Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
AR-15 pistol and a VFG
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Koshinn" data-source="post: 1528228" data-attributes="member: 18314"><p>I'm really suprised at the attitudes of people here, many of whom also say &#924;&#959;&#955;&#8060;&#957; &#955;&#945;&#946;&#941;.</p><p></p><p>I sent in a letter to the ATF NFA branch a little while ago, here's what it said (stripped out the header/footer crap):</p><p></p><p>I have a question regarding ATF policy on vertical fore grips (VFGs) on pistols, specifically adding a removable VFG to a pistol that did not come with one when it was created. The open letter on your website, dated May 4, 2006 (<a href="http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html" target="_blank">http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html</a>) states the position of the ATF is that installing a VFG on a pistol makes it an Any Other Weapon (AOW) and thus requires a stamp tax and registration.</p><p></p><p>What definition of "install" is being used? Does "install" mean only permanently (or non-trivially) attaching a VFG, such as by modifying the frame of the pistol, or does "install" also include temporarily attaching a VFG that may be attached and detached in seconds? Many companies make VFGs that attach with so-called quick disconnect levers, which are more of a temporary attachment rather than a "making" of a new firearm. When a person has a rifle with a 15" barrel and a 2" muzzle device attached, it is only considered a 17" barreled rifle if the muzzle device is permanently attached by both pinning it in place and welding it. If the muzzle device is simply screwed on, it is not considered a new weapon of 17" in length and the rifle must be registered as a short-barreled rifle. Following that logic, attaching a VFG to the rail of a pistol should not be considered a "making" of a new weapon if it is not permanently attached; only by welding it (or making similar efforts towards a permanent change) should adding a VFG to the front of a pistol reclassify the weapon as an AOW. The language used in ATF Ruling 2009-2 (<a href="http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2009-2.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2009-2.pdf</a>), while not directly dealing with NFA items, does distinguish installing a part "in or on an existing, fully assembled firearm [&#8230;] without drilling, cutting, or machining" as an action that is not considered a manufacturing of a firearm. ATF Ruling 2009-2, along with the ATF’s policy of requiring a permanent attachment to effectively change a barrel’s length, mean that to maintain consistency, the definition of "install" with regards to VFGs on pistols must mean a permanent modification of a VFG rather than an accessory being temporarily latched onto the rail. </p><p></p><p>I have seen letters from the ATF to individuals that state the Magpul Angled Fore Grip (AFG) may be legally attached to a pistol without reclassifying it as an AOW. The AFG and VFG both fulfill the same, broad purpose: to allow the user to utilize a second hand underneath the barrel of the weapon for support. Although the AFG and VFGs look different, as one is angled while the other is vertical, their use is substantially similar with regards to a pistol being one or two-handed in use. Why is this ruling on the AFG inconsistent with VFGs?</p><p></p><p>As the open letter directly contradicts case law, why was it issued? In US v. Fix, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a pistol that was originally designed to be fired with one hand is still a pistol when it is later modified to be fired with two hands. United States v. Ted Parker Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court goes on to clarify that the weapon "was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip.” Id. The Court also states that the definition of AOW "expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore." Id. citing 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). A pistol with an attached VFG would still have a rifled bore, and thus would specifically not be an AOW. As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled both that a pistol with a VFG attached after production is still a pistol and that a pistol with a VFG attached would not be an AOW, why did the ATF release a letter which directly contradicts the court’s ruling, as US v. Fix was never overturned and the statutes defining pistol and AOW were not changed in a way to invalidate the ruling? The ATF open letter and ATF-p-5320-8 chapter2, both ignore the definition of a pistol as a weapon "originally designed &#8230; to be fired with one hand." 27 C.F.R. § 179.11. I know I am personally not under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, but other courts will use US v. Fix as persuasive case law when this issue comes up again. </p><p></p><p>I would greatly appreciate a response to these questions as both a legal scholar and as a firearms enthusiast.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Koshinn, post: 1528228, member: 18314"] I'm really suprised at the attitudes of people here, many of whom also say Μολὼν λαβέ. I sent in a letter to the ATF NFA branch a little while ago, here's what it said (stripped out the header/footer crap): I have a question regarding ATF policy on vertical fore grips (VFGs) on pistols, specifically adding a removable VFG to a pistol that did not come with one when it was created. The open letter on your website, dated May 4, 2006 ([url]http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html[/url]) states the position of the ATF is that installing a VFG on a pistol makes it an Any Other Weapon (AOW) and thus requires a stamp tax and registration. What definition of "install" is being used? Does "install" mean only permanently (or non-trivially) attaching a VFG, such as by modifying the frame of the pistol, or does "install" also include temporarily attaching a VFG that may be attached and detached in seconds? Many companies make VFGs that attach with so-called quick disconnect levers, which are more of a temporary attachment rather than a "making" of a new firearm. When a person has a rifle with a 15" barrel and a 2" muzzle device attached, it is only considered a 17" barreled rifle if the muzzle device is permanently attached by both pinning it in place and welding it. If the muzzle device is simply screwed on, it is not considered a new weapon of 17" in length and the rifle must be registered as a short-barreled rifle. Following that logic, attaching a VFG to the rail of a pistol should not be considered a "making" of a new weapon if it is not permanently attached; only by welding it (or making similar efforts towards a permanent change) should adding a VFG to the front of a pistol reclassify the weapon as an AOW. The language used in ATF Ruling 2009-2 ([url]http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2009-2.pdf[/url]), while not directly dealing with NFA items, does distinguish installing a part "in or on an existing, fully assembled firearm […] without drilling, cutting, or machining" as an action that is not considered a manufacturing of a firearm. ATF Ruling 2009-2, along with the ATF’s policy of requiring a permanent attachment to effectively change a barrel’s length, mean that to maintain consistency, the definition of "install" with regards to VFGs on pistols must mean a permanent modification of a VFG rather than an accessory being temporarily latched onto the rail. I have seen letters from the ATF to individuals that state the Magpul Angled Fore Grip (AFG) may be legally attached to a pistol without reclassifying it as an AOW. The AFG and VFG both fulfill the same, broad purpose: to allow the user to utilize a second hand underneath the barrel of the weapon for support. Although the AFG and VFGs look different, as one is angled while the other is vertical, their use is substantially similar with regards to a pistol being one or two-handed in use. Why is this ruling on the AFG inconsistent with VFGs? As the open letter directly contradicts case law, why was it issued? In US v. Fix, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a pistol that was originally designed to be fired with one hand is still a pistol when it is later modified to be fired with two hands. United States v. Ted Parker Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court goes on to clarify that the weapon "was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip.” Id. The Court also states that the definition of AOW "expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore." Id. citing 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). A pistol with an attached VFG would still have a rifled bore, and thus would specifically not be an AOW. As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled both that a pistol with a VFG attached after production is still a pistol and that a pistol with a VFG attached would not be an AOW, why did the ATF release a letter which directly contradicts the court’s ruling, as US v. Fix was never overturned and the statutes defining pistol and AOW were not changed in a way to invalidate the ruling? The ATF open letter and ATF-p-5320-8 chapter2, both ignore the definition of a pistol as a weapon "originally designed … to be fired with one hand." 27 C.F.R. § 179.11. I know I am personally not under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, but other courts will use US v. Fix as persuasive case law when this issue comes up again. I would greatly appreciate a response to these questions as both a legal scholar and as a firearms enthusiast. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
NFA & Class III Discussion
AR-15 pistol and a VFG
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom