Angled Foregrips on Rifle Caliber Pistols

[dogtown tom]

lcpiper.....I have a pistol that is designed for easily adding attachments and I want to add a vertical fore-grip which would required some additional paperwork and money to the feds.
So adding a flashlight to the same weapon is also a redesign of the original weapon?

Again, (for the third or fourth time) it isn't a redesign IN THE EYES OF ATF or Federal law.
Adding that vertical grip would be.

Umm, my rail system allows adding attachments to the sides of the rail as well. What if I add my vertical fore-grip to the side of the rail system?

It wouldn't be a vertical grip then would it?
Maybe you should spend some time reading the NFA/ATF regs/determination letters before you dig your hole any deeper: (Posted earlier 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...

If adding your vertical grip (horizontally) is considered a "certain alteration" then yes, you modified the design.

I am certain that this is a redesign of the original weapon and it can now be fired using two hands but the grip isn't vertical anymore, it's lateral. Or is it angled which we know still allows the weapon to be fired using two hands, but this one is ok why?

A "vertical hand grip" is just ONE EXAMPLE given.
It's pretty obvious that you've never read anything from the NFA Handbook. Sorry sir, but until you do you're just wasting bandwidth.


And before you get into the lateral/horizontal/semi angled/etc orientation of that grip.................understand that the ATF Determination Letter applied to the MagPul AFG..........not just any second grip mounted at an angle.

I can accept, that you can not accept, that these rules are not clear. They are not well written, nor are they consistently defined nor applied.

Again, nonsense. If you do a search on my previous posts about firearms law you'll note that I'm quite critical of the 1934NFA and the GCA '68 as poorly written laws. While I can't rewrite Federal law to make it easier for you to understand........neither can ATF.

If a regulation is not clear? ................you write ATF for a determination.
That is completely free.

I could also, through the legal process takes actions that might see them challenged by the courts and win, because that is the proper process for arguing over the validity of the written laws of this land.

Knock yourself out. It's been done before.

And as you see above, I have clearly mastered the function of cut and paste.

The whole world thanks you.

[lcpiper]

I understand Tom that going through my post step by step and refuting each part as individual comments is fun for you. But the post is a whole, it has a purpose as a whole. Following statements depend on their predecessors within the post. It is intended as a step by step path to a coherent position. If you break it up you change it's meaning and intent. So try and understand it as the whole and stop ripping it into pieces so you can win your argument.

I am not about to go research your every post to learn all the nuances of your stance on these Laws. You could have said something days ago that would have show we are on the same page in that regard. So that part of this discussion is done with.

And I already said that I wasn't refuting the legality of adding a vertical grip so we were in agreement about that days ago even if you were slow in picking up on it.

Now we have one small last item. You attacking me repeatedly with disparaging statements like these.

Seriously?
What the heck does this nonsense have to do with anything above?
NOTHING.

Uh, no.
Either you don't understand how to copy and paste or use the quote feature but ....

It's PERFECTLY logical. Just because YOU don't understand the logic doesn't mean others don't.

Again, nonsense....

The whole world thanks you.

Quote:
lcpiper I never figured out why the BATF would be against anything that would make a weapon more accurate and therefor less likely to miss the intended target. Do they want you to miss the bad guy and hit an innocent? It just makes no sense.
It has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with Federal law.

So we start with you attacking an innocuous remark, something intended to be light-hearted by getting all serious about it. Then we move on to attacking my intelligence, my ability to understand the English language, my ability to use simple application functions, and after several days of back and forth you become all forthcoming in that we agree on all points.

I relent, you are a superior being.

[dogtown tom]

lcpiper I understand Tom that going through my post step by step and refuting each part as individual comments is fun for you.

No, it isn't. It makes it easier to address each of your comments however.

But the post is a whole, it has a purpose as a whole. Following statements depend on their predecessors within the post. It is intended as a step by step path to a coherent position. If you break it up you change it's meaning and intent. So try and understand it as the whole and stop ripping it into pieces so you can win your argument.

You fail at making a coherent anything.

And I already said that I wasn't refuting the legality of adding a vertical grip so we were in agreement about that days ago even if you were slow in picking up on it.

I could care less.
What is puzzling is why you continue to toss out examples of redesigning or modifying a firearm with no regard as to whether such example would be governed under the NFA. If you truly believe you weren't refuting the legality why all the silly examples?

Now we have one small last item. You attacking me repeatedly with disparaging statements like these.

And accusing me of "selective reading" is not disparaging? Pot meet kettle.

So we start with you attacking an innocuous remark, something intended to be light-hearted by getting all serious about it.

When "innocuous" is factually incorrect, it is pretty damn serious.

Then we move on to attacking my intelligence,

No, sir. Only your willingness to read Federal law or ATF regs was questioned.
I never attacked your intelligence.

my ability to understand the English language,

True......but it was actually you who stated that you couldn't understand ATF regs because they "are not clear".

my ability to use simple application functions,

From your last attempt at "quoting"......still true.

and after several days of back and forth you become all forthcoming in that we agree on all points.

No sir.

I relent, you are a superior being.

Oh please. When you can't intelligently continue a discussion/disagreement/argument in a thread, giving false praise is nearly as immature as name calling.

[lcpiper]

What is puzzling is why you continue to toss out examples of redesigning or modifying a firearm with no regard as to whether such example would be governed under the NFA. If you truly believe you weren't refuting the legality why all the silly examples?

Because as you fail to understand, it has nothing at all to do with the point I am trying to make that you keep diverting back to the NFA rulings in order to avoid the actual argument.

If I say I don't dispute the ruling then why bring it up over and over. It's not in dispute. Get it thru your head. I am not disputing the law. I am disputing the meaning of the language used to write the law, not it's application.

And again, I relent, you can be the winner, shut up already and accept your prize and stop dragging it back up and you won't provoke me to respond. Jesus.

[dogtown tom]

[amd6547]

This thread should have been closed a long time ago.