Angled Foregrips on Rifle Caliber Pistols

[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:

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;

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.

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:

lcpiper

Quote:
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....

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

Quote:
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.

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.

 

[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.