Angled Foregrips on Rifle Caliber Pistols

[Loronzo]

Good day ladies and gents.

I've been doing some research on the topic before I decided to start a thread. My question is about Magpul AFG2's on Rifle caliber pistols. I know a vertical Foregrip would require registration as an AOW but what about angled foregrips? I know its more of a grey area. I've already checked with local law enforcement and they said it was ok as far as they were concerned. I'm more concerned about the federal regulations. I have seen a BATFE letter floating around on the internet stating that it was ok (in relation to an AR-15 pistol). But also don't want to inadvertantly violate any laws.

The pistol in question is a Draco 7.62x39mm. I posted this in the NFA forum because it relates to NFA laws, even though the intended outcome is that adding the angled foregrip would not result in a NFA AWO weapon. Any suggestions, imput, or guidance would be highly appreciated. I've been a member of these forums for a while and have been able to gain a good bit of knowledge across the board from all of you and I appreciate everyone here for sharing what they do.

Thanks in advance,
Loronzo

[Beretta686]

AOWs really aren't my thing, but I do believe a vertical fore-grip okay if it's not permanently attached to the weapon. But I could be wrong.

Even if I'm wrong, though I wouldn't go wandering around the local ATF office with a vertical fore grip on a pistol AR, I seriously doubt AR-15 pistols with a grip are on the ATF's list of top crime-fighting priorities.

[5.56RifleGuy]

Vertical fore grips are a strict no. I have also heard the afg is not "a conspicuously protruding grip" so it doesnt count, but I wouldnt act on it until I see something from the ATF about it. You said you saw a letter?

[Loronzo]

Whoever this was adressed to specifically asked about the Magpul AFG's (see page 3)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0qy...ew?pli=1&hl=en

[Beretta686]

Oooops. I was wrong on a removable VFG.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...fore-grip.html

But I am glad someone explicitly asked ATF about the AFG.

[5.56RifleGuy]

Thanks for the link. Looks good, but they have been known to change their minds.

[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.

[dogtown tom]

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.

As a regulatory agency, ATF is required to formulate regulations based on Federal law, in this case the 1934 National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The legal definition of "Handgun":
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx....2.1.1&idno=27

§ 478.11 Meaning of terms.
Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(b) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in paragraph (a) can be assembled.

Unfortunately ATF doesn't get to use common sense in its interpretations, nor can they alter regulations to keep up with modern technology. They are "handcuffed" by outdated and poorly written federal laws.

When common sense crosses paths with those regulations the courts often get involved (see Thompson Center decision).

[Rikakiah]

Originally Posted by 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.

Their reasoning is probably more towards use by criminals. Contrary to popular television, some bad guys are skilled. Making a weapon more accurate means they can kill more innocents more efficiently.

Of course, like all laws that try to micromanage details, criminals ignore them anyway. For example, just making murder illegal isn't enough, they have to outlaw things people might use to do something that's outlawed already...

[Theohazard]

Their reasoning has to do with an attempt to classify firearms. A pistol is defined by the BATFE as being designed to be fired with one hand. (I know, I know; most people fire their handguns with two hands, but it has to do with outdated and somewhat ridiculous attempts to clearly define firearms.) Therefore, if you attach a forward grip to a pistol, it is clearly intended to be fired with two hands and, because it has a barrel shorter than 16" and no stock, it falls into the catch-all category of firearms called AOWs ("any other weapon"), which are NFA-controlled items similar to silencers.

So if you attach a vertical grip (doesn't matter if it's permanent or not) onto any pistol that has an overall length shorter than 26", it becomes an AOW, which is regulated like machineguns, SBRs, and silencers and requires BATFE registration and a tax stamp (but only a $5 transfer tax).

Angled foregrips are a grey area, a grey area open to interpretation by the BATFE. If you're going to put an angled foregrip of any kind on a pistol, make sure it has been officially acknowledged by the BATFE as not being a vertical grip (like the Magpul AFG has), otherwise you're at the mercy of the whims of a BATFE bureaucrat to decide if you're breaking the law or not.

[Justice06RR]

Loronzo, Yes you can definitively put a Magpul AFG on a Draco AK pistol.

I have it on my Draco (12" barrel). I've researched this to the tee and know for sure. Other AR and AK pistols under 26" OAL (over all length) are allowed to have an Angled Foregrip, but not a Vertical foregrip.

You can clearly see on Q7 on the document you posted that it is fine to use Magpul's AFG.

[lcpiper]

Therefore, if you attach a forward grip to a pistol, it is clearly intended to be fired with two hands

This isn't logical. The words, "if you attach..." clearly indicate a consequence of modification. The word attach is key. The weapon is still "...designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand." But the attachment, or modification, allows for two handed operation. This does not change the weapon's design.

Of course they didn't consult with me over the ruling so this is what we have.

[Skans]

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.

Because forward grips make pistols "look like" a Tommy Gun. And, Tommy Guns are known (by the antis) to seek out and destroy all human life and are more powerful than a 60 megaton nuclear weapon.

Stupid answer? Yes. Stupid law? Yes.

[jclayto]

Loronzo, I can only tell you what I would do in this situation.

You are obviously in a bit of a grey area. If it were me, I would write my own letter to the ATF so that I had my very own signed and dated personal response letter stating that it's okay to attach the grip. It will take a while longer but you will probably sleep better knowing that you are clear.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by jclayto

You are obviously in a bit of a grey area.

He is not in a grey area; the BATFE has ruled that the Magpul AFG is not a vertical grip and can therefore be used on a pistol without making it an AOW. It would only be a grey area if he was using a different grip that the BATFE had not ruled on yet.

[dogtown tom]

lcpiper

This isn't logical. The words, "if you attach..." clearly indicate a consequence of modification. The word attach is key...

The word "attach" has nothing to do with it. If there was a permanantly forged second vertical grip on the frame or receiver of that firearm it would not be a handgun as it was not designed to be fired with one hand.

The weapon is still "...designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand." But the attachment, or modification, allows for two handed operation. This does not change the weapon's design.

Sure it does. It was REDESIGNED to allow the second grip.

[lcpiper]

By Dogtown Tom;
The word "attach" has nothing to do with it. If there was a permanantly forged second vertical grip on the frame or receiver of that firearm it would not be a handgun as it was not designed to be fired with one hand.

Well dogtown_tom, there isn't a permanently forge second vertical grip on the frame of the receiver. The OP is talking about a grip attachment that is fixed to the plastic handguards of the pistol.

By Loronzo;
My question is about Magpul AFG2's on Rifle caliber pistols

By Dogtown Tom;
Sure it does. It was REDESIGNED to allow the second grip.

It is not a redesign of the weapon to add a vertical fore-grip to the mounting rail of a weapon that is designed for attachments. Any more then it is a redesign to add a scope to a hunting rifle.

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.

Perhaps your getting snippy because you think I am arguing that the verticle fore-grip is legal or that he should do something illegal so I will be very clear, I am saying no such thing.

[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.

[Theohazard]

I think you two guys are arguing two different things. I think lcpiper is arguing the actual common-sense definition of "designed", and dogtown tom is arguing the BATFE's definition. And as we all know, the BATFE rarely deals in common sense.

Either way, it's a pointless argument. The BATFE doesn't distinguish between a permanently-attached vertical forward grip on a pistol or just attaching one temporarily; both are considered AOWs and both will get you in just as much trouble if they aren't registered as such.

[lcpiper]

Theohazard, you just about got it.

Dogtown Tom, I made myself very clear right here.

By lcpiper;
Perhaps your getting snippy because you think I am arguing that the verticle fore-grip is legal or that he should do something illegal so I will be very clear, I am saying no such thing.

And I think Dogtown Tom has a selective reading problem.

By dogtown_tom;
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.

I have a question Tom, if I open a business and buy Colt M-4s, add a FlashLight Attachment to the rails, and resell them. Can I claim they are lcpiper M-4s since I redesigned them? Do I owe Colt royalties?

[dogtown tom]

Selective reading?
No sir.

lcpiper ....I have a question Tom, if I open a business and buy Colt M-4s, add a FlashLight Attachment to the rails, and resell them. Can I claim they are lcpiper M-4s since I redesigned them? Do I owe Colt royalties?

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

Adding flashlight attachments is not regulated by Federal law.

I think you've lost the plot fella.

[lcpiper]

Yes Tom selective reading. I write a post and you pluck out one part of it and ignore the rest even when I specifically state the opposite of what you bring up.

Here is the example again.

By lcpiper;
Perhaps your getting snippy because you think I am arguing that the verticle fore-grip is legal or that he should do something illegal so I will be very clear, I am saying no such thing.

Followed immediately by;

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.

I have no understanding why you keep asserting that I am suggesting that it isn't illegal to add a vertical fore-grip to the pistol because I did not say that.

What I am arguing over is the terrible wording they used to describe the law. And there is nothing nonsensical about my statement. If adding an attached vertical fore-grip to a pistol equates to a redesign of the weapon because it can now be fired using two hands then so does adding a flashlight so that the weapon can be fired accurately at night. The difference is the result that one is illegal and the other is not. They are both a redesign, or they both are not, take your pick.

[dogtown tom]

lcpiper Yes Tom selective reading. I write a post and you pluck out one part of it and ignore the rest even when I specifically state the opposite of what you bring up.

Here is the example again.

Quote:

Followed immediately by;

Uh, no.
Either you don't understand how to copy and paste or use the quote feature but in any case what you claim is my response isn't accurate.





Here is what the ACTUAL response was:

dogtown tom Quote:

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.

This comment was made in response to your post:

lcpiper

This isn't logical. The words, "if you attach..." clearly indicate a consequence of modification. The word attach is key. The weapon is still "...designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand." But the attachment, or modification, allows for two handed operation. This does not change the weapon's design.

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

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

[johnwilliamson062]

I am going to re-iterate my request that one of the mods begin collecting these letters available online and hosting them for people to easily see. It would be a great service to the community.


BTW, the law clearly has to do with trying to limit the firepower of a concealable gun. A full auto pistol is more than a handful of recoil so you need two grips to use one. Can't bumpfire without two grips(that would be interesting anyways). One grip increases the time it takes to get back on target. Yes, a criminal will beak the law during a crime, but this may stop them from continually carrying such a gun. Dillinger kept his 1911 on him much of the time. A criminal doing that would now receive ?5 years in prison? even if no other charges were proved. I'm not saying it is a good/constitutional law, just that it isn't as illogical as one might think.

[lcpiper]

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

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

Let's try baby steps and see if we can find where this leads.

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?

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? 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?

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.

And yes, you are so very correct that I could argue these things with the BATF and lose.

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.

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