Do you have the name of that case?
There is another case I have to find besides this one but this is one of the cases.
Federal case, US v. Fix (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Christopher FIX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-10789. August 29, 2001), [6] the 5th Circuit Federal Appeals Court countered BATFE. Originally, in the trial case, Fix was convicted under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) of possession of an unregistered NFA firearm found during a search of his home and business as a weapon that required NFA registration. In US v. Fix, he appealed and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the trial case. The 5th Circuit noted that Fix was a defendant who was found to be in possession of a handgun/pistol that had a second pistol/foregrip attached. On appeal, Fix argued that the Government/BATFE did not prove the handgun/pistol with a second pistol grip added was an unregistered NFA firearm. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals presided and found in a related provision that a GCA "firearm" is defined by a list of eight weapons and a catchall provision of "any other weapon." See 26 U.S.C. §5845(a). "Any other weapon" includes "any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive," but not "a pistol . . . having a rifled bore . . ." See 26 U.S.C. § 845(e). Weapons not included in the definition of firearm in § 5845 need not be registered under § 5861(d). Fix argues that his firearm was a pistol, not an NFA AOW that met the exception in §5845(e), and, therefore, did not need to be registered under §5861. The 5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Government/BATFE failed to prove a violation of §5861(d) for two reasons. First, the weapon did not fit the definition required by the statute in the NFA. The provision defining "pistol" for the purposes of the statute is 27 C.F.R. §179.11, which defines a pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..." The government argues that because the handgun/pistol was modified to be fired with two hands, it "falls out" of the definition of pistol and falls back into the definition of "any other weapon" in § 5845. The 5th Circuit found BATFE's argument ignores the definition's requirement that the weapon be capable of being held with one hand at the time it was originally designed and made. As written, the GCA or NFA definition does not consider modifications of the weapon by the owner. The 5th Circuit court further found that the handgun/pistol in this case was originally designed and made to be fired with one hand, and still could be, despite the addition of a foregrip. Second, the definition of "any other weapon" in §5845(a) and (e) expressly excludes weapons with a rifled bore which this handgun/pistol had. The 5th Circuit held that the "any other weapon" provision was intended as a catch-all category in which to gather sawed-off shotguns and other hybrid weapons. A sawed-off shotgun may be concealed like a pistol, but would have the smooth bore of a shotgun. The 5th Circuit court also noted that the Government/BATFE's own witness stated that the involved handgun/pistol had a rifled bore, and thus, cannot be considered an "any other weapon."
The Gun Control Act (GCA) under 27 CFR 478.11 [7]
defines a handgun/pistol as: 27 CFR 478.11: Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and (b) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in paragraph (a) can be assembled.
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
Semiautomatic pistol. Any repeating pistol which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
Therefore, no wording exists in the law (either GCA or NFA) that states the addition of a vertical foregrip to a handgun/pistol originally designed to be held with one hand is an AOW. BATFE, however, still maintains the stance that such an action is enforceable under NFA.
(Under this would it be legal to put a second vertical grip on a firearm without paying the nfa tax or going through all the extra paper work , since the 5th district decision was never overturned by a higher court)
