and 18" long, and which has to be manually reloaded? Examples of this include the M-6 military survival gun, with a single shot barrel in .22 Hornet, and a companion .410 shotgun barrel, as well as most models of the Marble's Game Getter.

[Gator]

If the firearm was manufactured and sold as a pistol you can put all the do-dads, grips, tripods, etc. you want on it other than a shoulder stock.


Nope. (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/041006-vert_grip.htm)

ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and 10 years’ imprisonment.

[Len S]

Lets give the libs something to make their collective heads to explode. That is not a vertical for grip. That is a mono pod,as opposed to a bipod, for use by the physically disabled (challenged) individual as a defensive weapon. As the physically challenged individual is wheelchair bound and has only one arm this weapon in this set up is the only way for said individual to defend himself. To make such a weapon set up illegal is clearly a violation of the American with disabilities act and will not be tolerated.


Len

[WoofersInc]

Since when did the addition of a vertical grip on a handgun become a prohibited act?

AOW refers to sawed off shotguns, short barreled shotguns, shotgun pistols or short barreled rifles.

The only thing you can't add to a handgun is a shoulder stock that converts it into a "short rifle". There are exceptions for some listed curios and relics, notably the Broom handle Mauser and P08 Luger which have been made exempt for collectors.

If the firearm was manufactured and sold as a pistol you can put all the do-dads, grips, tripods, etc. you want on it other than a shoulder stock.

If the firearm was manufactured and sold as a rifle or shotgun you need to maintain minimum required overall length and minimum barrel length if you don't want to register it as an AOW.

This is straight off of the ATF Website


http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/041006-vert_grip.htm

[Taurus92 in KyleTX]

man, I love this website.

[Steve C]

Well, I learned something new today. Regulations and interpretations by government agencies don't have to make sense, until they get to court, and the BATF makes less sense than most.

Its odd that a horizontal grip which is the way these Keltec handguns are sold don't change it into a Class 3 weapon if their logic on verticle grips is followed.

[freakshow10mm]

Yup, a horizontal forward grip is OK, but a vertical is an AOW, subject to NFA tax.

[taprackbang]

Well said, Anteater!

[Seancass]

relisted with edited pics:
http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=105009198

see, all this bickering gets stuff done.

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

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."

So let's look at this exception to the rule. The rule is in the main definition preceding this one. Assuming that it IS an AOW under the main definition, which is arguable, this "excpeption" describes guns *which would otherwise ordinarly fit under the main definition, yet which are exempted*.

So what guns are exempted from being AOWs under the exception sentence?:

1. Pistols or revolvers having a rifled bore.

Or - OR:

2. [guns] designed, made or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Due to the or in between, meeting either one of the two definitions will result in the gun being exempted and thus not an AOW.

Let's take #1 first: Is it a pistol or revolver having a rifled bore? Yes it has a rifled bore, but is it a "pistol"? Well that depends on the definition of pistol which is not defined here. So this definition does not say what exactly is a pistol, and in particular there is nothing to indicate that just because it is "no longer intended to be fired with the use of one hand", that it is no longer still a "pistol". Still, nevertheless, if that is indeed the definition of pistol, then this exception arguably does not apply. So let's say that it's somehow no longer a pistol and forget about this exception - still an AOW so far (arguably).

Going to #2, [guns] designed, made or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

So to meet this exception to being an AOW (assuming it is an AOW from the main definition), the gun must:

a. NOT be capable of firing fixed ammunition
AND - AND
b. designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder.

Clearly, the truth value of (b) is false. The gun most certainly is not designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder, regardless of with or without a forward grip. That's the end of the inquiry, due to the "and" connector - But just for giggles, what's the truth value of (a) - NOT be capable of firing fixed ammunition? Assuming that fixed ammunition means a self-contained metallic cartridge, the gun clearly IS capable of firing fixed ammunition, so the truth value of (a) is false also. It is not NOT capable of doing so - it IS capable. Therefore the truth value of the exception is false - either one could be an F - here, both are F. So #2 definitely does NOT except it from being an AOW.

So, bottom line, I guess the exceptions do not apply -I guess it MAY be an AOW, arguably. I had to go through that entire analysis to satisfy myself that that was correct before stating as much, because when I first read it quickly, I thought the outcome was that it DID meet an exception to being an AOW. Under #1 it arguably does, but could go either way.

Now, as for whether it's an AOW under the main definition before even needing to look for an exception to apply:

any weapon or device:

[1]
(a])capable of being concealed on the
person
(b) from which a shot can be discharged through the
energy of an explosive, [no connector here??]

[2]
(a) a pistol or revolver
(b) having a smooth
bore
(c) designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell,

[***] [no connector here??]

[3]
(a) weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels
(b) 12" or
more,
(c) less than 18" in length,
(d) from which only a single
discharge can be made from either barrel without manual
reloading,
(e) and shall include any weapon which may be readily
restored to fire.

I've preceded certain sections with numbers and certain clauses with letters for referencing them.

The first thing to note is that there IS NO CONNECTOR CONNECTING [1], [2], AND [3]. If there was, it would be place where I put the three asterisks above, like this: [***]. Secondly, it's unclear by the punctuation whether clause [3](e) refers solely to [3] itself - [3](a) through [3](d), OR whether it applys to ANY - [1], [2], AND [3]. These massive omissions/ambiguities tells me that first off, this must not be the actual statute - that it's either, a mis-copying of a statute or regulation, OR it's a regulation promulgated by BATFE which is extraordinarily poorly written and ambiguous - and as such, being highly ambiguous, courts could interpret it in many varying ways, resulting in no conviction. There must be a connector, and there is none, as that definition is typed in this thread. Let's suppose for a moment, however, that the connection between [1], [2], and [3] is "or" rather than "and". Well that means, since [1] standing alone describes every handgun ever made, and since AOW is clearly not *meant* to include general typical handguns, that the connector must not be "or". So if the connector is "and" between 1, 2, and 3, then what do we have? We have NO AOW because it's not a smooth bore.

So seems to me that *IF* this definition is copied here correctly, then an extremely strong argument can be made that it's not an AOW under the main definition, because an "and" connector would be implied, since an "or" connector would make no sense and render ALL handguns AOWs.

[blackcash88]

Ok there, PremiumSauces. Quite the rant. Since you feel so strongly about it, right or wrong, why don't YOU go and be a test case, mmmmK? Yeah, didn't think so.

[WoofersInc]

All of the above may be correct but I for one don't want to even get into that arguement with ATF. That would not be good. Even if you are correct here is ATF's position

ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and 10 years’ imprisonment

Argueing semantics with these guys is a no win situation.

[Seancass]

what's that they say about absolute power and when you make the rules?

[Acera]

the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand

Just playing devil's advocate here, but would the serrations on the front of a trigger guard be there for a second hand?? I don't know how many handguns are fired with a single hand, other than competition shooters, regularly. Does a handgun that is not able to be fired safely with one hand (i.e. .500 S&W) mean that is was designed to be fired with two hands, and thus fall under the provision?

I know that they will not prosecute you for using two hands when you shoot, but you know how the ATF is about the letter of the law, and someday..................