VFG on AR pistol that's over 26" long?

[nismobishi]

Hello,
I remember back in the day an AR pistol that was over 26" long not including the muzzle device was called an "other" therefore you could have a vertical fore grip. Is this still legal in CA on a registered AR pistol?

[Quiet]

Hello,
I remember back in the day an AR pistol that was over 26" long not including the muzzle device was called an "other" therefore you could have a vertical fore grip. Is this still legal in CA on a registered AR pistol?

Need to comply with both Federal and CA laws.


Under Federal laws/regulations and past Federal court cases...

A firearm with a less than 16" barrel length and a greater than 26" overall length and no shoulder stock is a Title 1 Other.
A Title 1 Other can legally have a vertical forward grip attached to it.

A firearm with a less than 16" rifled barrel length and a less than 26" overall length and no shoulder stock is a Title 1 Handgun.
A Title 1 Handgun can not legally have a vertical forward grip attached to it.
In order to be legal, the Title 1 Handgun must be made into a BATFE approved Title 2 AOW before the vertical forward grip is attached to it.

In order to measure the overall length of a firearm to determine if it is a Title 1 Handgun, Title 1 Other, or Title 2 AOW; if the firearm has an arm stabilizing brace, then it is removed prior to measuring or, if the arm stabilizing brace is permanently attached, then it is folded/collapsed.

This is because Title 1 Handgun, Title 1 Other, and Title 2 AOW are not intended to be fired from the shoulder, so it's overall length is measured in the shortest possible fireable configuration (arm brace folded/collapsed or removed).
^Since Title 1 Rifle, Title 1 Shotgun, Title 2 SBR, and Title 2 SBS are intended to be fired from the shoulder; their overall length is measured in the longest possible fireable configuration (stock open/extended).


Under CA laws/regulations...

A firearm with a barrel length of less than 16" is a "handgun".
A firearm with a 16" or greater barrel length and no shoulder stock is an "other" firearm.

A semi-auto pistol that does not have a fixed magazine and has a second handgrip is an assault weapon.
A semi-auto centerfire other firearm that does not have a fixed magazine and has a second handgrip is an assault weapon.
A semi-auto centerfire other firearm that has an overall length of less than 30" is an assault weapon.

CA considers a second handgrip to be any grip or textured surface that can be utilized by the non-trigger handgun to help in controlling the firearm.
CA measures overall length with the firearm in the shortest possible firing configuration and non-permanently attached muzzle device removed.


Therefore, under Federal and CA laws/regulations...

If the firearm is a Title 1 Handgun that is also a semi-auto pistol that does not have a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is an illegal Title 2 AOW and illegal CA assault weapon.
If the firearm is a Title 1 Handgun that is also a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is an illegal Title 2 AOW and CA legal pistol.
If the firearm is a Title 1 Handgun that is also a RAW and has a vertical forward grip, then it is an illegal Title 2 AOW and CA legal RAW.

If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a semi-auto pistol that does not have a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is an legal Title 1 Other and illegal CA assault weapon.
If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 1 Other and CA legal pistol.
If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a RAW and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 1 Other and CA legal RAW.

If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a semi-auto centerfire other firearm that does not have a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip with an overall length of less than 30", then it is a legal Title 1 Other and illegal CA assault weapon.
If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a semi-auto centerfire other firearm that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip with an overall length of less than 30", then it is a legal Title 1 Other and illegal CA assault weapon.
If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a semi-auto centerfire other firearm that does not have a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip with an overall length of 30" or greater, then it is a legal Title 1 Other and illegal CA assault weapon.
If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a semi-auto centerfire other firearm that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip with an overall length of 30" or greater, then it is a legal Title 1 Other and legal CA semi-auto centerfire other firearm.

If the firearm is a Title 2 AOW that is also a semi-auto pistol that does not have a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 2 AOW and CA illegal assault weapon.
If the firearm is a Title 2 AOW that is also a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 2 AOW and CA legal pistol.
If the firearm is a Title 2 AOW that is also a RAW and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 2 AOW and CA legal RAW.

[nismobishi]

Wow thank you for the very informative post!!!

The hypothetical subject firearm for this fictional scenario will be a self built single shot pistol that was vol reg'd with the CA DOJ around 10 or so years ago as a single shot handgun. It has a fixed magazine that requires separating the upper and lower to reload and also has a pistol buffer tube and a 12.5" barrel. It was converted to semi auto with a 10.5" barrel about a year or so after.

So I take it that one of the 2 following methods will allow this fictional firearm to have a VFG?

If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 1 Other and CA legal pistol.

If the firearm is a Title 2 AOW that is also a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 2 AOW and CA legal pistol.

[morrcarr67]

Wow thank you for the very informative post!!!

The hypothetical subject firearm for this fictional scenario will be a self built single shot pistol that was vol reg'd with the CA DOJ around 10 or so years ago as a single shot handgun. It has a fixed magazine that requires separating the upper and lower to reload and also has a pistol buffer tube and a 12.5" barrel. It was converted to semi auto with a 10.5" barrel about a year or so after.

So I take it that one of the 2 following methods will allow this fictional firearm to have a VFG?

If the firearm is a Title 1 Other that is also a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 1 Other and CA legal pistol.

If the firearm is a Title 2 AOW that is also a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed magazine and has a vertical forward grip, then it is a legal Title 2 AOW and CA legal pistol.

Yes. Question for you - Does this hypothetical subject firearm currently have a brace or does it plan to get a brace in the future?

The reason I ask is that BATF is rethinking their thoughts on braces because some people who have installed them may not be using them as designed. They've tossed around reclassifying them as SBR's and giving out free tax stamps.

If they do get reclassified as an SBR and this hypothetical subject firearm has a brace it would become an illegal SBR under CA law. However, if you were to AOW this hypothetical subject firearm before BATF reclassified them you would be able to keep the brace on it as under CA law AOWs are exempt from CA SBR/SBS laws.

Just something to think about.

[bohoki]

love the atf ruling on the tac-sac

[sigstroker]

Yes. Question for you - Does this hypothetical subject firearm currently have a brace or does it plan to get a brace in the future?

The reason I ask is that BATF is rethinking their thoughts on braces because some people who have installed them may not be using them as designed. They've tossed around reclassifying them as SBR's and giving out free tax stamps.

If they do get reclassified as an SBR and this hypothetical subject firearm has a brace it would become an illegal SBR under CA law. However, if you were to AOW this hypothetical subject firearm before BATF reclassified them you would be able to keep the brace on it as under CA law AOWs are exempt from CA SBR/SBS laws.

Just something to think about.

I haven't seen anything about free tax stamps. Did you see that somewhere?

[morrcarr67]

I haven't seen anything about free tax stamps. Did you see that somewhere?

It was in some of the early reports on the internet. I haven't looked for anything recently.

Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk

[nismobishi]

The pistol in this hypothetical scenario does not have a brace but might in the near future.

How would one go about turning this into an AOW?

And if the caliber and barrel length have changed since the pistol was registered would the AOW paperwork contain the current specs or the specs from the pistol reg paper?

BTW, you guys are great! Thank you for all of the help.

[seaweedsoyboy]

The pistol in this hypothetical scenario does not have a brace but might in the near future.

How would one go about turning this into an AOW?

And if the caliber and barrel length have changed since the pistol was registered would the AOW paperwork contain the current specs or the specs from the pistol reg paper?

BTW, you guys are great! Thank you for all of the help.

Your Form 1 would detail the firearm in its intended configuration.

[Quiet]

Question for you - Does this hypothetical subject firearm currently have a brace or does it plan to get a brace in the future?

The reason I ask is that BATF is rethinking their thoughts on braces because some people who have installed them may not be using them as designed. They've tossed around reclassifying them as SBR's and giving out free tax stamps.

If they do get reclassified as an SBR and this hypothetical subject firearm has a brace it would become an illegal SBR under CA law. However, if you were to AOW this hypothetical subject firearm before BATF reclassified them you would be able to keep the brace on it as under CA law AOWs are exempt from CA SBR/SBS laws.

Just something to think about.

I haven't seen anything about free tax stamps. Did you see that somewhere?

It was in some of the early reports on the internet. I haven't looked for anything recently.

The proposed rule change, still requires the newly reclassified SBR/SBS to be acquired in compliance with the State laws of where they are located.

So for CA, those newly reclassified SBR/SBS would require their owners to obtain a CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for SBR/SBS prior to BATFE approving them as Federally legal SBR/SBS due to the reclassification.

Under current Federal laws/regulations...
In order for a Title 2 AOW to legally have a shoulder stock attached to it, it must be made into a Title 2 SBR/SBS.

The proposed rule change would require Title 2 AOW with arm stabilizing braces to be made into Title 2 SBS/SBS, in order to remain Federally legal with the arm stabilizing brace attached.
^These firearms will either need to have their arm stabilizing braces removed in order to remain Title 2 AOW or be made into Title 2 SBR/SBS, in order to keep the arm stabilizing braces attached or replaced with shoulder stocks.

[morrcarr67]

The proposed rule change, still requires the newly reclassified SBR/SBS to be acquired in compliance with the State laws of where they are located.

So for CA, those newly reclassified SBR/SBS would require their owners to obtain a CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for SBR/SBS prior to BATFE approving them as Federally legal SBR/SBS due to the reclassification.

Under current Federal laws/regulations...
In order for a Title 2 AOW to legally have a shoulder stock attached to it, it must be made into a Title 2 SBR/SBS.

The proposed rule change would require Title 2 AOW with arm stabilizing braces to be made into Title 2 SBS/SBS, in order to remain Federally legal with the arm stabilizing brace attached.
^These firearms will either need to have their arm stabilizing braces removed in order to remain Title 2 AOW or be made into Title 2 SBR/SBS, in order to keep the arm stabilizing braces attached or replaced with shoulder stocks.

When did that change? When they first started talking about it the idea was to AOW them to be able to keep the brace in CA.

Sent from my OnePlus Nord N10 5G using Tapatalk

[Quiet]

When did that change? When they first started talking about it the idea was to AOW them to be able to keep the brace in CA.

I believe it was in the proposed rule change with the ATF point system to determine if the firearm becomes a SBR/SBS.

Currently, AOW can not legally have a shoulder stock attached to it, while configured as a NFA firearm.

The proposed rule change will cause an arm stabilizing brace to be treated as shoulder stock.

So, if the AOW with arm stabilizing brace attached meets the ATF point system for a SBR/SBS, it will cause the firearm to be a SBR/SBS.

Which means in order to keep the arm stabilizing brace installed, the firearm will need to be changed from an AOW to a SBR/SBS in order to remain legal under Federal laws/regulations.
If the arm stabilizing brace is removed, then it will allow the firearm to legally remain as an AOW.

Under current CA laws/regulations, a person can not legally make/possess a SBR/SBS in CA, unless they have a valid CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for a SBR/SBS.
Under current Federal laws/regulations, BATFE will not approve a SBR/SBS for a CA resident, until the CA resident first obtains a valid CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for SBR/SBS.

[Capybara]

That's what I thought. So assuming that the yet to be released ATF final regs are what we all think they will be, which is exactly the same or worse than the preliminary version, no more braces for Californians. At least in America you'd be able to pay the ATF their $200.00 extortion fee and convert your braced pistol to an SBR but here, not so much.

Thanks ATF, you'll be making America immeasurably safer with this idiotic and pointless "regulation". I hope there is a huge ADA lawsuit against the ATF for discriminating against handicapped people.