Is this an AOW?


PDA






natedog
July 5, 2004, 09:08 PM
Is this an AOW? http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/viewitem.asp?item=20175269

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this an AOW?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
c_yeager
July 5, 2004, 09:21 PM
Someone here knows more about this than i do (in fact a whole bunch of people probably do). But, as i recal placing a foreward handguard or grip on a semi-auto pistol places it firmly into the AOW category.

SouthpawShootr
July 5, 2004, 10:47 PM
I believe you're right. Forward handgrips are a big no-no for pistols. I've looked at this auction before. My FFL would be very upset with me if I transferred in something like this.

hnm201
July 6, 2004, 01:41 AM
Illegal AND ridiculous in appearance

BluesBear
July 6, 2004, 02:31 AM
This would not be classified as an AOW (Any Other Weapon) nor would it be unlawful under the AWB since there aren't enough "assult weapon features".

The problem with forward grips has to do with pistols that have a detachable magazine NOT located in the grip. Which is why it is a no-no to put a foregrip on a pistol based on an AR-15 action.

Badger Arms
July 6, 2004, 01:00 PM
ATF has made the decision that a handgun (but not a machine gun,
since a machine gun is not also an AOW) with more than one hand
grip at an angle tot eh bore is an AOW. This is based on the gun
a) being concealable on the person, and b) not meeting the
definition of a "pistol" in the regulations promulgated under the
NFA, since they say a pistol has a single grip at an angle to the
bore. However, at least one federal magistrate has decided that if
the grip is added later, the gun is not "originally designed" to be
fired by holding in more than one grip, and thus putting a second
grip on a pistol does not make it an AOW. ATF does not regard the
decision as binding. The case is U.S. v. Davis, Crim No. 8:93-106
(D.S.C. 1993) (Report of Magistrate, June 21, 1993). The
prosecution was dismissed at the request of the Government before
any review of that determination by the trial judge.
27 CFR sec. 179.11 - "pistol. 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
at an angle to and extending below the line of the
bore(s). The term shall not include any gadget device,
any gun altered or converted to resemble a pistol, any
gun that fires more than one shot without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger, or any
small portable gun such as: Nazi belt buckle pistol,
glove pistol, or a one-hand stock gun designed to fire
fixed shotgun ammunition."

Source: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

Now, if you ain't already confused enough, you didn't read it well enough. So the definitive answer is... MAYBE. Of course, this obviously outlaws the 'Homeboy' pistol I was saving up to get... can anybody tell why?

http://www.topglock.com/images/hnsbig.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this an AOW?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!