[dogtown tom]

lcpiper

It is not a redesign of the weapon to add a vertical fore-grip....

Sure it is. Just because a handgun has an accessory rail doesn't give you the freedom to add a vertical grip anymore than the stock slot on a Browning Hi Power allows you to use the detachable stock holster without a tax stamp. While there are BHP's that are removed from the NFA, there are thousands out there that when a shoulder stock is attached require a tax stamp.

Mako Group and others make shoulder stocks for Glocks, using your theory simply attaching a shoulder stock without modifying the Glock doesn't require a tax stamp...........but it does.

Any more then it is a redesign to add a scope to a hunting rifle.

Irrelevant...........adding a scope to a rifle does not require an ATF tax stamp.

If the ATF want's to rule that adding the attachment to a weapon that didn't have one integrally equates to a weapon that was designed with one that is up to them, but don't try to snow me with some hog wash that adding an attachment is a redesign of the weapon.

Uh, where you been since 1934?
ATF has held since the passage of the NFA that a second grip on a handgun requires a tax stamp. In the NFA handbook they used to show a picture of a Colt 1911 with a Thompson SMG front grip attached......supposedly taken from John Dillinger.


The current ATF NFA Handbook shows a Glock pistol with a vertical grip attached to the accessory rail as the example of an AOW.

From page 9 of the NFA Handbook:

....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...

[

You could argue the distinction of "added" vs "attached" or "created" vs "redesigned" with ATF but you would lose.