Magpul AFG + AR pistol = AOW?

[Iansstud]

Anyone know for sure if the AFG is ATF ok on an AR pistol? It not Vertical dispite the name... Just like you CAN have a handstrap on an AR pistol.

Does anyone have Proof or a letter from the ATF or know 1st hand about this topic??

Thanks

 

[nalioth]

Might help if you'd 'splain what a "Magpul AVG" is.


. . . and for Pete's sake, please don't go off writin' letters to the ATF.

The law is quite clear on these matters, and I do not understand why folks have to write the revenuers for every little thing . . .

 

[highorder]

The Magpul AFG is a different take on a foregrip.

The NFA doesn't say a pistol can't have a foregrip, it says a "pistol" is "designed to be fired with one hand." The NFA is poorly written, and outdated.

 

[Iansstud]

AFG not AVG my mistake...

here: http://store.magpul.com/product/64/88

 

[Iansstud]

The NFA doesn't say a pistol can't have a foregrip, it says a "pistol" is "designed to be fired with one hand." The NFA is poorly written, and outdated.

are you saying I can have a Vertical foregrip? or that the AFG is ok?

Thanks

 

[highorder]

are you saying I can have a Vertical foregrip? or that the AFG is ok?

Hold on there, I don't have the authority to tell you anything.

Read this.

 

[Iansstud]

So a judge in 1993 said its ok, and the atf in 2006 said they will Prosecute.

So Im thinking the Vertical grip is a No-no but the AFG might be ok...

 

[kanook]

Lets us know how that works out for ya

Even though it looks legal, do you have the pocket book to help just in case?

 

[highorder]

So a judge in 1993 said its ok, and the atf in 2006 said they will Prosecute.

So Im thinking the Vertical grip is a No-no but the AFG might be ok...

You will be just fine unless someone decides to jam you up. If that's the case, you will have the opportunity to become the test case; hopefully you make it to the Supreme Court, and the BATFE loses. Then your name will be celebrated all through the land as one of the brave few that helped to restrain the BATFE.

 

[Quiet]

Do not install the Magpul AFG to an AR/AK/SIG/PLR pistol.
Unless you have BATFE approval to make an AOW.

If you install it onto a pistol, the pistol no longer meets the definition of a handgun and would be considered an AOW.




18 USC 921
(a) As used in this chapter—
(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.

27 CFR 478.11
Handgun.
(a) Any 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 paragraph (a) can be assembled.

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 and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

Semiautomatic pistol.
Any repeating pistol which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

BATFE NFA Handbook (ATF Publication 5320.8 April 2008)
2.1.5 Any other weapon.
Firearms meeting the definition of “any other weapon” are weapons or devices capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive. Many “any other weapons” are disguised devices such as penguns, cigarette lighter guns, knife guns, cane guns and umbrella guns.

Also included in the “any other weapon” definition are pistols and revolvers having smooth bore barrels designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

While the above weapons are similar in appearance to weapons made from shotguns, they were originally manufactured in the illustrated configuration and are not modified from existing shotguns. As a result, these weapons do not fit within the definition of shotgun or weapons made from a shotgun.

The “any other weapon” definition also includes specifically described weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading. The firearm most commonly associated with this portion of the definition is the Marble’s Game Getter.

The “any other weapon” definition excludes weapons designed to be fired from the shoulder that are not capable of firing fixed ammunition or a pistol or revolver having a rifled bore. However, certain alterations to a pistol or revolver, such as the addition of a second vertical handgrip, create a weapon that no longer meets the definition of pistol or revolver. A pistol or revolver modified as described is an “any other weapon” subject to the NFA because the weapon is not designed to be fired when held in one hand.

As stated above, a pistol or revolver having a rifled bore does not meet the definition of “any other weapon” and is not subject to the NFA. It is important to note that any pistol or revolver having a barrel without a rifled bore does not fit within the exclusion and is an “any other weapon” subject to the NFA.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Someone with the funds could probably sue for a declaratory judgment and therefore settle the law without risking their freedom.

Otherwise, while there is no good reason it should be illegal, I personally would not chance it by installing one.

 

[Avizpls]

damn it. An awesome idea, I didnt think of it, AND I cant really do it without worrying. Im pissed that I let thier tendency to make and enforce the rules as they go intimidate me! But....you know how it is. Frustrating

 

[PLRinmypocket]

does not look vertical to me, in fact it looks more horizontal to me.

ATF has a letter that specifically says VERTICAL foregrips are no-no's.... nothing about horizontal grips, or even almost horizontal grips. Technically a fore-end/barrel shroud is a horizontal grip, and perfectly legal on pistols. This AFG could just be an extension of a barrel shroud. In fact the way Magpul shows it being used actually puts the thumb to the side, or even around the fore-end, which is not at all like a vertical forward pistol grip is held.

But it is your choice to put it on or not. Personally, I think it is fine, but that's just one opinion, and does not mean much.

Best thing to do would be to send a letter to magpul and ask them. They may have allready gotten a ruling from the ATF on it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

ATF made every 11 inch shoestring in America a felony to own for a period of over 2 years.

Just keep that in mind if you try to play guessing games about what they would say.....

And no, I'm not making it up or exaggerating.

 

[Sholiz]

If you really want to know, write a letter to the ATF? That way you can keep the letter on file if they give you the "OK" and then try to screw you.

 

[nalioth]

f you really want to know, write a letter to the ATF? That way you can keep the letter on file if they give you the "OK" and then try to screw you.

Again, this does nothiing but screw everyone.

PLRinmypocket has it right - write Magpul and find out what the ATF told them.

Every letter an individual writes to to the government gives the revenuers a chance to reverse themselves.

Amazing how they do this, since the actual law hasn't changed from day 1.

 

[Girodin]

There are a few points of law that ought to be addressed in this thread.

Someone with the funds could probably sue for a declaratory judgment and therefore settle the law without risking their freedom.

Said person would run into the pesky doctrine of standing. The case would be promptly dismissed for lack of standing. No injury = no standing (with some exceptions that do not apply in this case, well perhaps a manufacturer could get standing under proximity of relationship)

Letters from the ATF, if they carry the force of law, carry it for the individual whose name is on it. If you found a thousand letters from the ATF saying it was okay they could still prosecute you the next day. Thus if you want to stand a better chance of being in the clear get your own letter make copies and keep them in safe places. I do not know if the code has a provision that would allow a defense of reasonable reliance on the publication of a govt official or not.

Amazing how they do this, since the actual law hasn't changed from day 1

It actually makes sense (well as much as it can) if you understand how executive agency law functions.

 

[nalioth]

Amazing how they do this, since the actual law hasn't changed from day 1

It actually makes sense (well as much as it can) if you understand how executive agency law functions.

Yeah, sorry. I forgot the [sarcasm] tags.

 

[Aaron Baker]

Asking an administrative agency for their opinion only tells you whether they'd prosecute you if you were the longest blade of grass when the mower came your way. It doesn't tell you whether it's legal.

Statutes and case law tell you whether it's legal. There's just a statute here and very little case law. (The 1993 case isn't precedent because it was dropped at the District Court level when the ATF lost.)

That said, if you don't have the money to fight the court battle, it's safer to stand only as tall as the other blades of grass by not putting any sort of even remotely vertical grip on your pistol.

IAALBNYL (I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer), but I think the proper way to resolve this issue would be to take your favorite MANUFACTURED pistol that has a rail and pay the ATF the tax to make an AOW by putting a forward vertical grip on it. Then sue them to get your tax money back.

If I recall correctly, that's how cases like the Thompson Contender case started. You do everything legally by jumping through the hoops the ATF sets up (getting the tax stamp) and then you ask for your money back in court. If the court rules in your favor, you get your $5 back and you also set a precedent that can be cited in other cases. (That precedent is only persuasive at the trial court level, but if the ATF appeals the loss and still loses, you've created binding case law.)

Now, the reason I capitalized the word "manufactured" above is because of the wording of the statute. It says that a pistol is a "weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile [...] when held in one hand, and [...] 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 important words are "originally designed, made, and intended." A Glock 17 is originally designed, made, and intended to be held in one hand and has a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand (etc). (That's the one original pistol grip.) So when you add a vertical foregrip to the front rail, you're taking something that's a pistol as originally designed and adding a new feature. BUT, and here's the important part, even though it's now capable of being held with two hands, it was still ORIGINALLY designed, made and intended to be fired with one hand.

The opposite case would be if you built a pistol-type gun from scratch and designed it with a vertical grip. Imagine making your own semi-auto Sten with no stock and a vertical foregrip. That wouldn't be a "pistol" under the law because it wasn't originally designed, made and intended to be used with only one hand.

See the critical distinction? It's whether the person that made the original gun put one or two grips on it.

So now we just have to get someone to bankroll the test case by paying the AOW tax to put a VFG on their Glock and then suing the ATF to get their taxes back. Perhaps Magpul would be interested in something like that? I don't know, but they sure would sell more foregrips if they were.

Aaron

Edit: Sorry for the bad information: the Form 1 tax for making an AOW is $200. Transfer tax on an AOW on a Form 4 is $5. So if you're making an AOW out of a Glock, as I suggested, you'd be fighting for your $200 back, not just $5. Too bad really--I'm confident someone could win such a case and it'd be funnier if it was only $5 you were fighting over.

 

[david_the_greek]

despite all attempts to hold back my mall ninja.... I kind of like that thing. Looks like a pretty natural grip

 

[praharin]

I'm confident someone could win such a case and it'd be funnier if it was only $5 you were fighting over.

Funnier, sure, but would get no less fight from the BATFE, or whomever. If they let it get by, then it would open the flood gates. Glocks everywhere would have vertical grips and senior citizens couldn't leave their houses at night. Chaos man, chaos!

 

[nwilliams]

despite all attempts to hold back my mall ninja.... I kind of like that thing. Looks like a pretty natural grip

It's actually very nice, I installed one on my AR and I really like it.

I actually think it's less mall ninja than a vertical grip, which is one of the reasons I like it.

Here it is on my Stag....

 

[Aaron Baker]

Funnier, sure, but would get no less fight from the BATFE, or whomever. If they let it get by, then it would open the flood gates. Glocks everywhere would have vertical grips and senior citizens couldn't leave their houses at night. Chaos man, chaos!

Well, sure, the BATFE would fight just as hard. But the way I see it, the plain language of the statute is pretty clear. "Originally made" doesn't leave much room. It can still be a pistol if that's how it was originally made. This is a winnable fight.

You see, really, I'm thinking of the senior citizens. I imagine them quaking in fear in their homes at night now, unable to firmly grip their Glocks with its meager single grip. Just think about how empowered those arthritic seniors would be if they could grip their pistol with two hands on two grips! They'd become a force to be reckoned with, taking back the night from the thugs and gangs!

Too much? Maybe too much...

But I still think it'd be an interesting court case!

Aaron

 

[Z-Michigan]

Said person would run into the pesky doctrine of standing. The case would be promptly dismissed for lack of standing. No injury = no standing (with some exceptions that do not apply in this case, well perhaps a manufacturer could get standing under proximity of relationship)

I'm familiar with standing. Like Aaron, IAALBNYL. I am not a litigator, however. I would think you could get standing by pleading that you want to attach the grip, there is a court case saying you're OK to do so, but BATFE has stated they will prosecute anyone who does so. To me that's a controversy that supports standing. But, anyway, Aaron's suggestion of paying the $5 tax and getting approval, then suing for a refund, is probably a better approach anyway.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Anybody thinking of playing cutesy with the ATF should read Dave Hardy's ATF Archives to get an idea of who they are screwing with and what type of behavior they can expect: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/batfe/index.php

Second, while I agree with Aaron Baker that this is definitely a winnable fight (and a good toehold to go after the NFA in general), even if you win, the ATF will just regulate/interpret the win into nothing.

For example, despite the Thompson Centerfire Contender ruling (at the Supreme Court level no less) from the 1990s, the ATF still takes the position that this applies only to that specific type of pistol and kit (which is no longer manufactured).

If you actually wanted to make the ruling stick, you would need the money to rub ATF's face in it over and over again until they finally acknowledged the general applicability of the rule rather than just carved out an extremely specific exception in their own Byzantine regulation for it.