Isn't a forward vertical grip on a pistol a NO NO?

[t1545jh]

I saw this on Armslist. Someone in central Indiana has a M&P 15-22 pistol with a forward vertical pistol grip installed. I am no NFA expert, but wouldn't this be considered an AOW by the ATF and therefore be highly illegal without the proper paper work and tax stamp?

ARMSLIST - For Trade: Smith & Wesson m&p15-22p

 

[esrice]

Yep that's a no-no.

 

[LPMan59]

you could report it, but it's probably the ATF posting it.

 

[t1545jh]

I can see that being an easy mistake to make. Before I started stamp collecting, I probably wouldn't have known it was illegal either. I'm sure ignorance is not an excuse the ATF would accept!

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

To be clear, I am certainly not suggesting you do this, but...

"In May 1993, in response to legal action brought by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the South Carolina District Court's finding of fact concluded that a pistol modified with the addition of vertical fore grips was still a pistol and not an any other weapon device.[1] Following this, the ATF dropped their charges and the case was not tried; as such no precedent was set."

 

[LEaSH]

...highly illegal...
ARMSLIST - For Trade: Smith & Wesson m&p15-22p

kirk says extremely highly

 

[printcraft]

Illegal.

Stupid law.


Now, if he would have put an angled fore grip on it he would be fine.

Stupid right?

 

[Car Ramrod]

Illegal.

Stupid law.


Now, if he would have put an angled fore grip on it he would be fine.

Stupid right?

An angled fore grip is not designed to go to your shoulder, and it's not designed to go up.

 

[Echelon]

Looks like he deactivated the original listing, took the grip off, and relisted

ARMSLIST - For Sale/Trade: S&W M&P 15-22P pistol

 

[t1545jh]

Looks like he deactivated the original listing, took the grip off, and relisted

ARMSLIST - For Sale/Trade: S&W M&P 15-22P pistol

Yeah, I sent the guy an email and told him he might want to remove the forward grip. Just trying to save him some grief.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

I did some research on this back when I owned one. Another person contacted the BATF about a Magpul AFG being used on an AR style pistol and they eventually came back with the answer that the AFG wasn't a VFG, so it wasn't prohibited by the law.

Official Response From ATF on Magpul AFG for AR-15 Pistols (Letter Added) - AR15.Com Archive

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0q...NzVhLWI3NmMtZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx/edit?hl=en&pli=1

 

[DKY197]

Well, obviously don't buy it, as I'm sure you had no intention of doing. The internet is not the place for legal NFA transactions.

From what I can actually find though, it's unclear, but no. In 2006 the ATF openly declared their INTERPRETATION of the law but that is not a law or a court precedent and therefore you cannot be charged with violating it. In Davis vs. U.S. (South Carolina courts) the ruling that a forward vertical pistol grip was not expressly forbidden on a pistol and that attaching one did not preclude a pistol from being classified as simply a pistol under any law.

The ATF's 2006 letter was an open one to federal firearms licensees. It maintained that their long held belief is that attaching a grip to a pistol makes it a firearm no longer designed to be fired with one hand. That is not a law. That is not even correct, considering that I'm sure most firearms manufacturers do not design their pistols with that scenario in mind. They envision a weaver stance, or a isosceles stance. Two hands.

Quite frankly, I don't believe my INTERPRETATION of the law is any less valid than the ATF's as neither party are capable of passing or determining the validity or applications of legislation. They can arrest me, but a citizen can make a felony arrest as well.

However, as I type this I am reminded that none of our firearms legislation is logical or constitutional. Additionally, it doesn't even make sense. It was a tax measure instituted by people who clearly didn't understand firearms THAT well, and is now enforced by armed tax agents who have become COMPLETELY out of control and do not understand firearms AT ALL. I just hope no one in THAT guys family gets their brains blown out over $200.

/endrant.

 

[DKY197]

Well, sorry to be moot but I just saw OP and set about replying without going to the second page.

 

[JoshuaW]

DKY197,

I always find research and thought similar to yours fascinating, and I really wish it could get tried in court to see if it is valid or invalid. The ultimate problem is though, if the court does not find in our favor, that person may go to jail, and will most certainly lose their God given right to bear arms. Its a shame that the only way to truly clarify this requires such an enormous risk. Maybe someday when we have a more friendly White House we can have an Executive Order clarify.

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

DKY197,

I always find research and thought similar to yours fascinating, and I really wish it could get tried in court to see if it is valid or invalid. The ultimate problem is though, if the court does not find in our favor, that person may go to jail, and will most certainly lose their God given right to bear arms. Its a shame that the only way to truly clarify this requires such an enormous risk. Maybe someday when we have a more friendly White House we can have an Executive Order clarify.

Is there any potential legal action by claiming illegal taxation on part of the ATF by registering the firearm per their standards and then claim the tax was illegitimate? I realize that seems less likely because the incentive to fight (being a pain in the ass to the ATF) is less than when you are on trial (not going to jail).

 

[in812]

Isnt that the way thompson/center arms did it on the contender/encore to fight "once a pistol always a pistol"

BTW THEY WON !!!!!