neuroblades
Regular Member
This should get the juices flowing in this forum. Recently I had been pondering something and after some research I was kind of surprised with the information that I had found on the topic. What topic you ask? Is it legal to mount a foregrip on a pistol (for better stability testing). I had encountered this topic and had heard a million inputs and ideas but until recently I had never researched the issue myself until a few weeks ago. It is a assumed fact that mounting a foregrip on a pistol is illegal under the NFA as per BATFE, unless you ante up the $200 fee to have it re-classified as an AOW (Any Other Weapon), a classification that's generally for smooth bore Short Barrel Shotguns (SBS). Well, according to what the BATFE would like us to think, here's what some legal cases and ruling have been in the past upon the topic of foregrips on pistols:
"The AOW listing is one area of legal debate with respect to the addition of the foregrip to a handgun/pistol. BATFE has held that it is illegal to place an aftermarket foregrip on any pistol/handgun without first registering it as an AOW and paying the $200 "making tax" imposed by the National Firearms Act (NFA). BATFE has made the decision that a handgun (but not a machine gun, since a machine gun is not also legally an AOW) with more than one hand grip at an angle to the bore is an AOW. BATFE reasoning is based on the firearm: a) being concealable on the person, and b) not meeting the definition of a "pistol" in the regulations promulgated under the NFA (not the Gun Control Act of 1968 [GCA] where the definition in law resides for a handgun/pistol), as BATFE deems a pistol/handgun is a firearm with a single grip at an angle to the bore. However, two federal cases exist that counter this finding. At least one federal magistrate has decided that if the grip is added later, the gun is not "originally designed" to be fired by holding in more than one grip, and thus putting a second grip on a hangun/pistol does not make it an AOW. BATFE does not regard the this magistrate's decision as binding. The case is U.S. v. Davis, Crim No. 8:93-106 (D.S.C. 1993) (Report of Magistrate, June 21, 1993).[5] The prosecution was dismissed at the request of the Government before any review of that determination by the trial judge.
In another federal case, US v. Fix (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Christopher FIX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-10789. August 29, 2001),[6] the 5th Circuit Federal Appeals Court countered BATFE. Originally, in the trial case, Fix was convicted under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) of possession of an unregistered NFA firearm found during a search of his home and business as a weapon that required NFA registration. In US v. Fix, he appealed and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the trial case. The 5th Circuit noted that Fix was a defendant who was found to be in possession of a handgun/pistol that had a second pistol/foregrip attached. On appeal, Fix argued that the Government/BATFE did not prove the handgun/pistol with a second pistol grip added was an unregistered NFA firearm. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals presided and found in a related provision that a GCA "firearm" is defined by a list of eight weapons and a catchall provision of "any other weapon." See 26 U.S.C. §5845(a). "Any other weapon" includes "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive," but not "a pistol . . . having a rifled bore . . ." See 26 U.S.C. § 845(e). Weapons not included in the definition of firearm in § 5845 need not be registered under § 5861(d). Fix argues that his firearm was a pistol, not an NFA AOW that met the exception in §5845(e), and, therefore, did not need to be registered under §5861. The 5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Government/BATFE failed to prove a violation of §5861(d) for two reasons. First, the weapon did not fit the definition required by the statute in the NFA. The provision defining "pistol" for the purposes of the statute is 27 C.F.R. §179.11, which defines a pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..." The government argues that because the handgun/pistol was modified to be fired with two hands, it "falls out" of the definition of pistol and falls back into the definition of "any other weapon" in § 5845. The 5th Circuit found BATFE's argument ignores the definition's requirement that the weapon be capable of being held with one hand at the time it was originally designed and made. As written, the GCA or NFA definition does not consider modifications of the weapon by the owner. The 5th Circuit court further found that the handgun/pistol in this case was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip. Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in §5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore which this handgun/pistol had. The 5th Circuit held that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons. A sawed-off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun. The 5th Circuit court also noted that the Government/BATFE's own witness stated that the involved handgun/pistol had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered an "any other weapon."
This would make one wonder, being that a pistol wouldn't legally fall under the AOW classification being that it has a rifled barrel and that at the time it is produced, it DOES have only one grip and can be fired with only one hand. According to the research, when those laws were written they were only meant to apply to the pistol upon manufacturing, NOT after the weapon was purchased by an end user.
OK, by-passing our individual thoughts upon the issue of if this is a worthwhile endevour or not, what does everyone think about the topic?
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
"The AOW listing is one area of legal debate with respect to the addition of the foregrip to a handgun/pistol. BATFE has held that it is illegal to place an aftermarket foregrip on any pistol/handgun without first registering it as an AOW and paying the $200 "making tax" imposed by the National Firearms Act (NFA). BATFE has made the decision that a handgun (but not a machine gun, since a machine gun is not also legally an AOW) with more than one hand grip at an angle to the bore is an AOW. BATFE reasoning is based on the firearm: a) being concealable on the person, and b) not meeting the definition of a "pistol" in the regulations promulgated under the NFA (not the Gun Control Act of 1968 [GCA] where the definition in law resides for a handgun/pistol), as BATFE deems a pistol/handgun is a firearm with a single grip at an angle to the bore. However, two federal cases exist that counter this finding. At least one federal magistrate has decided that if the grip is added later, the gun is not "originally designed" to be fired by holding in more than one grip, and thus putting a second grip on a hangun/pistol does not make it an AOW. BATFE does not regard the this magistrate's decision as binding. The case is U.S. v. Davis, Crim No. 8:93-106 (D.S.C. 1993) (Report of Magistrate, June 21, 1993).[5] The prosecution was dismissed at the request of the Government before any review of that determination by the trial judge.
In another federal case, US v. Fix (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Christopher FIX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-10789. August 29, 2001),[6] the 5th Circuit Federal Appeals Court countered BATFE. Originally, in the trial case, Fix was convicted under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) of possession of an unregistered NFA firearm found during a search of his home and business as a weapon that required NFA registration. In US v. Fix, he appealed and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the trial case. The 5th Circuit noted that Fix was a defendant who was found to be in possession of a handgun/pistol that had a second pistol/foregrip attached. On appeal, Fix argued that the Government/BATFE did not prove the handgun/pistol with a second pistol grip added was an unregistered NFA firearm. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals presided and found in a related provision that a GCA "firearm" is defined by a list of eight weapons and a catchall provision of "any other weapon." See 26 U.S.C. §5845(a). "Any other weapon" includes "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive," but not "a pistol . . . having a rifled bore . . ." See 26 U.S.C. § 845(e). Weapons not included in the definition of firearm in § 5845 need not be registered under § 5861(d). Fix argues that his firearm was a pistol, not an NFA AOW that met the exception in §5845(e), and, therefore, did not need to be registered under §5861. The 5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Government/BATFE failed to prove a violation of §5861(d) for two reasons. First, the weapon did not fit the definition required by the statute in the NFA. The provision defining "pistol" for the purposes of the statute is 27 C.F.R. §179.11, which defines a pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..." The government argues that because the handgun/pistol was modified to be fired with two hands, it "falls out" of the definition of pistol and falls back into the definition of "any other weapon" in § 5845. The 5th Circuit found BATFE's argument ignores the definition's requirement that the weapon be capable of being held with one hand at the time it was originally designed and made. As written, the GCA or NFA definition does not consider modifications of the weapon by the owner. The 5th Circuit court further found that the handgun/pistol in this case was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip. Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in §5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore which this handgun/pistol had. The 5th Circuit held that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons. A sawed-off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun. The 5th Circuit court also noted that the Government/BATFE's own witness stated that the involved handgun/pistol had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered an "any other weapon."
This would make one wonder, being that a pistol wouldn't legally fall under the AOW classification being that it has a rifled barrel and that at the time it is produced, it DOES have only one grip and can be fired with only one hand. According to the research, when those laws were written they were only meant to apply to the pistol upon manufacturing, NOT after the weapon was purchased by an end user.
OK, by-passing our individual thoughts upon the issue of if this is a worthwhile endevour or not, what does everyone think about the topic?
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Last edited:
Pax...