Front grip on a pistol??


PDA






Pistolman36
August 1, 2009, 03:07 PM
I have a Taurus PT 27/7 in 45 caliber that I love very much. Recently I was playing around with some spare parts I have and came across a vertical pistol grip for the forend of an ar-15. It attached to the pistol quite easily. I mounted the grip and loved how much control I have. While chatting, a person told me this was an illegal mod because it turned the handgun into an "other" catagory. Is this true? I took it off until I find out for sure.

Does a front grip make a pistol illegal??

If you enjoyed reading about "Front grip on a pistol??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
proud2deviate
August 1, 2009, 03:11 PM
Unfortunately, yes. Unless properly registered as an AOW (Any Other Weapon,) it would be illegal.

The reason for this is that a handgun is legally defined as being designed to be operated with one hand. A forward grip makes two-handed operation an obvious intention. Stupid, but true. Sorry:(

kingpin008
August 1, 2009, 03:24 PM
Yup. Unless you pay the AOW tax and register it as such, attaching a forward grip to a pistol is a Federal no-no.

TexasRifleman
August 1, 2009, 06:30 PM
Does a front grip make a pistol illegal??

Though not specifically stated in any law anywhere, the ATF has taken that position.

The NFA law says:

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

So this is one of the odd cases where ATF had taken things a bit too far. Why would adding a vertical forward grip to a pistol break the definition of pistol? Well, simply because ATF says it does.

In one famously discussed case where someone was actually charged with this the attorney general dropped this charge before it went to trial.
It's been argued that the AG dropped this specific charge because ATF was afraid they would lose.

So, it's entirely possible this could be beat, but who the heck wants to be the test case?


But, the 1968 GCA says this, in the definition of handgun:

(29) The term "handgun" means—
(A) a firearm which has a short
stock and is designed to be held and
fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from
which a firearm described in subparagraph
(A) can be assembled.

So, a handgun is designed to be held by the use of a single hand, but the law doesn't say it can't be modified to be held by 2 hands.

Consider the AR15 pistol. Clearly usable by 2 hands, one hand on the magazine well. But legal.

That's the ATF interpretation again, but it's kind of iffy. There really isn't any legal wording that covers it, so ATF tossed it into the "AOW" category on their own.

And again, no one wants to be a test case, it would be an expensive loss.

So in the end, best to just go along with ATFs interpretation.

30mag
August 1, 2009, 06:41 PM
A forward grip makes two-handed operation an obvious intention.
What about the Kel-Tec PLR-16?
It pretty much has a barrel shroud that would make it easy enough to fire with two hands.

handgun is legally defined as being designed to be operated with one hand.
Where?
I thought a handgun was defined as a firearm not designed to be fired from the shoulder (or something like that)

TexasRifleman
August 1, 2009, 06:48 PM
at about the Kel-Tec PLR-16?
It pretty much has a barrel shroud that would make it easy enough to fire with two hands.


Well that's why barrel shrouds came under fire a few years ago, even though that moron Carolyn McCarthy called it "a shoulder thing that goes up".

That's why I say the ATF is in kind of an odd spot on this.

They have said that a VERTICAL foregrip is illegal, but grabbing the mag well or a barrel shroud is not.

I think they are on shaky ground but no one in their right mind would want to fight them on it.

30mag
August 1, 2009, 07:07 PM
I must not be in my right mind then..
But I'm a poor 18 year old kid.
I'm on my way though.

Guns and more
August 1, 2009, 08:19 PM
In the eyes of the media, it makes it a high capacity automatic assault rifle.

30mag
August 2, 2009, 11:01 AM
Who cares what the media thinks?

tju1973
August 2, 2009, 12:05 PM
Yes, to reiterate what others have said-- a pistol with a foregrip, without an Stamp-- is a Fed Offense--
The same goes for a pistol with a buttstock, without a barrel of a certain length.
The exceptions are C&R pistols that are kept historical with the stock-- ie Lugers with a stock--

Not sure the exacts, but I would search for the info--

Remember you run of the mill ATF guy/girl is no more evil than the local police, and they do not always know the laws to the letter-- its the paper pushers at a desk that will bust you....

30mag
August 5, 2009, 08:54 PM
What sort of stamp would you have to get for the foregrip to be legal?

HankB
August 5, 2009, 09:02 PM
I remember during the early days of pistol metallic silhouette shooting some folks were converting XP100s to big cartridges, and building stocks with two grips. No big deal . . .

But some bureaucrat decided to legislate from his desk, and make law where none existed.

Most people recognize it as so much bovine excrement, but as has already been stated - nobody wants to be the test case.

Are YOU willing to expend legal fees that will probably run well into six figures, if there's even a 10% chance you'll end up with a felony conviction? (And if you win . . . you're STILL out an awful lot of green.)

bobotech
August 5, 2009, 09:17 PM
What sort of stamp would you have to get for the foregrip to be legal?

Short Barreled Rifle.

You could then put a stock on it too.

DMK
August 5, 2009, 09:41 PM
What sort of stamp would you have to get for the foregrip to be legal?
AOW (Any Other Weapon) if you don't want a stock.

eye5600
August 6, 2009, 01:44 PM
In Connecticut, the AWB is forbids pistols with any kind of grip on the barrel. I believe the idea is to disallow grips that make the weapon easier to fire from the hip.

So it varies by state.

Phatty
August 6, 2009, 05:41 PM
TexasRifleman summed up the answer best. There was a significant discussion as to this exact issue several months ago. If I recall, the general consensus was that adding a forward grip to a pistol is technically legal, but as TR mentioned the ATF takes the position that it is illegal, so you're risking a criminal prosecution by adding the forward grip. Even though you'd probably beat the charge in the end, the many drawbacks of enduring the criminal prosecution just aren't worth it.

Edit: Here's a link to the earlier discussion: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5600498

atblis
October 1, 2009, 07:59 PM
Rather than start a new thread, I'll throw my question in. How does the ATF reconcile that most modern pistols are designed and built to be fired by two hands? Curved and serrated trigger guards anybody?

I'd be curious to see what the ATF has to say about pistols that are currently offered and designed to be fired with two hands from the factory. That list would include
-Glock
-CZ
-H&K

TexasRifleman
October 1, 2009, 08:14 PM
How does the ATF reconcile that most modern pistols are designed and built to be fired by two hands? Curved and serrated trigger guards anybody?

There is a big difference between being ABLE to fire with 2 hands and being "designed and intended" to be fired with 2 hands.

The definition of handgun is:

(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and

(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled

I can guarantee no handgun maker states that their design is "intended" to be fired with 2 hands.

That you CAN do it doesn't change the definition. If some gun maker were to be dumb enough to describe their firearm that way they would suffer the consequences.

You CAN fire many rifles with a single hand, but that doesn't mean that they were designed with that in mind.

As usual, and I should add it to my sig, "gun laws are stupid".

atblis
October 1, 2009, 08:22 PM
So you're trying to tell me this wasn't designed to be fired by two hands? The front of the trigger guard is simply for styling purposes?

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/atblis/grock.jpg

Zoogster
October 1, 2009, 08:26 PM
The current view upheld as law by the ATF is that a vertical forward grip turns the handgun into an AOW.

They justify this because a pistol in federal law is defined as a firearm designed to be fired by one hand. A shotgun or rifle both have stocks. So they have declared it to be an "Any Other Weapon".

An "Any Other Weapon" without a $200 tax stamp, FBI background check, and other state and federal requirements is in violation of the NFA.

So it is a major felony to attach a forward grip to a pistol according to the ATF.


Yet horizontal grips, seem to be perfectly fine, especially those which are not grips like barrel shrouds and rails on things like AR pistols.
Yet it appears even those which are actually grips are allowed.

For example these are legally sold as pistols:

http://www.auto-ordnance.com/imgs/img_PA_ta5.jpg

Removing the horizontal wood grip and adding this vertical forward grip
http://www.auto-ordnance.com/PA-1B/images/pr_sgn1007_9.jpg
would be a felony according to the ATF.

Frank Ettin
October 1, 2009, 08:33 PM
So you're trying to tell me this wasn't designed to be fired by two hands? The front of the trigger guard is simply for styling purposes?...Some modern pistols may have features that facilitate the use of the weak hand in support. But they remain primarily one handed weapons. Or do you really want the BATF to go after all everyone who owns a Glock?

TexasRifleman
October 1, 2009, 08:37 PM
So you're trying to tell me this wasn't designed to be fired by two hands? The front of the trigger guard is simply for styling purposes?

Correct. It was designed to be fired with one hand. That you CAN use 2 hands doesn't change that. It's a one handed weapon and you will not get the manufacturer to say otherwise.
So yes, that is purely for styling purposes if you were to ask a US based manufacturer. :)

You're trying to make sense of a gun law and I can assure you that you won't be able to do that.

Diamondback6
October 1, 2009, 08:39 PM
Actually, the 1927A5 is in a gray area, since it's built from "rifle" parts--there are A5's that were built with the vertical foregrips and are still Title I, the version I heard at the Thompson board on MachineGunBoards.com (which has at least one ATF agent among its active posters) was that they had to stretch the barrel 3" over the original TSMG to get its OAL long enough to be Title I.

atblis
October 1, 2009, 08:46 PM
Do these ATF letters mean anything in court? This really needs to be challenged in court.

I think I'll write some leading letter about the one handed thing and get them to firmly commit to the "designed to be fired by one hand" crap, and then try the Glock thing on them referencing the previous letter. It should be good for a chuckle. I suspect their argument will be that it is designed to be fired in both manners (one handed and two handed), and it can still be fired in the one handed configuration which is the primary intent...or some other BS. I am getting a headache. Enough.

FIVETWOSEVEN
October 1, 2009, 08:50 PM
In Connecticut, the AWB is forbids pistols with any kind of grip on the barrel. I believe the idea is to disallow grips that make the weapon easier to fire from the hip.
they don't want it easier to fire from the hip because its clearly more deadly than accautly aiming

Zoogster
October 1, 2009, 08:54 PM
Actually, the 1927A5 is in a gray area, since it's built from "rifle" parts--there are A5's that were built with the vertical foregrips and are still Title I, the version I heard at the Thompson board on MachineGunBoards.com (which has at least one ATF agent among its active posters) was that they had to stretch the barrel 3" over the original TSMG to get its OAL long enough to be Title I.

Interesting. I went and did some quick searching and found many have been sold for decades with vertical forward grips, even when the overall length of the firearm is under 26", and the barrel length is around 10".

So they are under 26", have no stock, have around a 10" barrel, are considered a pistol, and have a forward vertical grip.
http://i38.tinypic.com/2yo8jh5.jpg


Yet adding a vertical forward grip on a pistol is normally considered a felony crime of making an AOW per the ATF.
So for some it is okay, and for others is a felony.

Always glad gun laws make sense. :banghead:

atblis
October 1, 2009, 08:54 PM
That's the best way to shoot running school children. Didn't you know?

Humakavula
October 1, 2009, 09:03 PM
I have a S&W model 10 that was customized by my grandpa before he gave it to me. It has a 5'' fat barrel on it with an attached piece of metal screwed onto the bottom that comes down about in inch... when he showed me how to shoot the gun "the right way" he told me to put a glove on and grip the barrel right there. I removed it because it was ugly but i shot so much better with it... If I put it back on would I be breaking the law??

atblis
October 1, 2009, 09:31 PM
In reality, there's a possibility you wouldn't be breaking the law. We don't actually know for sure. What the ATF says is not the law, but rather their interpretation and thus recommendation on how it should be enforced. However, it might as well be the law, as the risk is not worth it. The legal fees to fight it would be what? tens of thousands of dollars? The stress of facing a felony conviction...

Zoogster
October 2, 2009, 12:01 AM
I have a S&W model 10 that was customized by my grandpa before he gave it to me. It has a 5'' fat barrel on it with an attached piece of metal screwed onto the bottom that comes down about in inch... when he showed me how to shoot the gun "the right way" he told me to put a glove on and grip the barrel right there. I removed it because it was ugly but i shot so much better with it... If I put it back on would I be breaking the law??

The ATF has stated that adding a vertical forward grip is making an AOW. They have issued letters that putting a forward grip on a pistol is the making of an AOW.

Here is such a letter once located at http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/041006-vert_grip.htm and now missing:

U.S. Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives


Washington, DC 20226


Adding a Vertical Fore Grip to a Handgun

“Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand…. Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(29).

Under an implementing regulation of the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. 479.11, “pistol” is defined 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).

The NFA further defines the term “any other weapon” (AOW) as 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 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. 5845(e).

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.

To lawfully add a vertical fore grip to a handgun, a person must make an appropriate application on ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm.” The applicant must submit the completed form, along with a fingerprint card bearing the applicant’s fingerprints; a photograph; and $200.00. The application will be reviewed by the NFA Branch. If the applicant is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law, and possession of an “AOW” is not prohibited in the applicant’s State of residence, the form will be approved. Only then may the person add a vertical fore grip to the designated handgun.

A person may also send the handgun to a person licensed to manufacture NFA weapons. The manufacturer will install the fore grip on the firearm and register the firearm on an ATF Form 2. The manufacturer can then transfer the firearm back to the individual on an ATF Form 4, which results in a $5.00 transfer tax. If the manufacturer is out of State, the NFA Branch will need a clarification letter submitted with the ATF Form 4 so that the NFA Branch Examiner will know the circumstances of the transfer. Questions can be directed to the NFA Branch or the Firearms Technology Branch.


Interestingly a wiki article pointed to this case:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_davis2.txt

The ATF lost the argument within that case that a pistol with such a grip was an AOW, and the court ruled they were only pistols.
The ATF however chose to drop those specific charges, which avoided setting precedent.
So it is as if that ruling never happened.



Technically there is nothing in the law that says you cannot have a vertical forward grip, or that says you can have a horizontal forward grip.
These are the opinions the ATF has arrived at based on the law, and what they will enforce as the law.
So if you choose to install a vertical forward grip you may or may not be breaking the law, but you would be violating the law according to the opinion of the agency tasked with enforcing the law.


The ATF manages to arrive at this conclusion because a pistol is described as being fired with a one handed grip. So any pistol designed to be fired with more than one hand is no longer a pistol. So its not a pistol. Then what is it? They say it falls under the "any other weapon" clause and is an AOW.

They have declared that attaching a vertical forward grip is manufacture of an AOW in felony violation of the law.
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.

So you face a large fines and 20 years in prison by attaching a vertical forward grip to a handgun, and then possessing that firearm.



Yet there is clearly people that do it, get away with it, and even companies that have sold legal models that came that way from the factory for decades.

So is it legal? Maybe. But do you want to take on the ATF?

akodo
October 2, 2009, 02:26 AM
Some modern pistols may have features that facilitate the use of the weak hand in support. But they remain primarily one handed weapons. Or do you really want the BATF to go after all everyone who owns a Glock?

Actually, yes, the BATF going afte everyone who had a Glock would be wonderful, as it would show how wrong the definition is and how silly so many ATF decisions are.

But here's the thing. BATF works out it's definitions backwards. It sees something it believes is 'evil-scary-bad' and then attempts to identify features that seperate it from others. This his how you get silly ideas like the presense or absence of a bayonet lug has an effect on the lethality of a weapon.

But BATF also knows that if they do go too crazy they would get smacked down.

Something similar exists in the world of shotguns. A 12 gauge shotgun is something like 729 caliber. Anything over 50 caliber is a Destructive Device...so the ATF grants ALL shotguns 'sporting purpose exemptions' except for a few oddball designs like the street sweeper. ATF doesn't have to. ATF is fully within their rights and power to look at a double barrelled shotgun and say 'we aren't giving you a sporting exemption' of course if they did, it would open a ka-ka storm as the stupidity of their rules would come to light.


Do these ATF letters mean anything in court? This really needs to be challenged in court.

yes and no. The letters carry meaning as far as due process. I.E. the info is out there so if you break their policy, you know or should have known it was illegal.

However, this is how it works. The Legislative Branch creates the laws while the Executive Branch enforces them. There is always always always some leeway on how laws are enforced and some wiggle room in the language of how laws are written. Hence the executive side of government ends up looking at the law and create policy decisions around it. These are followed as if they are law.

If push comes to shove, you get charged and a judge looks at the law and at the policy and sees if the policy really is what the legislative branch intended when they wrote it. He also looks at other decisions based on that same law. The judge can then make a ruling that even though your action violated policy, the policy was not consistent with the law, and that policy is now null and void. Judges cannot nulify a law (unless they can cite a contradictory law that trumps it) but they sure as heck can nulify policy.

Frank Ettin
October 2, 2009, 02:39 AM
...the BATF going afte everyone who had a Glock would be wonderful, as it would show how wrong the definition is and how silly so many ATF decisions are....I'm sure that everyone who has a Glock will appreciate your point of view. And if you think BATF is so "out to lunch" why don't you take them on. Or do you prefer to sit on the sidelines while others do the heavy lifting, incur the substantial expense and expose themselves to the risk?

paul
October 2, 2009, 09:24 AM
There was a recent Circuit Court (7th?) decision stating that there is no significant difference between a horizontal and vertical foregrip...
I believe out of South Carolina...
Please help me find it, will ya.:confused:

So, citizens in this district are free to add a grip as desired.
Apparently this "federal" law only applies to some of us.
Gotta love it.
p

Zoogster
October 2, 2009, 03:45 PM
There was a recent Circuit Court (7th?) decision stating that there is no significant difference between a horizontal and vertical foregrip...
I believe out of South Carolina...
Please help me find it, will ya.

I believe that is the one I cited in my previous post. They did in fact rule they were not an AOW, but the ATF dropped those charges and that aspect went away.

Since the ATF dropped the charges no precedent was set because the case is no more.



24. The 9 millimeter and .22 caliber pistols seized by ATF
were modified by adding an additional grip.

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).


As to the motion to dismiss concerning the two pistols, this
court concludes that the weapons are "pistols" as defined and are
not "any other weapons," and that the motion to dismiss as to the
pistol counts should be granted.


And now, this 24 day of September, 1993, the within Motion is
granted, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that Indictment and
Superseding Indictment Number 8:93-106, against the Defendants,
GORDON T. DAVIS, and SANDRA G. DAVIS, be and the same is hereby
dismissed without prejudice.

"Without prejudice" means the ruling means very little. That the ATF was in fact free to refile the same charges later if they wished.
If it had been dismissed with prejudice it would have set case law.

So the ATF dropping the charges and a dismissal without prejudice means the courts finding that they were never "Any Other Weapons" and were still "pistols" means very little.


If the charges had not been dismissed and it was taken to trial that ruling would have meant people of that district would not be subject to vertical forward grip limitations. Only people of that district.

There is already similar situations in many aspects of federal law. The exact same federal law can mean something different in every single federal district.
Each time you cross one of these district lines you are subject to different case law on things which have not been further resolved by the SCOTUS. Meaning you are under entirely different federal law, even though it is the same statutes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg/620px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg.png

Prince Yamato
October 2, 2009, 04:05 PM
Can anyone picture the court case where someone with no additional charges submits there evidence to the jury?

[Shows jury Glock 17] here is a pistol. If I add this piece of plastic to this pistol [shows flashlight], I am within the law. If put this piece on the pistol [shows vertical foregrip], I go to jail for ten years. I am in this courtroom today because I attached one type of plastic to my gun instead of the other...

Zoogster
October 2, 2009, 04:17 PM
If put this piece on the pistol [shows vertical foregrip], I go to jail for ten years.

20 years. It is 10 years for making it, and 10 years for possessing it.

They can also tack on other charges like "conspiracy" to make it, and "conspiracy" to possess it. Conspiracy charges carry the same punishment as the actual charges themselves.

So that alone could potentially reach 40 years.
Then they can create false allegations to get the charge count much higher, saying your legal weapons were various violations of this and that. Fully expecting those charges to be dropped, but still charging you with them.
So you enter court charged with dozens of weapons violations.
Fully expecting a lot of the courts time and energy, and your lawyers energy, to be spent dropping those untrue ones. Also making it appear to the jury that so many charges have been dropped, that finding you guilty of the couple remaining is some sort of "middle ground" or "compromise".

That is how courts work many times now. Look at numerous large cases and the actual number of charges for a single act. They don't just charge for the single act like they did 20 years ago. Now one criminal action is a laundry list of charges.


Of course they would most likely give you very little time, give you a felony record, fine you, and then control you through probation or parole for years to come instead over such a minor offense.
Especially if you plead guilty. If you fought it they might stick it to you and give you more years, but you would have a chance of winning.

Z-Michigan
October 2, 2009, 04:23 PM
Conspiracy charges require proof of two or more people acting in concert to violate the law. Our federal legal system is bad, but it's not quite as bad as allowing one-person conspiracies to double the sentence.

Prince Yamato
October 2, 2009, 08:13 PM
I still think if one was only charged with the possession/creation of the weapon and not in conjunction with any other crime, like murder, that they'd probably have a shot at getting off. Now, I'm not willing to test this, but I think it's a possibility, given how stupid the NFA laws are.

akodo
October 3, 2009, 04:18 AM
I'm sure that everyone who has a Glock will appreciate your point of view. And if you think BATF is so "out to lunch" why don't you take them on. Or do you prefer to sit on the sidelines while others do the heavy lifting, incur the substantial expense and expose themselves to the risk?

jumping to conclusions aren't you.

Let me assure you I put my money where my mouth is, and in more ways than just paying my NRA dues.

The fact that I have not chosen to make myself a test-case is irrelevant.

My question to you, fiddletown, is what have YOU done in the name of RKBA? Are you an NRA member? Belong to other RKBA groups? How often to you donate to legal defense funds for RKBA cases that ARE in the works? Ever stand up to the powers-that-be and demand they follow the letter of the law when they are overreaching and infringing RKBA? Ever staff a table at a gamefair or gunshow handing out literature about new gun legislation? How often have you called your congressmember?

The fact is, most people don't get involved unless their one little corner of the the hobby is targeted. As long as the BATF goes after Krinkovs and Thompsons with forward grips, playing their games of forcing compliance through fear of litigation and dumping cases when people rally and bring forth funding to fight, we won't make progress. How many hunters who only own bolt action rifles care about the Cavalry Arms ATF raid? How many AR-15 owners have an entirely different opinion?

That's why I hope the BATF decides to prove their point about 'two hands' by targeting a very common handgun, because fence sitters will get off their duff and pony up money for a defense fund and call their congressmembers. Do I hope it is my glock that they go after? No. But believe you me, that is the kind of stunt that would get a ton of gunowners involved...and that's why they BATF wouldn't do it.

The BATF knows not to wake the sleeping giant. They also know they can nibble away at that giant, making him smaller every year. That's why I hope the BATF gives the giant sharp poke in the eyeball, to wake it up! Doesn't mean I think poking people in the eyeball is a good thing, or that I want to let someone poke me in the eyeball.

Frank Ettin
October 3, 2009, 07:41 AM
...My question to you, fiddletown, is what have YOU done in the name of RKBA? Are you an NRA member? Belong to other RKBA groups? How often to you donate to legal defense funds for RKBA cases that ARE in the works? Ever stand up to the powers-that-be and demand they follow the letter of the law when they are overreaching and infringing RKBA? Ever staff a table at a gamefair or gunshow handing out literature about new gun legislation? How often have you called your congressmember?...Since you asked --

[1] I'm a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA and regularly contribute additional money to the NRA.

[2] I'm a Life Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and regularly contribute to the CFPA Foundation.

[3] I'm a Life Member of the Safari Club and regularly contribute to the SCI Foundation.

[4] For the last 10 years or so I've been an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, and for the last couple of years I've also been certified for NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home and Shotgun. Working with several other instructors I've helped put on NRA Basic Handgun and Personal Protection Classes for hundreds of students, introducing them the right way to shooting. I have never accepted any payment for my teaching.

[5] For the last several years I've worked with a group of instructors who have organized as a non-profit, tax exempt organization to provide instruction (I secured our tax exemption from the IRS and the State Franchise Tax Board). We charge only enough to cover our costs (range fees, the ammunition we provide, the program materials we purchase and distribute, etc.).

[6] For the last 7 to 8 years, I've helped teach basic wingshooting classes at our club. I've helped introduce another several hundred new shooters to wingshooting and trap shooting. And again, I've never accepted payment.

[7] I've helped organize and coach a youth Scholastic Clay Target Program trap shooting program at our club. We've provided the opportunity for more than a hundred kids to learn and participate in shooting sports.

[8] And I've written he usual letters to various legislators.

So how about you? What do you do for the RKBA?

444
October 3, 2009, 12:11 PM
I have a forward vertical grip for my Glock 34: IMO it does absolutely nothing for making it easier to shoot accurately.


FWIW: A shoulder stock does nothing either.

I can shoot much better shooting it as a conventional pistol out of a conventional stance (Weaver).


If you are thinking about doing this, it is a waste of time and money.

smince
October 3, 2009, 12:38 PM
So, with 4 points of contact you can't shoot as well as with two?

:confused:

444
October 3, 2009, 12:49 PM
Right:

First of all, the stock puts the rear sight at the wrong distance from your eye. When you are shooting with the stock, the rear sight looks like it is so wide you can't even center the front sight in it. I have shot a number of guns equipped with stocks other than the Glock (Luger....etc.) and never found that the stock adds anything.
Second, I shoot with two hands anyway. Moving my weak hand forward adds nothing. I also think that "locking" your hands together is stronger and steadier than holding your hands apart by several inches. Try this one for yourself: dry fire with a conventional grip then try it again placing your weak hand up in front of the trigger guard. See if it helps or hurts.

If you ever hear the logic behind the conventional handgun shooting stances, they make sense: dynamic tension between your hands, and all that. It is steadier than using a stock or a forward grip.

smince
October 3, 2009, 01:40 PM
First of all, the stock puts the rear sight at the wrong distance from your eye. When you are shooting with the stock, the rear sight looks like it is so wide you can't even center the front sight in it.Roughly the same as an AK/SKS or the buckhorn sights used on most every lever action gun made. Of course, I know it is stylish to put those type of sights down in modern times because they aren't peep or ghost-rings.
dynamic tension between your hands, and all that. It is steadier than using a stock or a forward grip. I suppose you shoot a long gun the same way:confused:

Because, basically, with a stock, forward grip, your hand on the pistol grip, and your cheek resting on the stock, you are using the same stance for shooting a carbine/smg.

444
October 3, 2009, 07:04 PM
Ok, by all means, register your pistol as an SBR and then buy the stock and forward grip.
It sounds like you know more about than I do.
Good luck.

EmGeeGeorge
October 3, 2009, 07:07 PM
how about a fixed bipod on a pistol... ? like a charger...

smince
October 3, 2009, 07:54 PM
Ok, by all means, register your pistol as an SBR and then buy the stock and forward grip.
It sounds like you know more about than I do.
Good luck. I have used them in the past, and do see a current niche for them.

Unfortunately, living in Alabama I can't have an SBR or SBS. If it were legal, I'd have stocked my G17L and added a VFG. I see nothing wrong with having a short, handy carbine that uses the same magazines as my handgun.

I will admit as an AOW it has a more limited role.

jojo200517
October 5, 2009, 12:59 AM
They have said that a VERTICAL foregrip is illegal, but grabbing the mag well or a barrel shroud is not
Humm, wonders about those things for the AR crowd that go on the mag well and add finger grooves making it a grip. I bet one of the liberal "barrel shroud is the part you put up to your shoulder" people could make it illegal. I mean with welding gloves you could probably hold a revolver by the barrel with the other hand if it was long enough is that illegal too? This is just proving that all gun restrictions are designed to be stupid and confusing.

I clearly need to get on the ball by designing and making a universal adapter that will fit all handgun rails and have a rail attached at a 90 degree angle to the original rail. They haven't said anything about horizontal fore grips on handguns yet. Besides it would look more gangsta/mall ninja style.

smince
October 5, 2009, 04:34 AM
I clearly need to get on the ball by designing and making a universal adapter that will fit all handgun rails and have a rail attached at a 90 degree angle to the original rail. They haven't said anything about horizontal fore grips on handguns yet.Most any of the current light mounts will serve the same purpose. The Glock factory light looks almost like a fore grip.

FIVETWOSEVEN
October 7, 2009, 10:50 PM
the AOW reg needs to be done away with, it makes no sense.

akodo
October 8, 2009, 01:24 AM
So how about you? What do you do for the RKBA?

replied in PM. but I most note, I don't see you offering yourself up as a test case either

Frank Ettin
October 8, 2009, 01:32 AM
...replied in PM. but I most note, I don't see you offering yourself up as a test case either...Haven't received the PM yet. But no, I have no real interest in the out come, so I have no interest in being a test case. However, I also wasn't suggesting that a Glock should be considered firearm intended to be fired with two hands, thus exposing all Glock owners to BATF scrutiny.

LAR-15
October 8, 2009, 01:47 PM
You are adding a grip to a PISTOL not a handgun


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


Look at the definition of pistol NOT handgun

If you enjoyed reading about "Front grip on a pistol??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!