No NFA guns in RI; what happens now with AR/AK pistols?

[pinefd]

It’s my understanding that the ATF has just reclassified any AR or AK pistol with a pistol brace as an SBR. And it’s my understanding that there will be an amnesty period for people to register said items with the ATF as an SBR (supposedly without having to pay the $200 tax).

Not that anyone here in RI would be silly enough to own an AR or AK pistol, but with this change, and the fact that RI doesn’t allow any NFA guns, wouldn’t this pose a real problem for anyone who DOES own an AR or AK pistol? Or am I missing something?

BTW, here’s a video explaining the aforementioned amnesty period:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt2aZ1HTaRE&t=16s



Frank

 

[KBCraig]

The proposed ATF rule only applies to those with a brace. The pistol itself remains GCA, not NFA.

 

[pinefd]

The proposed ATF rule only applies to those with a brace. The pistol itself remains GCA, not NFA.

Not sure I understand the distinction. If someone I knew in RI bought an AR pistol with a brace, wouldn't the whole thing now be considered an SBR (which would be illegal in RI, as I understand it)?


Frank

 

[LakeTrout]

Is it that the rule would mean you can’t put a brace on it because the rule deems a brace a stock. Therefore you would be creating an SBR at that point by putting the brace on a pistol? So this may mean the brace has to go and what you’re left with is a pistol and not an SBR.

 

[duza9999]

If the rule survives the bucket load of injunctions that will come against it, then it depends how it’s worded.

The original 1968 amnesty allowed people to keep their weapons regardless of any state or local laws.

There are a handful of convicted felons still alive that are allowed to keep their MG, SBR, SBS ect, but legally can not touch any other gun.

So it all boils down again to how it’s worded.

If it was to include exemption from any state law, then you should be be able to throw a stock on it aswell even in RI.

Additionally if you ever transferred it in the future, that transfer would regardless have to comply with state/local law.

 

[KBCraig]

Not sure I understand the distinction. If someone I knew in RI bought an AR pistol with a brace, wouldn't the whole thing now be considered an SBR (which would be illegal in RI, as I understand it)?

Yes.

And an AR pistol without a brace would not be an SBR, and would not be illegal in RI.

 

[dhuze]

Not sure I understand the distinction. If someone I knew in RI bought an AR pistol with a brace, wouldn't the whole thing now be considered an SBR (which would be illegal in RI, as I understand it)?


Frank

Did you know that a brace is removable?

 

[pinefd]

Did you know that a brace is removable?

Hah! Of course I know that!

Did you know that some people actually need and use the stabilizing brace for its intended purpose? After having had hand surgery recently (on my support hand), followed by complications from that surgery, I'm doing a lot of one-handed shooting these days. So for now, that pretty much rules out rifles, unless I'm using a bench rest; and I'm finding that I'm doing a lot of one-handed pistol shooting. And that includes my AR pistol, believe it or not. Quite frankly, it's not really something I expected when I first bought the pistol, but here we are!


Frank

 

[Uncle Fester]

I guess we'll just have to go back to ye old days (way back like 10 years ago) and shoulder the buffer tubes.


Back in my day, this was how we played the "not an SBR" game in the ocean state.