Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AR15 Pistol

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by TimM, Jan 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TimM

    TimM Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    659
    Location:
    Parker, CO
    Hey Gang,
    I wasn't sure which subforum to post this question in so if this is the wrong one I apologize.

    I know that a vertical foregrip on a pistol is illegal but is it legal to put a Magpul angled foregrip on an AR pistol?
     
  2. mbogo

    mbogo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Why do you think that a vertical foregrip on a pistol is illegal?

    mbogo
     
  3. TimM

    TimM Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    659
    Location:
    Parker, CO
  4. Jeff H

    Jeff H Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,297
    Location:
    Ohio
    Because it is (without the tax stamp as the OP noted. )
     
  5. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    Yes. It is legal. I have a .jpg of the ATF letter with that opinion.
     
  6. TimM

    TimM Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    659
    Location:
    Parker, CO
    Thanks.
     
  7. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
  8. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,546
    I think it behooves us to be slightly more precise. The ATF, or at least certain tech branch employees have offered their opinion that it is legal. That does not make it the law. It does not even prevent the ATF from changing their opinion tomorrow. There are many examples of the ATF changing their opinion about what the law is.

    Until there is an adjudication of the issue we can at best say what the ATF's most recent opinion (subject to change without notice) is. Them offering those opinions is a good indication of how they plan to proceed and how they plan to enforce things in the near future. It, however, is not a binding statement of the generally applicable law.

    People seem to not understand what the exact significance of ATF opinion letters are.
     
  9. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    Most of what comes out of the ATF is "opinion". But they are the ones who are likely to send you to the gaol if you violate their opinions. I never said it was a law. If you would like to get the issue adjudicated, feel free.
     
  10. Aaron Baker

    Aaron Baker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    695
    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    For that matter, it is only the ATF's opinion that putting a vertical foregrip on a pistol transforms it into an Any Other Weapon.

    The definition of pistol under the NFA refers to a firearm originally designed to be held in one hand. Adding anything to an already manufactured firearm doesn't change its original design.

    So yeah, the ATF is pretty arbitrary in their opinions, and it really only indicates what they're likely to do or not do in enforcing the laws they interpret.

    But they're pretty clear on their opinion so far that the Magpul AFG isn't a vertical grip and is okay on pistols for now.

    Aaron
     
  11. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,546
    Actually you did, or at the very least strongly suggested it when you wrote:


    Actually, I'd rather not, at least not as a party. I wouldn't mind being counsel. I'm sure others share my sentiment. That is part of why I think we should be more precise in what we say so others understand. I can think of a few examples of things the ATF has suddenly changed their opinion about.

    I actually find this reasoning fairly compelling. The ATF argues that adding the VFG you are "making" a new weapon. That's far from a air tight argument IMHO, but that is the reasoning. I also find the definitions of "pistol" found in 27 C.F.R. § 479.11 and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29) to be problematic for a few reasons but that is another discussion.


    Exactly. More over they are known to change them with little notice and some times seemingly no rhyme or reason. Thus, as we have noted it is an indication of how they intended to enforce. However, to say it is legal, might leave one unaware that they could simply change their opinion tomorrow, next week, or next year, something they have a history of doing.

    What is really weird about the ATF giving the OK to AFG's is their reasoning for not allowing a VFG. From the ATF's website

    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

    Now how an AFG differs in that regard from a VFG is completely beyond me. The purpose of putting an AFG on it is clearly so you can shoot it with two hands.

    Perhaps it is just someone realizing the VFG reasoning is hokie but given that you have a bunch of gun registered as AOW based soley on having a VFG it would be problematic to abandon that interpretation. However, the AFG is a clean slate and they can distinguish it (even if not very logically) from a VFG. Or it could be some random inspector just thought, "well its not a VFG," without really thinking about or looking at the logic behind the VFG = AOW position. Who knows?

    My point is simply that it is probably best to be more clear rather than less clear about the status of the AFG.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page