Question on Legality

[recycledelectrons]

Is it illegal (under U.S. law) to mount a magazine on the under-barrel rail of a pistol, to use as a second/forward had grip?

I'm not talking about a shoulder stock. I'm talking about a second pistol grip.

Here's what I'm talking about: http://israeli-weapons.com/store/side_arm-accessories/p5.htm
I do know that not everything on this IDF surplus site is legal in the USA. I'm prettty sure the anti-aircraft weapons would cause a heart attack somewhere i the ATF if I tried to order one.

Thanks for any input!

RecycledElectrons

[wills]

How would you carry that thing?

[docone31]

Why would someone do that?

[KCSO]

It's legal, but really ugly.

[recycledelectrons]

How would you carry that thing?

It's not about carrying concealed; It's about playing with cool looking toys.

I've always like the exotic looking guns. I also like CZ pistols. The ultimate toy would be a CZ75FA, if they repealed the gun control laws. Unfortunately, the cops don't want me to have a machine pistol.

Here's a pic of the CZ75FA:
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p143/hitman650/guns/cz75fa.jpg

But, maybe I can get something that looks like it. I can mount a rail on my old CZ85B (semi-auto.)

It's about as practical as the smei-auto versions of sub-guns:
http://www.militarygunsupply.com/shop2/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=133&zenid=955e22tkcn6m4gargntj9k7312
http://www.militarygunsupply.com/shop2/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=132&zenid=955e22tkcn6m4gargntj9k7312
If you see a stock on the second one, it is welded in place and can not be used as a shoulder stock.

I did buy a VZ61 semi-auto in 32ACP, and it's a lot of fun. Everytime I take someone to the range, they love that little toy, even if ammo is rediculously expensive for it.

RecycledElectrons

[S.R.Custom]

It's legal, but really ugly.

Indeed. Doesn't violate any laws I know of. But holster selection would be somewhat limited.

[EMC45]

I believe attaching a second grip to a handgun will classify it under ATFE dictates as being an AOW.

[spqrzilla]

I suspect that the ATF would find it to be an AOW.

[waksupi]

Let me know when you want this moved to the humor section!

[pietro]

IMHO it violates the Laws of Good Taste. ;) [smilie=w:

:kidding:

.

[Bad Water Bill]

I think anyone that wants to carry that much ammo around needs to spend a LOT more time at the range.

[bohokii]

funny it seems the atf is ok with using a bipod on a pistol
http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/ruger/ruger_4901.jpg

and those can be gripped and used

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2BXI1Bsvgs

[BruceB]

Funny (or strange) how tastes vary and change.

So does the language, wherein I find a personal distaste for "cool", "tactical" and a number of others. But, I'm older and such variations are to be expected as things change around us.

With the understanding that it's PERSONAL opinion, though, those are some of the ugliest firearms which have ever abused my poor eyes. You couldn't give me one, 'cuz I wouldn't accept it.

I do agree with the concept of carrying the extra magazine, however. Two mags do NOT make an excessive load, especially if we consider the possible need to drop the magazine in the gun...maybe for damage or malfunction, for example. Not every round in our possession will necessarily have to be fired, after all.

Jeff Cooper had a lot of pithy and often true observations, such as: "There are only two types of ammunition. ENOUGH, and NOT ENOUGH. There is no such thing as TOO MUCH ammunition." With a few reservations, I agree. (I'm not going to carry a half-dozen magazines to the movies. Two extras...maybe. Just the one in the gun.....NEVER.)

[zuke]

It's cheap,it's fun, at least it isn't airsoft.
With all the funny doo-hickey's hanging off the AR series of rifle's, well.........:-|
Have fun![smilie=w:

[Dutchman]

Handguns with a forward grip aren't unknown. Historically they've been for full auto use... up close.

http://images19.fotki.com/v32/photos/2/28344/1676633/mpistol-vi.jpg

[a.squibload]

Now fellas, cosmetics aside there is a practical reason for that front magazine.
The extra weight up front would help control muzzle climb from the tremendous kick of the 9mm round.
All it needs is a coffee-can-flash-suppressor...

[deltaenterprizes]

Check the Wiki site on the 1934 National Firearms Act. A "handgun" is one designed to be held with ONE hand, adding a foreward grip makes it fall into the "Any Other Weapon" category requiring a $200 tax stamp to manufacture and $5 transfer fee after that.

[82nd airborne]

not legal. any vertical object forward of the primary grip with the ability to be used as a secondary handle in firing is illeagal. on questionable things youre better off calling the atf. a lot of opinions get posted without research backing them. i am guilty of this myself and fortunately was corrected.

[KCSO]

Rather than using Wiki I am going by Federal Firearms Regulation Guide ATF P 5300 The difference here is this is a non permanant modification and is primararly a magazine holding device.

[82nd airborne]

I was corrected by an atf agent for a knights armament removable grip on a ar pistol. i guess thats another one of the million fuzzy areas of firearms regs

[deltaenterprizes]

Any Other Weapons (AOWs) - this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the ATF deems deserving of registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:

* Smooth-bore pistols

* Pen guns and cane guns

* Short-barreled firearms with both rifled and smooth bores, etc.

* Disguised firearms

* Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase

* A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip is categorized as an AOW rather than a SBS, because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as “…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…”

* Handguns with a forward vertical grip. It is therefore illegal to place an aftermarket foregrip on any pistol without first registering it as an AOW and paying the $200 "making tax" imposed by the Act.

[Herb in Pa]

All the folks that think full auto pistols are "way cool" have obviously not had the pleasure of firing them. Watching a movie scene where they seem to be controlable and firing the real thing are not even remotely the same.

[Doc_Stihl]

SO a full auto pistol that doesn't shoot like in the movies isn't able to be "way cool"?

I think that full auto pistols are "way cool" and have had the pleasure of firing several examples. A mini-mac with a super bouncy ball for a bump stop isn't even remotely controlable, but it's a hoot to shoot.

[Herb in Pa]

Here's a full auto glock about as worthless as tits on a boar...........give me a suppressed MP5 anyday

[deltaenterprizes]

I would to see how that Glock 18 works on the inside.

[ANeat]

Here is one version

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=BagcAAAAEBAJ&dq=5705763

[Dutchman]

Rather than using Wiki I am going by Federal Firearms Regulation Guide ATF P 5300 The difference here is this is a non permanant modification and is primararly a magazine holding device.


Would you trust your liberty to that understanding?

A federal prosecutor wouldn't focus on the primary purpose. They would focus on how it could be used.... that's all they need to do is prove how it could be used and you go to prison as a felon.

FYI - a drop-in 'auto-sear' in an AR15 is also a non-permanent modification.

It's also classified as a machine gun all by itself. Little piece of aluminum with a spring and a little lever.

You've never heard about BATF and the shoelace have you?

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS373&=&q=batf+shoelace&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.atfabuse.com/


Dutch

[bohokii]

I would to see how that Glock 18 works on the inside.

its basically the same as a g17 but has a little nub that comes down from the slide when full is selected and it pushes down the striker release

it is made so that you cannot switch the slide with a 17 or vice versa

[bohokii]

not legal. any vertical object forward of the primary grip with the ability to be used as a secondary handle in firing is illeagal. on questionable things youre better off calling the atf. a lot of opinions get posted without research backing them. i am guilty of this myself and fortunately was corrected.

hmm better not hold the mag on a tec 9 then
http://members.shaw.ca/tmcveigh/Projects/GunRights/images/Intratec_TEC9.jpg

[johnlaw484]

Handguns with a forward grip aren't unknown. Historically they've been for full auto use... up close.

http://images19.fotki.com/v32/photos/2/28344/1676633/mpistol-vi.jpg

Now that is way cool!!!!

[M4Sherman]

ATF says no.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

half way down you will see it addressed

[Geraldo]

Alright, so it's 1) illegal, 2) ugly, 3) unable to be holstered, and 4) a really slow reload. It does however look like a really good way to flame cut the fingers on your non-dominant hand. ;)

[M4Sherman]

Geraldo pretty much hit it on the head. and the reason the tek 9 is not illegal is because the magazine on it is how it feeds, not a add on grip.