Get A Fore Grip
I found this one scanning KeepandBearArms.com
Adding a Vertical Fore Grip to a Handgun
The gist is since in the GCA of '68 it defines a handgun (in part) as a firearm that is discharged while holding with a single hand, the ATFU reasons (& I use the term very loosely) that a vertical fore grip allows for a two handed hold & therefore it becomes an "AOW" (Any Other Weapon). Further they reason that if you install a vertical foregrip on a handgun you've "made" an AOW & are subject to their taxing requirements (pun intentional).
You can either submit an ATFU Form 1 “Application to Make and Register a Firearm” along with your fingerprints, a picture & a $200 tax & then install the fore grip after you've recieved their blessing, or send it to a NFA manufacture & pay a $5 transfer tax (in addition to whatever he'd charge for the work) when it's sent back (along with the same paperwork as mentioned above).
We're paying these asshats to do this sort of thing. Now don't you feel better knowing that you're getting X% yanked from your check every week so that those ATFU fellows can keep people from adding a vertical fore grip to their handgun without paying the appropriate tax? I shudder to think how many lives have been saved so far by the strict monitoring of who uses two hands on their pistol.
Asshats. Every. Last. One.
At least one judge in S.C. didn't fall for that particular nonsense back in 1993:
"27. Even after being modified with grips, the pistols are
still 'pistols' as defined above and not 'any other weapon' as
defined by 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e)."
Course that was a 1993 case & the ATFU is apparently still on this kick, so either another court ruled in their favor or they just don't press the issue in S.C.
Unless you're willing to go to court to prove that the ATFU is just being silly once again (which given the judiciary might not be so easy) you might wanna hold off on dressing up your Beretta 92 to look like a Beretta 93R.
Posted by Publicola at April 11, 2006 06:42 AM
Actually the current ruling is that if the weapon was not originally manufactured with a vertical foregrip, it is permissible to add one as an accessory without it becoming an AOW.
Of course expecting consistency from the ATF.. well the definition of insantiy and all that.
I wrote about it here a few weeks ago:
Hey great website! This is a fantastic Blog. I look forward to stopping by often!
Hey great website! This is a fantastic Blog. I solook forward to stopping by often!
Not to put too fine a point on the issue, but,
I'm very disappointed that there is no difference between recent democrat and republican administrations in how the BATFE is managed. Bush version 2.0 would have signed a renewal of the 1994 AWB and has let the BATFE ban the import of parts kits that contain former machine gun barrels. Not to mention, the perpetuation of the chinese import ban...otherwise, we could be buying $375 Norinco M1A's.
10 years ago I was silly enough to think that the problem was that Clinton was in office...I was certainly wrong. There is some hope thet the judicial branch will eventually overturn the 1986 ban on constructing new machine guns, but that's about all we can hope for. In a perfect world, we'd just have a ~ $1000 tax on new machine guns, which would be inline with the intent of the the 1934 act.
My favorite quote from the "modern firearms" site emphasis mine...
"Because the compact size and RELATIVELY POWERFUL 9MM PARABELLUM AMMUNITION necessary resulted in high cyclic rate of fire, Beretta designers decided do limit the practical rate of fire by introducing a burst limiter, which allowed only for three shot bursts, in addition to the standard semi-automatic fire."
Whaaat? relatively powerful 9mm Parabellum ammunition ?!?!?
And how exactly does the size of the weapon and ammo selection change the cycling rate?
I expect this sort of half assed commentary from the MSM but at a site called "modern firearms"