I'm really suprised at the attitudes of people here, many of whom also say Μολὼν λαβέ.
I sent in a letter to the ATF NFA branch a little while ago, here's what it said (stripped out the header/footer crap):
I have a question regarding ATF policy on vertical fore grips (VFGs) on pistols, specifically adding a removable VFG to a pistol that did not come with one when it was created. The open letter on your website, dated May 4, 2006 (http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html) states the position of the ATF is that installing a VFG on a pistol makes it an Any Other Weapon (AOW) and thus requires a stamp tax and registration.
What definition of "install" is being used? Does "install" mean only permanently (or non-trivially) attaching a VFG, such as by modifying the frame of the pistol, or does "install" also include temporarily attaching a VFG that may be attached and detached in seconds? Many companies make VFGs that attach with so-called quick disconnect levers, which are more of a temporary attachment rather than a "making" of a new firearm. When a person has a rifle with a 15" barrel and a 2" muzzle device attached, it is only considered a 17" barreled rifle if the muzzle device is permanently attached by both pinning it in place and welding it. If the muzzle device is simply screwed on, it is not considered a new weapon of 17" in length and the rifle must be registered as a short-barreled rifle. Following that logic, attaching a VFG to the rail of a pistol should not be considered a "making" of a new weapon if it is not permanently attached; only by welding it (or making similar efforts towards a permanent change) should adding a VFG to the front of a pistol reclassify the weapon as an AOW. The language used in ATF Ruling 2009-2 (http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2009-2.pdf), while not directly dealing with NFA items, does distinguish installing a part "in or on an existing, fully assembled firearm […] without drilling, cutting, or machining" as an action that is not considered a manufacturing of a firearm. ATF Ruling 2009-2, along with the ATF’s policy of requiring a permanent attachment to effectively change a barrel’s length, mean that to maintain consistency, the definition of "install" with regards to VFGs on pistols must mean a permanent modification of a VFG rather than an accessory being temporarily latched onto the rail.
I have seen letters from the ATF to individuals that state the Magpul Angled Fore Grip (AFG) may be legally attached to a pistol without reclassifying it as an AOW. The AFG and VFG both fulfill the same, broad purpose: to allow the user to utilize a second hand underneath the barrel of the weapon for support. Although the AFG and VFGs look different, as one is angled while the other is vertical, their use is substantially similar with regards to a pistol being one or two-handed in use. Why is this ruling on the AFG inconsistent with VFGs?
As the open letter directly contradicts case law, why was it issued? In US v. Fix, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a pistol that was originally designed to be fired with one hand is still a pistol when it is later modified to be fired with two hands. United States v. Ted Parker Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court goes on to clarify that the weapon "was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip.” Id. The Court also states that the definition of AOW "expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore." Id. citing 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). A pistol with an attached VFG would still have a rifled bore, and thus would specifically not be an AOW. As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled both that a pistol with a VFG attached after production is still a pistol and that a pistol with a VFG attached would not be an AOW, why did the ATF release a letter which directly contradicts the court’s ruling, as US v. Fix was never overturned and the statutes defining pistol and AOW were not changed in a way to invalidate the ruling? The ATF open letter and ATF-p-5320-8 chapter2, both ignore the definition of a pistol as a weapon "originally designed … to be fired with one hand." 27 C.F.R. § 179.11. I know I am personally not under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, but other courts will use US v. Fix as persuasive case law when this issue comes up again.
I would greatly appreciate a response to these questions as both a legal scholar and as a firearms enthusiast.
I sent in a letter to the ATF NFA branch a little while ago, here's what it said (stripped out the header/footer crap):
I have a question regarding ATF policy on vertical fore grips (VFGs) on pistols, specifically adding a removable VFG to a pistol that did not come with one when it was created. The open letter on your website, dated May 4, 2006 (http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html) states the position of the ATF is that installing a VFG on a pistol makes it an Any Other Weapon (AOW) and thus requires a stamp tax and registration.
What definition of "install" is being used? Does "install" mean only permanently (or non-trivially) attaching a VFG, such as by modifying the frame of the pistol, or does "install" also include temporarily attaching a VFG that may be attached and detached in seconds? Many companies make VFGs that attach with so-called quick disconnect levers, which are more of a temporary attachment rather than a "making" of a new firearm. When a person has a rifle with a 15" barrel and a 2" muzzle device attached, it is only considered a 17" barreled rifle if the muzzle device is permanently attached by both pinning it in place and welding it. If the muzzle device is simply screwed on, it is not considered a new weapon of 17" in length and the rifle must be registered as a short-barreled rifle. Following that logic, attaching a VFG to the rail of a pistol should not be considered a "making" of a new weapon if it is not permanently attached; only by welding it (or making similar efforts towards a permanent change) should adding a VFG to the front of a pistol reclassify the weapon as an AOW. The language used in ATF Ruling 2009-2 (http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2009-2.pdf), while not directly dealing with NFA items, does distinguish installing a part "in or on an existing, fully assembled firearm […] without drilling, cutting, or machining" as an action that is not considered a manufacturing of a firearm. ATF Ruling 2009-2, along with the ATF’s policy of requiring a permanent attachment to effectively change a barrel’s length, mean that to maintain consistency, the definition of "install" with regards to VFGs on pistols must mean a permanent modification of a VFG rather than an accessory being temporarily latched onto the rail.
I have seen letters from the ATF to individuals that state the Magpul Angled Fore Grip (AFG) may be legally attached to a pistol without reclassifying it as an AOW. The AFG and VFG both fulfill the same, broad purpose: to allow the user to utilize a second hand underneath the barrel of the weapon for support. Although the AFG and VFGs look different, as one is angled while the other is vertical, their use is substantially similar with regards to a pistol being one or two-handed in use. Why is this ruling on the AFG inconsistent with VFGs?
As the open letter directly contradicts case law, why was it issued? In US v. Fix, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a pistol that was originally designed to be fired with one hand is still a pistol when it is later modified to be fired with two hands. United States v. Ted Parker Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court goes on to clarify that the weapon "was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip.” Id. The Court also states that the definition of AOW "expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore." Id. citing 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). A pistol with an attached VFG would still have a rifled bore, and thus would specifically not be an AOW. As the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled both that a pistol with a VFG attached after production is still a pistol and that a pistol with a VFG attached would not be an AOW, why did the ATF release a letter which directly contradicts the court’s ruling, as US v. Fix was never overturned and the statutes defining pistol and AOW were not changed in a way to invalidate the ruling? The ATF open letter and ATF-p-5320-8 chapter2, both ignore the definition of a pistol as a weapon "originally designed … to be fired with one hand." 27 C.F.R. § 179.11. I know I am personally not under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, but other courts will use US v. Fix as persuasive case law when this issue comes up again.
I would greatly appreciate a response to these questions as both a legal scholar and as a firearms enthusiast.
Last edited:
I do not know why you say you are "suprised at the attitudes of people here, many of whom also say Μολὼν λαβέ". I do not see where anyone has said that nor told you not to pursue this if you feel so strong about it. I said that I hope you can actually pull it off and wished you luck. I think you are taking offense at folks who meant you none.
As for your letter, it looks very well written and makes very good points. Again, I wish you well with this and would ask that you post whatever reply you receive from ATF, but it may be a while before they respond. My skeptisim stems from the many letter I have seen folks write over the years and the results that they got. At one time Olympic Arms was offering to rebuild any full auto lowers that they made if the owner wanted a new one. They did this several times and then someone wrote a letter to ATF asking why other manufacturers couldn't do this. Next thing you know ATF stopped Olympic Arms from doing this and now several registered receiver owners are in possesion of questionable weapons that no one wants to buy since they figure ATF may come around and confiscate them. Lots of good that letter did. At one time suppressor manufacturers would do warranty work on their cans by replacing the tube with a new tube with the same serial number and then returning it to the customer. Another letter was written to ATF about this and the next thing you know ATF says that is now a new can and requires another $200 transfer tax. Lots of good that letter did too. Look, I hope your letter does make them rethink their ruling and allow VFG's on pistols, but I would be willing to bet that they agree with your VFG/AFG comparison and make AFG's need to be AOW's as well. I hope not, but it would be consistant with their track record.
Again, I wish you well and intend no criticism of what you are trying to do. Good luck and have a nice day.
This is exactly what I see happening with this.
The main problem was one manufacturer got mad because another manufacturer was rebuilding their suppressors and using/rebuilding parts under the original serial number so another tax stamp wasn't required. The original manufacturer complained after they found that out and the whole repair stuff stopped.
Wasn't targetted at any particular person, but it was a general feel I'm getting from this thread that's basically "roll over and let the ATF make whatever regulations it wants without challenge." I was never actually advocating throwing a VFG on the front of an AR pistol, taking a picture of it with me next to it, then sending it to the ATF. But I was and am advocating other means of fighting the system.
I'm also a very strong advocate of concealed carry in my home state of Hawaii, which is a "may issue" state. There are almost no concealed carry permits issued in a state with a resident population of around 1 million. So I'm helping fight that battle there through legislation and public awareness, and I'm fighting this battle on what I consider an almost non-issue against the ATF. I'll admit, I'm doing this VFG on pistol thing mostly because I think it's a stupid rule that should be removed, not because I intend to put a VFG on a pistol, even if I succeed. By the time I get a response, I'll probably have my SBR stamp tax in hand anyway.
Oh and I did think about the AFG being brought into line with VFGs as a possible negative side effect, but even if it was, the other two points will then include AFGs and both are very strong points. But I specifically did not mention AR pistols anywhere in the letter, even though I could have made an argument with them. AFGs are just one product, which I would be sad if they released a letter disallowing them on pistols, but it wouldn't be a huge deal. However, I wouldn't want to risk AR pistols being labelled as AOWs or SBRs, which is why I left them out. Even though my honest unbiased opinion is that AR pistols should be classified as SBRs, I'm happy from a personal standpoint that they're pistols, so I won't jeopardize that.
Well it looks like someone beat me to the punch by a couple of days.
An AR pistol is a pistol. If you add a VFG, it's an AOW. But if the total length is over 26", it's not an AOW because it's too big to be concealed. So... 10.5" or so barreled AR pistols can have a VFG, but 7.5" ones probably can't.
That was a different approach that I didn't take.
http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf
On a side note, franklin armory cannot copyright that letter response from the ATF as they did not write the letter.
An AR pistol is a pistol. If you add a VFG, it's an AOW. But if the total length is over 26", it's not an AOW because it's too big to be concealed. So... 10.5" or so barreled AR pistols can have a VFG, but 7.5" ones probably can't.
That was a different approach that I didn't take.
http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf
On a side note, franklin armory cannot copyright that letter response from the ATF as they did not write the letter.
With an overall length of over 26" I would not think it was an issue as it is not "concealable", so it would not be an AOW. It is not a rifle and not a handgun and not an AOW as it is over 26". It falls into the strange catagory like semi-auto M1919A4's and pistol gripped shotguns.
The only thing is, they've never outright stated that a length greater than 26" is not an AOW. They just created that idea with that letter.
Remember, the AR pistol was still a pistol until a VFG was attached, which according to the letter on the ATF site, pistol + VFG = AOW. This letter is pretty interesting in that it undermines the letter on the ATF site.
