In that article I note that FFL’s are prohibited under 18 USC § 922(b)(1) from ‘selling or delivering‘ a handgun, or ammunition for a handgun, ‘to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age‘.
The question then arises as to whether or not the rental of a handgun for use on an FFL’s on-premises range constitutes ‘delivery‘ for the purposes of applying this prohibition.
The ATF answered this question in their March 2013 Newsletter (embedded below) where they states that “A licensee may rent a handgun to a person less than 21 years of age, or a long gun to a person less than 18 years of age for use at an on-premises shooting range. The on-premises rental of National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms is also permitted.”
But an observant person will note that 18 USC § 922(b)(1) prohibits the sale or delivery of handguns and ammunition for handguns. So we then have the secondary question of whether or not an FFL may provide ammunition to someone between the ages of 18 and 21 after they have rented them a handgun?
Renowned Pennsylvania firearms attorney Joshua Prince was asked by one of his clients to get a determination letter from the ATF on just this issue. That determination letter is embedded below.
I received an email this morning from a client asking whether or not they could add a bipod to their pistol without making it an AOW.
As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, the answer to almost any legal question is “maybe” and that is certainly the case here.
There is no ATF regulation directly on point to the ‘bipod’ question but that does not mean that we are done with our analysis.
Let’s start with some basic rules:
1) Adding a vertical foregrip to a ‘pistol’ makes it an AOW subject to NFA regulation. See the Franklin Armory letter below.
2) If the pistol has an overall length greater than 26 inches then you can add a vertical foregrip and convert the ‘pistol’ to a ‘firearm’ in the eyes of the ATF without it being considered an AOW. This is also covered in the Franklin Armory letter.
For purposes of this analysis, I am going to assume that we are dealing with a pistol that has an overall length less than 26 inches.
Now we turn to the question of whether or not a bipod can be considered a ‘vertical foregrip’ for purposes of applying rule #1 above.
As my client pointed out in his email, the Ruger Charger 10/22 pistol comes from the factory with a bipod and is not classified as an AOW. Therefore we do know that at least some types of bipods are allowable.
But does this hold true for all bipods? No it does not.
The most obvious example of a bipod that would be considered to also be a vertical foregrip is the aptly named Grip Pod pictured below.
This is a bipod that can also serve as a vertical foregrip and therefore would cause a pistol to which it was attached to be considered an AOW.
But not all examples are so clear-cut. While we do not have a detailed ruling on the issue from the ATF, if a given bipod is capable of being folded into a stable configuration approximating a vertical foregrip then I believe ATF would consider it violative of the rule against vertical foregrips.
Finally, I believe that ATF would probably apply the same logic from the stabilizing brace issue to this question. In that case, the ATF held that “[s]ince the pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.”
As applied here, I can easily see them holding that “Since the bipod was neither ‘designed’ nor approved to be used as a vertical foregrip, use as a vertical foregrip constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.”
So … where does that leave us?
I believe the best summary would be as follows:
Use of any bipod that has a built in grip or the capability to be folded into a stable configuration approximating a vertical foregrip would potentially expose the owner to a charge of violating the NFA. The same would probably be true of any person who uses an otherwise legal bipod as a vertical foregrip despite its intended purposes and design.
Outside of those two broad categories, a bipod is perfectly legal for use on a pistol.
If you call me with a tax law question, I am going to refer you to an attorney who practices tax law. The same is true with all the other areas of law that are outside my wheelhouse.
The reason for this should be readily apparent. As attorneys we have an ethical obligation to avoid taking cases where we lack the necessary competency.
However, not everyone understands the level of complexity involved in firearms law and this can lead to disastrous consequences.
Over the last year I have encountered a number of purported gun rights ‘restorations’ which do not, in fact, restore the rights of the petitioner and can lead to state or federal charges against the person who believes that his or her rights have been restored.
These failed restorations generally fall into one of four categories:
1) The petitioner was convicted of a federal felony
The 1994 case of Beecham v. United States, (511 U.S. 368) made it clear that a state does not have the power to restore the firearm rights of a person whose disability was imposed by a federal or military felony. However, I have received calls from several potential clients who claimed that they have a signed order from their circuit court purporting to do just that.
Just to be clear … if you have been convicted of a federal felony then there are only two ways to get your gun rights back and only one of them is actually available.
1 – By applying to the Secretary of the Treasury for relief from firearms disabilities
This is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The problem? Since 1992, Democrat-lead efforts in Congress have prevented the agency from expending any appropriated funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court held in the 2002 case of United States v. Bean (537 U.S. 71) that this refusal to process an application is not a ‘denial’ of the request and therefore, the District Courts have no jurisdiction to review the ‘denial’.
2 – By receiving a presidential pardon.
Information and instructions for submitting an application for a presidential pardon are available here.
Therefore, absent a presidential pardon, a person suffering under a disability imposed by a federal or military felony cannot have his or her gun rights restored and any state order purporting to do so is ineffective.
2) The disqualifying charge was a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence
I have written about this before but it bears repeating here. In early 2015 I received an email from someone who claimed that they had successfully petitioned a circuit court to restore their firearm rights after having been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
The problem here?
1) While a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence makes you a prohibited person under federal law, Virginia does not remove the firearm rights of those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence;
2) The jurisdictional grant of power in 18.2-308.2(C) to restore firearms rights only applies to those who are prohibited persons under Virginia law; and
3) The federal courts have repeatedly held that states may not ‘restore’ that which was never taken away.
In one of many cases to uphold this premise, United States v. Jennings,323 F.3d 263 (4th Cir.), the court held that “restoration of a thing never lost … is a definitional impossibility.”
This leaves a simple pardon from the Governor as the only path by which those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in Virginia may currently seek to remove their federal disabilities.
A court order from a Virginia court, purporting to restore rights never taken away by the State, is ineffective.
3) The disqualifying offense was from another state
Under the terms of the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), the consequences and status of a disqualifying conviction must be “determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held.” This is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).
The Virginia State Police has this to say about convictions from another state, “While an individual may have his firearms rights restored under state law, we must determine if their rights are also restored under federal law. We have been advised that the removal of federal firearm disabilities that were imposed by a state conviction will occur under 18 USC 921(a)(20) only if the restoration of rights proceedings are held in the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred.”
Therefore, a court order from a Virginia court, purporting to restore rights taken away by a conviction in another state, is ineffective.
4) The restoration is conditional
The final category occurs when a restoration is validly granted but contains some sort of condition on the type of firearm that may be purchased or possessed, such as:
– This restoration is valid only for rifles and shotguns and does not authorize the possession of handguns.
The US Supreme Court held in the 1998 case of Caron v United States (524 U.S. 308), that a gun rights restoration must be all-or-nothing. In other words, if there are any restrictions on the types of firearms that the petitioner may possess then the restoration order fails to remove the federal disability.
Therefore, if a purported restoration has such a condition it is ineffective.
What if I have one of these ‘failed’ restorations?
If you have a purported restoration that falls into one of these categories then I would be glad to offer you a free consultation.
Contact me at (276) 206-9615 and we will discuss your options.
In assisting one of my clients I have discovered several errors in the current version of the Application for a Concealed Handgun Permit (SP-248) that I believe need to be corrected.
The issues are on page 2 in the Form 2 section (see the embedded form below). That section deals with the various mental health dis-qualifiers for a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) under § 18.2-308.09 subsections 2, 3, and 4.
Applicants are directed to one of five sub-parts in that section based upon their answers to questions 8b, 8c, and 8d.
Each of those sub-parts appropriately asks if the applicant has had his or her rights restored pursuit to the applicable provisions of § 18.2-308.1:1, § 18.2-308.1:2, or § 18.2-308.1:3.
However, in each of the sub-parts, the SP-248 then goes on to ask if 5 years have elapsed “since the date of restoration.” This is an incorrect statement of the law in every case.
– In § 18.2-308.09(2), the General Assembly specifies that for those whose original prohibition was based upon § 18.2-308.1:1, the five-year period begins when they were “discharged from the custody of the Commissioner.”
– In § 18.2-308.09(3), the General Assembly specifies that for those whose original prohibition was based upon § 18.2-308.1:2, the five-year period begins when their “competency or capacity was restored pursuant to § 64.2-2012.”
– In § 18.2-308.09(4), the General Assembly specifies that for those whose original prohibition was based upon § 18.2-308.1:3, the five-year period begins when they were “released from commitment.”
The form, as currently printed, misstates the requirements for applying for a CHP and places the applicant in a position where answering the question truthfully will almost certainly result in their application being erroneously denied.
I have forwarded my concerns to the Virginia State Police for review and possible correction. I will keep my clients informed as I get updates.
GDE Error: Error retrieving file - if necessary turn off error checking (404:Not Found)
For those clients who need their voting rights restoration in order to apply for restoration of their firearm rights, the Governor’s response contained some good news.
He stated that “The men and women whose voting rights were restored by my executive action should not be alarmed. I will expeditiously sign nearly 13,000 individual orders to restore the fundamental rights of the citizens who have had their rights restored and registered to vote. And I will continue to sign orders until I have completed restoration for all 200,000 Virginians.”
It appears as if those who actually registered to vote following the April 22nd executive order should expect to quickly receive an individualized restoration from the Governor. If you fall into this category then you simply need to wait.
For those who fall into the second category of those who purportedly had their rights restored based upon the April 22nd order but did not actually register to vote the path forward is not yet clear. While the Governor indicated he will continue to sign orders for each one until he has restored everyone, there is no indication as to whether a request may be made for expedited processing.
The Governor’s Restoration of Rights page has not yet been updated to reflect the ruling but I expect we will receive more guidance over the next few days. I will keep my clients informed as details emerge.
“John represented me at my hearing in Fairfax County Circuit Court for my Petition for Restoration of Firearms Rights. My case was a bit complex and it incorporated some new legislation that John was very educated on. The legislation was so new that the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Judge did not have any knowledge of it. John’s actions in the courtroom to bring the new legislation to the attention of the court were astonishing and brilliant; even bringing a smile to the Judge and pat on the back from a fellow attorney after the hearing.
John’s flat rate pricing for representation is amazingly affordable. He is true to his word, communicates through out the entire process and works diligently to represent you. I highly recommend John Pierce.” - Shawn
Outstanding Service
“I contacted John via email regarding trust and estate work that I needed and questions that I had. He called me that same day, walked me through the process, took adequate time and was very patient in responding to my questions. He is very down to earth and professional. I was astounded as I found he was on travel, yet he took the time to personally contact me. He was very responsive in following up with the documents that I needed. I am extremely pleased and appreciative of the time he took with me and his outstanding level of service. I've worked with a number of attorneys in my profession and John exceeds the standards that I am accustomed to. I highly recommend him.” - Ron
I have written before about the differences between Virginia law and federal law where the age to acquire, possess, and carry handguns is concerned.
I received an email this morning from a client asking whether or not they could add a bipod to their pistol without making it an AOW.
If you call me with a tax law question, I am going to refer you to an attorney who practices tax law. The same is true with all the other areas of law that are outside my wheelhouse.
In assisting one of my clients I have discovered several errors in the current version of the Application for a Concealed Handgun Permit (SP-248) that I believe need to be corrected.
Following 
