Who’d have thunked this idiotic looking set-up is actually addressed by the brilliant legal minds at the ATF…
Morale of this story - don’t get caught doing this. Unless you’re a NFA manufacturer.
Which makes me wonder how this scenario would work out:
When owning a normal legal M4 carbine, and you have a SBR upper, or a full-auto trigger group, neither one installed, nor any paperwork saying you can own either one of them, you’re in deep doodoo.
So following this “logic”, if I have a pistol, an AR, and this detached grip all in the range-bag, does this make it illegal as well? Or is it only the action of attaching?
Ah…the radiant minds of the ATF
I had a pic like this I posted not too long ago in the M&P pic thread,
I didnt attach it though. It took a couple people a minute to notice,.
If you had an M4 and a pistol along with a Grip pod in your range bag, I highly doubt even if you ran INTO an ATF agent that he would assume you were using a grip pod on the pistol
I was talking with an Class 3 dealer in my area about this very matter. The very fact of a platform’s modularity circumvents any control the ATF has on these classifications of weapons. Sure they can still prosecute, but that can’t successfully regulate. For example, before the wide distribution of short barrels for the AR-15, it made sense to have such stringent rules concerning the transfer and manufacture of SBRs. But now, any individual with a credit card can purchase a short barrel and attach it to a rifle. This fact complicates any and all laws concerning the manufacture of SBRs. This has resulted in the intent to manufacture concept. But because of the sweeping nature of the intent to manufacture clause, we get the problem of the situation you mentioned: pistol, rifle and vertical grip in a range bag.
Now in reality in that situation, one has little to worry about, but in a legal sense, it causes some problems.
while that particular setup is idiotic and inviting injury (remember that vid of some guy shooting his hand with a G18 (or converted glock) when the vertical grip came off?), ‘handgun’ also applies to weapons like the HK SP89, spectre, steyr/B&T tp9 etc, on which a vertical grip actually makes sense to have. the ATF is more likely addressing those applications rather than the one you showed.
I was under the impression that the given situation has ben deemed by the ATF to be constructive possession. I.e. owning full auto parts to convert an AR or AK.
I wish the people that continually post the photo shopped pic of Paul Kim with the 10,000 accessories on an AR, or the one with someone’s AR having two dozen optics on it on the bipod would get into trouble with someone.
I’m so G’damn sick of seeing those pictures posted in threads across the net by the KISS crowd I could scream.
Sorry, that’s been building up for a long time. Thread continuity to resume.
You should probably swap the BFG for a grip pod. You know, in case you need to prone out and stretch it’s legs. And you should probably swap the aim point for a Leupold 1-8 with an offset T-1.
Is always fun though to point out to “Assault Weapon Ban” advocates how the 1994 AWB was so sloppily done it listed a vertical forward grip on the list of features for handguns but the NFA and all that says it is no longer a handgun period. Watch the dumb looks and usually shuts them up :happy:
Anyhow was something from the ATF circulating around that said a shoe lace is an automatic weapon parts kit under X circumstance and demonstrates “conspiracy to manufacture” and all that. Think it was a memo in response to a hypothetical question.
