ATF To Issue Two Monumental Determinations

Red1917 said:

What is the issue they are looking at with foregrips?

Click to expand...

outrider58 said:

The degree of angle to the barrel. I guess the police will have to carry a protractor soon.

Click to expand...

AlBeight said:

I don't recall that being one of the "evil" features. Or possibly other states do?? The article didn't say what angle they were looking for or why it's in question. This could be weird.

Click to expand...

Pistols with a second vertical grip
Many pistols feature a rail below the barrel, commonly used to mount a laser or flashlight. Attaching a vertical grip to this rail constitutes the manufacturing of an AOW firearm, as it is "no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand."[20] It is therefore illegal to place an aftermarket vertical foregrip on any pistol without first registering it as an AOW and paying the $200 "making and registering tax". Failure to do so is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.[20] However, if the receiver was originally manufactured to accept either a long or short barrel and a removal buttstock and fore grip and it can be assembled either as a rifle or a pistol, according to ATF rule 2011-4 it is not considered an NFA weapon as long as it is only assembled as a pistol without a buttstock or as a rifle with a barrel at least 16 inches long.[21] A vertical foregrip MAY be added to a pistol as long as the Overall Length (OAL) is greater than 26", regardless of barrel length, and providing the weapon remains unconcealed.[22] An AR-15 pistol with an overall length of 26" or longer may have a vertical foregrip installed, as long as no buttstock is installed in conjunction with a shorter than 16" barrel. The Sig Sauer Pistol Braces (SBS and SBX) are commonly found on these AR-15 style pistols with vertical foregrips since they are not considered buttstocks. The ATF does not consider a weapon in this configuration to be an AOW, but instead classifies it as a 'Firearm' which does not require any tax stamp or additional registration.

Click to expand...

Blaster229 said:

What's "MONUMENTAL" about them?

Click to expand...

Red1917 said:

What is the issue they are looking at with foregrips?

Click to expand...

outrider58 said:

BATF isn't real concerned with our "evil features" per se.

They are more concerned with proper classifications and registrations.

Quote:
Pistols with a second vertical grip
Many pistols feature a rail below the barrel, commonly used to mount a laser or flashlight. Attaching a vertical grip to this rail constitutes the manufacturing of an AOW firearm, as it is "no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand."[20] It is therefore illegal to place an aftermarket vertical foregrip on any pistol without first registering it as an AOW and paying the $200 "making and registering tax". Failure to do so is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.[20] However, if the receiver was originally manufactured to accept either a long or short barrel and a removal buttstock and fore grip and it can be assembled either as a rifle or a pistol, according to ATF rule 2011-4 it is not considered an NFA weapon as long as it is only assembled as a pistol without a buttstock or as a rifle with a barrel at least 16 inches long.[21] A vertical foregrip MAY be added to a pistol as long as the Overall Length (OAL) is greater than 26", regardless of barrel length, and providing the weapon remains unconcealed.[22] An AR-15 pistol with an overall length of 26" or longer may have a vertical foregrip installed, as long as no buttstock is installed in conjunction with a shorter than 16" barrel. The Sig Sauer Pistol Braces (SBS and SBX) are commonly found on these AR-15 style pistols with vertical foregrips since they are not considered buttstocks. The ATF does not consider a weapon in this configuration to be an AOW, but instead classifies it as a 'Firearm' which does not require any tax stamp or additional registration.


There are some AFGs on the market that are more VFGs than AFGs so I expect this may be what they plan to clarify. Just a guess going by what was mentioned in the link.

Click to expand...

TheGunnyRet said:

Here we go again, it seems we have "individuals" unable to leave well enough alone and asked "Stupid questions just like "Shouldering" Pistol Braces...

Now because you have certain types of "angled" forward grips and "grip stops" that separate an AR type Pistol into and AR SBR...

That's why "its MONUMENTAL" because there is the "Mental" part that has everybody OVER thinking... Just some more GD BS...

Click to expand...

777GSOTB said:

The problem is their classification from pistol to AOW with the addition of a VFG is incorrect.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. TED PARKER FIX, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 99-30235

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

4 Fed. Appx. 324; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2341

May 4, 2000, Argued and Submitted, Seattle, Washington
February 2, 2001, Filed


II. Whether the Calico Liberty III Required Registration

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, [HN2] "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, [**5] 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. [HN3] 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 [**6] 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. n1

Click to expand...

TheGunnyRet said:

Here we go again, it seems we have "individuals" unable to leave well enough alone and asked "Stupid questions just like "Shouldering" Pistol Braces...

Now because you have certain types of "angled" forward grips and "grip stops" that separate an AR type Pistol into and AR SBR...

That's why "its MONUMENTAL" because there is the "Mental" part that has everybody OVER thinking... Just some more GD BS...

Click to expand...