Pistols with vertical forgrips = AOWs correct?

[FFMedic]

Yesterday I visited my favorite gun store. A large, local store that has been around since the 50s and I do the majority of my shopping at. The staff there is normally WAY above par with most gun shops.

I was shocked to see a Ruger Charger in the display case that was an NFA gun. They had placed the action into the ProMag Archangel stock.

http://www.northwestshootersupply.c...hangelconversionpackagesightsnotincluded.aspx

Well thay had also placed a red dot sight on it and a vertical forgrip. The tag said "for sale as configured, $450.00". I asked one of the counter guys who stuck the accessories on the Charger and he replied they sometimes put some accessories on guns before they sell them and they had done just that. I told him that a pistol with 2 vertical grips was considered an AOW by the BATFE and needed a stamp. He blew me off pretty much. The shop does not even do class 3/NFA transfers so I don't expect them to know much about it but still...

I'm not sure what else I could do. I'm anticipating somebody buying that Charger and getting busted or possibly my lfavorite gun store getting shut down by the BATFE. I am correct about the AOW classification correct?

FFMedic

 

[Cannonball888]

Pistols with vertical forgrips = AOWs correct?

Yep. They are legally too scary-looking for the average citizen to posess. Everyone knows a foregrip on a pistol increases it's firepower by ten-fold.

 

[WC145]

The Charger pictured in the link you provided is fine, it is not an AOW until you add the vertical foregrip. Then all hell breaks loose.

If you want to add one yourself it's paperwork + $200 for the tax stamp.
If you buy the pistol with the VFG already attached from an authorized dealer it's the same paperwork + $5 transfer.

 

[deadin]

Just check the definition of a handgun (i.e. pistol, etc.)
"A firearm designed to be fired with one hand"
Adding a forward pistol grip makes it designed for two hands, ergo AOW.

 

[Cannonball888]

Just check the definition of a handgun (i.e. pistol, etc.)
"A firearm designed to be fired with one hand"
Adding a forward pistol grip makes it designed for two hands, ergo AOW.

I guess I need to give up my weaver stance and practice cowboy action shooting

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

The definitive answer is:

Unknown
Gray Area
It Depends who you ask
It's Arguable either way
Depends on what the judge deciding your case had for lunch on the day he/she rules at your trial

But do you want to take the risk of them making that argument and arresting you? I suggest not. Though transfer of an AOW is only $5, IIRC the manuf. of an AOW is $200. Fill out the form and pay the gov't to be safe is what I'd do, or perhaps better yet, forget the P-grip.

 

[Trebor]

Print out the relevant ATF regs and ask to talk to the manager. Give him a copy and tell him you'd hate to see one of his customer's buy this and get in trouble through the shop's mistake.

Put the URL of the ATF printout on the page so they can look it up on-line for themselves if they don't believe you.

 

[deadin]

I guess I need to give up my weaver stance and practice cowboy action shooting

It doesn't say that you have to shoot a handgun with one hand. It just says that it's designed to be shot with one hand. If it's designed for two hands, it's not a "handgun" .
I can shoot a rifle with one hand. Does that make it a handgun?

 

[psyopspec]

The definitive answer is:

Unknown

Incorrect, sir. So long as humans have two hands, and a weapon has two distinct (more readily identifiable if vertical) grips, it ain't a handgun. It can be a rifle, shotgun, SBS, SBR, AOW. But not a handgun.

 

[Phatty]

The definitive answer is:

Unknown
Gray Area
It Depends who you ask
It's Arguable either way
Depends on what the judge deciding

That is the best answer. My interpretation of the regs is that adding a forward grip does not convert the weapon into an AOW. However, I can see how a motivated prosecutor/ATF agent/judge could come down the other way, so it's better safe than sorry.

By the way, here's the actual definition of a pistol from the federal regs (27 CFR 479.11):

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

For comparison purposes, check out the definition of a rifle:

Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

Notice that with a pistol, the "held in one hand" language is limited to "originally designed," whereas the rifle definition also includes "or redesigned" and "or remade." So if the "original" design of the gun was meant to be held with one hand, and it is later modified to be held with two hands, I think it is still captured by the pistol definition.

The part that is debatable is the last clause of the pistol definition regarding the "short stock" that is supposed to be "designed to be gripped by one hand." I interpret that clause to be limited to the rear grip itself, and not meant to apply to the weapon as a whole. Also, does the "originally designed" language apply to just the first part of the definition, or does it apply to the whole thing?

 

[psyopspec]

It's not just "designed." It's "designed, made, and intended." This includes the language about firing and clause (b) about gripping with one hand. If it has two devices whose sole design is to be gripped by one hand, then 1+1=2, and suddenly it's intended to be gripped by 2 hands.

 

[Phatty]

psyopspec,

What about the "originally" language? Your response seemed to ignore that aspect of my interpretation of the definition.

 

[psyopspec]

When it no longer follows the original design/make/intention, it becomes an AOW.

If a gun has rifled barrel(s) of less than 16", and it has never had a shoulder stock it would be a pistol, unless it either has no grip at an angle to the bore, or if it has more than one grip. ATF has made the questionable decision that a handgun with more than one grip 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 court 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. Whether ATF will regard the decision as binding beyond that case is unknown, I would doubt it.

From James Bardwell, http://fullautofun.homestead.com/page36.html

In other words, some pistols become AOWs, but not all AOWs are derived from pistols. If the "original intent" clause were to be strict, a pistol could never be anything other than a pistol, for that was its original design. That said, it appears your argument has some case law to stand on, but like the gent quoted above, I wouldn't put it past BATFE to not recognize said law. Also, not being a lawyer and having not read the decision, I don't know of it's application or scope.

 

[Phatty]

That said, it appears your argument has some case law to stand on, but like the gent quoted above, I wouldn't put it past BATFE to not recognize said law.

I completely agree with you, which is why I said "better safe than sorry." I personally wouldn't take the chance. Even if the judge ultimately rules in my favor, who wants to deal with the hassel of a criminal prosecution?

If the "original intent" clause were to be strict, a pistol could never be anything other than a pistol, for that was its original design.

The definitions in the NFA and the applicable regs are not all mutually exclusive. Thus, you could have a weapon that is defined as a pistol under the NFA but also be defined as a SBR because it is later modified by adding a shoulder stock. However, a weapon can never be both an AOW and a pistol under the NFA because the AOW definition excludes pistols.

 

[Phatty]

psyopspec,

I found the case that you alluded to above. It was a Ninth Circuit opinion from 2001, United States v. Fix. Here's the excerpt of the relevant part:

Fix argues that the government did not prove the Calico Liberty III, found during a search of his home and business, was a weapon that required registration. Fix was convicted under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) of possession of an unregistered firearm. In a related provision, "firearm" is defined by a list of eight weapons and a catchall provision of "any other weapon." See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a). "Any other weapon" includes "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive," but not "a pistol . . . having a rifled bore . . ." See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). Weapons not included in the definition of firearm in § 5845 need not be registered under § 5861(d). Fix argues that his Calico was a pistol, met the exception in § 5845(e), and did not need to be registered under § 5861.

We agree that the Government failed to prove a violation of § 5861(d) for two reasons.

First, the weapon does not fit the definition required by the statute. The provision defining "pistol" for the purposes of the statute is 27 C.F.R. § 179.11, which defines a pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand . . . ." The government argues that because the Calico was modified to be fired with two hands, it "falls out" of the definition of pistol and falls back into the definition of "any other weapon" in § 5845. This argument ignores the definition's requirement that the weapon be capable of being held with one hand at the time it was originally designed and made. As written, this definition does not consider modifications of the weapon by the owner. The Calico was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip.

Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in §§ 5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore. We assume that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons. A sawed off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun. The Government's witness stated that the Calico Liberty III had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered "any other weapon."

Accordingly, the conviction on Count V must be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence.

I am happy to see that the court interpreted the NFA the same way I did. If anyone ever gets arrested for this, it shouldn't be hard for them to get off with a competent attorney. But, like I said above, nobody would want to have to deal with getting arrested, going to trial, etc.

 

[psyopspec]

Phatty, I salute your research abilities, thanks for looking it up. On a related note, sad that the system requires this much research to put a stinkin' foregrip on railed pistol.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder

Or if you are the brady group; rapidly from the hip, possibly with a thing that goes up.

I'd much rather SBR a gun if paying the $200 stamp. Then you can add a VFG if you like, and actually shoulder it and aim.

 

[Phatty]

On a related note, sad that the system requires this much research to put a stinkin' foregrip on railed pistol.

The BATF is a tax collection agency, which was spun off from the IRS. Like the IRS, it is their job to make the rules and regulations as confusing as possible. Also like the IRS, they will enforce the collection of taxes with a vigor unlike anything in this world. It's no surprise that they will interpret everything and anything as being subject to a tax.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Also like the IRS, they will enforce the collection of taxes with a vigor unlike anything in this world.

With submachineguns and no-knock raids, unlike the rest of the IRS (wouldn't that make an audit even worse)

 

[highorder]

The BATF is a tax collection agency, which was spun off from the IRS.

Make no mistake about it, the BATFE is a Law Enforcment Agency. They are under the umbrella of the DHS, filed within the Justice Department.

 

[Owen Sparks]

What possible criminal advantage would anyone gain by adding a second grip to a semi automatic pistol?

BTW, I know a guy who has a stock less pistol grip shotgun. It also has a pistol type grip on the fore end. They are plastic and look somewhat like the grips on a Thompson gun. The barrel is over 18"
Is this also an NFA item?

 

[Sam1911]

BTW, I know a guy who has a stock less pistol grip shotgun. It also has a pistol type grip on the fore end. They are plastic and look somewhat like the grips on a Thompson gun. The barrel is over 18"
Is this also an NFA item?

Nope. It doesn't fall into the categories defined for an AOW. It is and always was a standard, Title I, shotgun. Like rifles, shotguns that fall under Title I may have whatever kind of forward grip you might want.

Real hilarity ensues (from the standpoint of someone trying to figure this all out) when you consider AR or AK build-ups. You can build either one as a Title I rifle. Or, starting with a bare receiver, you can build either one as a stock-less, Title I, PISTOL. Built as a rifle, you can add a forward vertical grip. Built as a pistol, you'd better not!

Or build either as a stocked, Title II Short Barreled Rifle, register it, pay the tax (before hand), and go ahead and add the vertical grip.

Same receiver, same caliber, same function, same capacity, (depending on the build) same barrel (pistol or SBR) but different classifications entirely.

Makes sense, don't it?

-Sam

 

[Owen Sparks]

Suppose I were to put a vertical foregrip on another Constitutionally protected item like a Bible or a newspaper, would that be a crime also?

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Yes, you'd be creating an AOP (any other publication) and in violation of several felonies! The Bureau of Engraving and Printing would be after you.

 

[Quiet]

From the BATFE website.

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.