There’s been bills introduced that ban, or reclassify pistols “with magazines outside of the grip” as NFA items.
There’s also bills that ban threaded barrels also.
Law Bump Stock Ban About to be Introduced
- Thread starter Lord Coke
- Start date
There’s also bills that ban threaded barrels also.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,403
- Reaction score
- 747
This issue is torn to me. I understand both sides:
On the one hand, I'm a competitive shooter, and have an occupation wherein I am able to fire a high volume on a weekly basis. So, I think bump stocks are a gimmick and their capabilities are over estimated. Because I am positive with or without bump stocks - firing into crowd like at the Route 91 show, from that angle, with those weapons, is going to be devastating. Using AR-15s/10's on semi, with a bipod, with a tripod, or a support position, without a bump stock, would have provided for more accuracy. It's estimated he was 300-500yds from the crowd, with an angle that would need a slight compensation for. Those are not difficult shots - at all.
On the other hand, I read articles like this: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...un-control-nra-backs-new-regulations-n2391259
And read that Pelosi says this: "Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Towards More Gun Control"
So while I think bump stocks are dumb, and over estimated in their lethality... I support the argument, and the tooth and nail fight gun lobbyist are going to do. I believe Trump tried to appease some base with this legislation and attempted to keep a narrow ban. But, anti-gun politicians are going to use this as precedence to do even more.
On the one hand, I'm a competitive shooter, and have an occupation wherein I am able to fire a high volume on a weekly basis. So, I think bump stocks are a gimmick and their capabilities are over estimated. Because I am positive with or without bump stocks - firing into crowd like at the Route 91 show, from that angle, with those weapons, is going to be devastating. Using AR-15s/10's on semi, with a bipod, with a tripod, or a support position, without a bump stock, would have provided for more accuracy. It's estimated he was 300-500yds from the crowd, with an angle that would need a slight compensation for. Those are not difficult shots - at all.
On the other hand, I read articles like this: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...un-control-nra-backs-new-regulations-n2391259
And read that Pelosi says this: "Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Towards More Gun Control"
So while I think bump stocks are dumb, and over estimated in their lethality... I support the argument, and the tooth and nail fight gun lobbyist are going to do. I believe Trump tried to appease some base with this legislation and attempted to keep a narrow ban. But, anti-gun politicians are going to use this as precedence to do even more.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,199
- Reaction score
- 6,991
Yep . . . this is what folks are truly worried about.
The cat is way out of the bag, we are in the information super age here, no way in hell you’re gonna stop criminals from going full auto if they wanted to.
The ONLY true way out of this, re-open the machinegun registry.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 15,654
- Reaction score
- 2,471
It's funny that Trump isn't doing any of the things liberals have accused him of being from the start and he's turning out to be more of a leftist than Obama.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 10,789
- Reaction score
- 13,458
We must resist Donald Trump's gun control
http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/19/trump-administrations-new-bump-stock-ban-legal-abomination/
By Sean Davis
DECEMBER 19, 2018
The Trump administration on Tuesday issued a sweeping new gun control regulation to ban bump stocks, which harness the recoil energy from semi-automatic rifles to increase the firearms’ rate of fire. The regulation was issued 14 months following the mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas in which 58 people were killed and hundreds more were injured. It was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
The shooter, who killed himself before police were able to take him into custody, added bump stocks to several of his rifles. Critics of the devices, including the Trump administration, claim that bump fire stocks illegally convert semi-automatic rifles, which are legal for civilians to possess, into fully automatic machine guns, which are not legal for civilians to possess absent explicit permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). The new rule makes bump stocks illegal and turns their owners into felons if they do not destroy their bump stocks or surrender them to BATFE officials within the next 90 days.
The new rule represents the most sweeping federal gun control effort since the so-called assault weapons ban, which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2003. Even the Obama administration, which was overtly hostile to Second Amendment rights, rejected the logic of Trump’s bump stock ban.
As a matter of both law and physics, the Trump administration’s gun control rule banning bump stocks is an abomination. The Department of Justice (DOJ), which formally issued the rule, not only ignores underlying federal statutes that precisely define what constitutes a fully automatic “machine gun,” it also ignores the mechanics of how guns are fired and how bump stocks increase the rate of fire. Even worse, the faulty logic of the new gun control rule could eventually be used as a basis for a presidential administration unilaterally banning and confiscating all semi-automatic weapons.
To fully understand how lawless and uniformed the Trump administration’s new rule is, one must first understand the federal statutory definition of a “machine gun,” the process by which semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms function, and the precise means by which bump stocks increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon.
A fully automatic weapon, or “machine gun,” fires multiple rounds with a single operation of the trigger until the firearm runs out of ammunition. A semi-automatic weapon fires only one round per operation of the trigger. Both types of firearm use the recoil energy generated by the firing of a round to eject the spent shell casing, strip a new round from the magazine, place that round into the chamber so that it is ready to be fired, and reset the hammer so that it is in position to hit the firing pin and shoot another round.
In a machine gun, as long as the trigger is depressed, the hammer will keep cycling and hitting the firing pin and firing new rounds until the trigger is released or the firearm runs out of ammunition. In a semi-automatic weapon, the hammer cannot be released until the trigger is released and then operated again.
If you’re not a gun person, these differences may seem pedantic and semantic, but their importance cannot be overstated, either legally or mechanically. That’s because federal law, specifically the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, define and treat semi-automatic and fully automatic guns differently in significant ways. Absent explicit permission from BATFE, an invasive process that can take years, civilian possession of a machine gun manufactured after 1986 is a felony that results in significant prison time. Even the mere possession of a single distinctive part of a machine gun, such as a sear or hammer from the trigger assembly, is enough to make you a felon.
Here is the current federal statutory definition of a “machine gun”:
any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
The phrase “a single function of the trigger” is extremely important. As noted above, a fully automatic weapon fires multiple rounds with a single trigger operation. A semi-automatic weapon requires multiple trigger operations to fire multiple rounds.
A bump stock simply doesn’t change how a semi-automatic weapon fires; it merely increases the rate of fire by using the weapon’s recoil energy to increase the rate of single-trigger operations by the user’s finger. It is physically and mechanically impossible for an external piece of plastic with no moving parts, which is what a bump stock is, to alter the internal trigger mechanism of the actual firearm to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger operation. Bump stocks simply do not, in any universe, change the internal functions or eliminate the internal mechanical constraints that make a semi-automatic weapon incapable of fully automatic fire.
Unfortunately, neither the laws of physics nor the laws of the United States constrained the Trump DOJ from promulgating the latest rule. Notwithstanding the clear statutory definition of “machine gun” and the mechanics required for a firearm to be fully automatic, DOJ effectively declared in its new rule that up is down and hot is cold. It is essentially grabbing for itself Congress’s exclusive right to make laws. Here’s how the federal law enforcement agency defined “machine gun” in its new rule:
The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
“Clearly, bump-fire stocks were designed to allow faster rates of fire than most could attain without these devices and they were obviously designed around the current laws concerning machine guns,” federal firearms attorney and former Army Ranger sniper team leader Ryan Cleckner writes. “However, they do not make a firearm into a machine gun – that is until this new rule, at least.”
A bump stock does not allow a semi-automatic firearm to “shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.” It increases the rate at which a user’s finger pulls the trigger. DOJ’s new definition, which flies in the face of reality and outright ignores the statutory definition in law, is false. It is a lie. And it is a lie so absurd that not even the pro-gun control Obama administration was willing to countenance it.
In June 2010, BATFE’s firearms branch chief John R. Spencer noted as much when he ruled, following extensive examination, that bump stocks were entirely legal under the NFA because they did not alter the internal function of semi-automatic firearms.
“The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic function when installed,” Spencer declared. “In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand.”
“Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not a regulated firearm under [the] Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”
Even though a bump stock has no moving parts, no barrel, no chamber, no trigger, no buffer tube, and no springs, the Trump administration declared it to be a firearm all by itself. And because the new DOJ rule contains no language requiring intent to be demonstrated in order to determine whether the object’s possession constitutes a felony, an individual who owns no actual guns and no ammunition but has an unopened box containing a bump stock in a closet somewhere will instantly be a felon under the new Trump rule.
The reasoning behind and the drafting of the rule is so bad that once it takes effect, an individual who owns no actual guns but is convicted of possessing an illegal bump stock would be subject to a maximum prison sentence of 10 years (18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(B)), while an unauthorized individual who was convicted of bring a loaded rifle into an elementary school would be subject to maximum prison sentence of just 5 years (26 U.S.C. 5861 and 26 U.S.C. 5871).
The new bump stock ban ignores the current statutory definition of a machine gun, creates a new regulatory definition contrary to the existing statutory definition (and contrary to how the U.S. Constitution requires new laws to be passed and enacted), and falsely characterizes how bump stocks work in order to implement a nationwide gun control ban and confiscation regime.
If the government can get away with lawlessly declaring a piece of plastic to be a machine gun, then it can get away with saying your AR-15 is a machine gun, knocking in your door, confiscating your guns, and throwing you in prison.
President Donald Trump should be ashamed for allowing this to happen, acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker should be ashamed for signing the rule’s promulgation, and everyone at BATFE who enforces this blatantly lawless gun control power grab should be ashamed for taking part in the scam.
Having a pen and a phone is no excuse for President Donald J. Trump ignoring the U.S. Constitution and existing federal law.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/19/trump-administrations-new-bump-stock-ban-legal-abomination/
By Sean Davis
DECEMBER 19, 2018
The Trump administration on Tuesday issued a sweeping new gun control regulation to ban bump stocks, which harness the recoil energy from semi-automatic rifles to increase the firearms’ rate of fire. The regulation was issued 14 months following the mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas in which 58 people were killed and hundreds more were injured. It was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
The shooter, who killed himself before police were able to take him into custody, added bump stocks to several of his rifles. Critics of the devices, including the Trump administration, claim that bump fire stocks illegally convert semi-automatic rifles, which are legal for civilians to possess, into fully automatic machine guns, which are not legal for civilians to possess absent explicit permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). The new rule makes bump stocks illegal and turns their owners into felons if they do not destroy their bump stocks or surrender them to BATFE officials within the next 90 days.
The new rule represents the most sweeping federal gun control effort since the so-called assault weapons ban, which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2003. Even the Obama administration, which was overtly hostile to Second Amendment rights, rejected the logic of Trump’s bump stock ban.
As a matter of both law and physics, the Trump administration’s gun control rule banning bump stocks is an abomination. The Department of Justice (DOJ), which formally issued the rule, not only ignores underlying federal statutes that precisely define what constitutes a fully automatic “machine gun,” it also ignores the mechanics of how guns are fired and how bump stocks increase the rate of fire. Even worse, the faulty logic of the new gun control rule could eventually be used as a basis for a presidential administration unilaterally banning and confiscating all semi-automatic weapons.
To fully understand how lawless and uniformed the Trump administration’s new rule is, one must first understand the federal statutory definition of a “machine gun,” the process by which semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms function, and the precise means by which bump stocks increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon.
A fully automatic weapon, or “machine gun,” fires multiple rounds with a single operation of the trigger until the firearm runs out of ammunition. A semi-automatic weapon fires only one round per operation of the trigger. Both types of firearm use the recoil energy generated by the firing of a round to eject the spent shell casing, strip a new round from the magazine, place that round into the chamber so that it is ready to be fired, and reset the hammer so that it is in position to hit the firing pin and shoot another round.
In a machine gun, as long as the trigger is depressed, the hammer will keep cycling and hitting the firing pin and firing new rounds until the trigger is released or the firearm runs out of ammunition. In a semi-automatic weapon, the hammer cannot be released until the trigger is released and then operated again.
If you’re not a gun person, these differences may seem pedantic and semantic, but their importance cannot be overstated, either legally or mechanically. That’s because federal law, specifically the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, define and treat semi-automatic and fully automatic guns differently in significant ways. Absent explicit permission from BATFE, an invasive process that can take years, civilian possession of a machine gun manufactured after 1986 is a felony that results in significant prison time. Even the mere possession of a single distinctive part of a machine gun, such as a sear or hammer from the trigger assembly, is enough to make you a felon.
Here is the current federal statutory definition of a “machine gun”:
any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
The phrase “a single function of the trigger” is extremely important. As noted above, a fully automatic weapon fires multiple rounds with a single trigger operation. A semi-automatic weapon requires multiple trigger operations to fire multiple rounds.
A bump stock simply doesn’t change how a semi-automatic weapon fires; it merely increases the rate of fire by using the weapon’s recoil energy to increase the rate of single-trigger operations by the user’s finger. It is physically and mechanically impossible for an external piece of plastic with no moving parts, which is what a bump stock is, to alter the internal trigger mechanism of the actual firearm to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger operation. Bump stocks simply do not, in any universe, change the internal functions or eliminate the internal mechanical constraints that make a semi-automatic weapon incapable of fully automatic fire.
Unfortunately, neither the laws of physics nor the laws of the United States constrained the Trump DOJ from promulgating the latest rule. Notwithstanding the clear statutory definition of “machine gun” and the mechanics required for a firearm to be fully automatic, DOJ effectively declared in its new rule that up is down and hot is cold. It is essentially grabbing for itself Congress’s exclusive right to make laws. Here’s how the federal law enforcement agency defined “machine gun” in its new rule:
The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
“Clearly, bump-fire stocks were designed to allow faster rates of fire than most could attain without these devices and they were obviously designed around the current laws concerning machine guns,” federal firearms attorney and former Army Ranger sniper team leader Ryan Cleckner writes. “However, they do not make a firearm into a machine gun – that is until this new rule, at least.”
A bump stock does not allow a semi-automatic firearm to “shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.” It increases the rate at which a user’s finger pulls the trigger. DOJ’s new definition, which flies in the face of reality and outright ignores the statutory definition in law, is false. It is a lie. And it is a lie so absurd that not even the pro-gun control Obama administration was willing to countenance it.
In June 2010, BATFE’s firearms branch chief John R. Spencer noted as much when he ruled, following extensive examination, that bump stocks were entirely legal under the NFA because they did not alter the internal function of semi-automatic firearms.
“The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic function when installed,” Spencer declared. “In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand.”
“Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not a regulated firearm under [the] Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”
Even though a bump stock has no moving parts, no barrel, no chamber, no trigger, no buffer tube, and no springs, the Trump administration declared it to be a firearm all by itself. And because the new DOJ rule contains no language requiring intent to be demonstrated in order to determine whether the object’s possession constitutes a felony, an individual who owns no actual guns and no ammunition but has an unopened box containing a bump stock in a closet somewhere will instantly be a felon under the new Trump rule.
The reasoning behind and the drafting of the rule is so bad that once it takes effect, an individual who owns no actual guns but is convicted of possessing an illegal bump stock would be subject to a maximum prison sentence of 10 years (18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(B)), while an unauthorized individual who was convicted of bring a loaded rifle into an elementary school would be subject to maximum prison sentence of just 5 years (26 U.S.C. 5861 and 26 U.S.C. 5871).
The new bump stock ban ignores the current statutory definition of a machine gun, creates a new regulatory definition contrary to the existing statutory definition (and contrary to how the U.S. Constitution requires new laws to be passed and enacted), and falsely characterizes how bump stocks work in order to implement a nationwide gun control ban and confiscation regime.
If the government can get away with lawlessly declaring a piece of plastic to be a machine gun, then it can get away with saying your AR-15 is a machine gun, knocking in your door, confiscating your guns, and throwing you in prison.
President Donald Trump should be ashamed for allowing this to happen, acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker should be ashamed for signing the rule’s promulgation, and everyone at BATFE who enforces this blatantly lawless gun control power grab should be ashamed for taking part in the scam.
Having a pen and a phone is no excuse for President Donald J. Trump ignoring the U.S. Constitution and existing federal law.
Honestly this could backfire Yuuuuuuuuuuuuge for the anti-gun crowd.
It could bring into question the wrongly cited Miller (narrow scope decision that deemed a Stevens double barrel shotgun that was sawn off wasn’t used by any military/milita in the world, and thus could be restricted by the NFA) and the Hughes amendment, Hughes makes machinegun ownership illegal for civilians, and is the only actual standing federal ban on ANY class of weapon.
I can apply to build a rocket launcher and rockets TODAY, and the federal government couldn’t stop me without just cause, but an entire class of weapon is banned, cuz reasons
It could bring into question the wrongly cited Miller (narrow scope decision that deemed a Stevens double barrel shotgun that was sawn off wasn’t used by any military/milita in the world, and thus could be restricted by the NFA) and the Hughes amendment, Hughes makes machinegun ownership illegal for civilians, and is the only actual standing federal ban on ANY class of weapon.
I can apply to build a rocket launcher and rockets TODAY, and the federal government couldn’t stop me without just cause, but an entire class of weapon is banned, cuz reasons
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
People act like machine guns is settled law. They've never gotten their day in front of SCOTUS. Neither has the NFA, when you consider the only side to argue their case was the government.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 18,654
- Reaction score
- 9,179
It's funny how some people are against bump stocks simply because it's Trump backed. Meanwhile if Obama did it, it would have been a wonderful idea.
There's nothing worse than tribalism and being beholden to a political party. There are so many of these issues that should be nonpartisan.
There's nothing worse than tribalism and being beholden to a political party. There are so many of these issues that should be nonpartisan.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,199
- Reaction score
- 6,991
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...d-rockwell-reveals-the-not-a-bumpstock-stock/
Earlier this week, the Trump Administration, through the Department of Justice, unilaterally re-defined bump fire stocks as machine guns. The fact that the the ATF’s own earlier assessment of the stocks under current law reached the conclusion that they are “a firearm part and…not regulated under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act” doesn’t seem to matter. Bump fire stocks are now machine guns because the ATF says they are.
Now, however, a new product is being announced by a company called Lord Rockwell. And for now, they’re archly calling their product the Not-A-Bumpstock (that name may change).
TTAG spoke to the Not-A-Bumpstock’s inventor last night who told us that he invented this thing for a relative who was born with a deformed arm, loves to shoot, but who couldn’t use a standard bump fire stock.
He said that while this product accomplishes what a bump fire stock does, it does it in such a way as to be different enough that the ATF’s latest ruling won’t apply. Details about those differences are being withheld until early January when a full rollout will happen with a press release and video that will show exactly how the Not-A-Bumptock goes about its business. For now, all we have to go on is the drawing above.
Earlier this week, the Trump Administration, through the Department of Justice, unilaterally re-defined bump fire stocks as machine guns. The fact that the the ATF’s own earlier assessment of the stocks under current law reached the conclusion that they are “a firearm part and…not regulated under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act” doesn’t seem to matter. Bump fire stocks are now machine guns because the ATF says they are.
Now, however, a new product is being announced by a company called Lord Rockwell. And for now, they’re archly calling their product the Not-A-Bumpstock (that name may change).
TTAG spoke to the Not-A-Bumpstock’s inventor last night who told us that he invented this thing for a relative who was born with a deformed arm, loves to shoot, but who couldn’t use a standard bump fire stock.
He said that while this product accomplishes what a bump fire stock does, it does it in such a way as to be different enough that the ATF’s latest ruling won’t apply. Details about those differences are being withheld until early January when a full rollout will happen with a press release and video that will show exactly how the Not-A-Bumptock goes about its business. For now, all we have to go on is the drawing above.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 16,995
- Reaction score
- 0
You know I thought it was weird that those guys in the North Hollywood bank robbery had the knowledge to make their AKs auto.... but didn't know how to clear a stovepipe.... go figure.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,177
- Reaction score
- 485
No part of anything you wrote is even slightly true. The same gun grabbers who wanted Obama to confiscate everything are the same people cheering Trumps bump ban. The liberals who typically bash trump aren’t suddenly crying foul on the bump stock ban. They are with it. Just because they aren’t falling to their knees and sucking trumps cock in other aspects doesn’t change that
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 18,654
- Reaction score
- 9,179
Funny. The articles I've read mention how the bump stocks won't help anything or they say Trump is just doing it because he has to do something to save face.
Whether you want to admit it or not, people only care about their party and not the truth. If Obama did it, the left would be cheering and writing articles of praise. If the right does it, it's for the wrong reasons. I'm not just bashing the left. If Obama banned bump stocks, the right would be flipping out saying he's coming for your guns next.
I'm just fed up of the tribalism.
Tribalism aside, does a bumpstock fit the legal definition of a machinegun, IMHO (and the opinions of many private sector attorneys) it does not.
That is with my personal feelings about machineguns set to the side (repeal Hughes already) and after reading the 150 page rulemaking decision from BATFE
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 4
The threaded barrel ban is of course silly
I am not defending the "assault pistol" ban/nfa classification but the basic idea of it "kind of" makes sense to me because of the fact that a pistol with a vertical grip is considered an AoW
One of the reasons I wanted a reliable tec9 (and bought an mp40) was because I could legally grab the magazine well as a vertical grip
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,177
- Reaction score
- 485
So get an 85 degree angled grip
There’s actually a court case where a guy put a VFG on a pistol, judge threw the case out saying it was ridiculous to reclassify a handgun as an AOW based on adding a grip.
