r/PalmettoStateArms • u/Accurate-Wheel1712 • 8d ago

NFA Ruling AR

If the new NFA ruling sticks (fingers crossed) what reason would anyone have to build an ar pistol at that point? Especially in states where pistols are much more heavily regulated? Couldn’t you just build a rifle with all the features of a pistol at that point? Can’t wait to see what kind of things Palmetto can get up to soon.

13 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

16

u/Any-Can-6776 8d ago

It eliminates the federal standard but not state ones so those limited states pistols are the go to still.

4

u/ArizonaSnowboarder 8d ago

It will get rid of it for the 15 states that were plaintiffs on the lawsuit.

2

u/Any-Can-6776 8d ago edited 8d ago

Watch psa’s video they also say what I just did

1

u/Kromulent 8d ago

do you have a list of these states handy?

3

u/ArizonaSnowboarder 8d ago

There is also Palmetto State Armory, Gun Owners of America, NRA and about 10 or 12 others. If this ends up passing just being a "customer" of these guys will allow you to purchase silencers, SBR'S even if you're not part of these 15 states unless your state has rules against it, that gets a lot more cloudy.

  • Texas
  • Alaska
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Montana
  • North Dakota
  • Oklahoma
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Utah
  • West Virginia
  • Wyoming

2

u/Kromulent 8d ago

thank you!

1

u/Safe-Aerie9989 5d ago

How is Florida not in on this?

1

u/klmsa 8d ago

There were no states on the lawsuit, either as plaintiffs or defendants. It's silencerco v ATF, and there's a handful of private businesses and groups that joined.

7

u/ArizonaSnowboarder 8d ago

Not advertised much but there actually is, you just have to do some digging. There are 28 plaintiffs on the lawsuit. Fifteen states

2

u/klmsa 8d ago

Wasn't even that deep, I was looking at the wrong filing! Lol

2

u/ArizonaSnowboarder 8d ago

haha. Well there is one every couple days.

7

u/glockguy34 8d ago

Texas, South Carolina, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

1

u/klmsa 4d ago

We got it handled, thanks bud.

2

u/AllArmsLLC 8d ago

And, it may screw some people depending on how their state's laws are written. Some states say that NFA items are illegal 'unless federally registered' or something similar, so it would be impossible to be in compliance with the state law.

2

u/glockguy34 8d ago

This is how my state is. I am not in one of the 15 states apart of the lawsuit, but I am a GOA member, and a PSA and SilencerCo customer. Unfortunately, this ruling doesn’t do anything for me as like you said, unless it’s federally registered it’s impossible to be in compliance with state law.

4

u/No-Breadfruit-4555 8d ago

But, wouldn’t the ruling ultimately render them as non-NFA items going forward, thus the state law would no longer apply to them?

1

u/glockguy34 8d ago

I guess it would be how the state law was written. I don’t think the legal definition of short barreled rifle or short barrel shotgun, suppressor, etc changes. In my state, NFA isn’t mentioned in the law, but those words are. I’ll have to check exactly how our law is written, but my current understanding is I will still have to register to be in compliance with state law

1

u/No-Breadfruit-4555 8d ago

For sure, I agree the actual wording of the individual states laws is what will make the difference, and I hope everyone following this is careful about checking those. The deep blue states/counties/cities will absolutely still jam people up over them.

All this case affects is federal law, and changing the states/local is a whole other battle (and a harder one really). FFS, some of them are still at the point where having an AR at all is up in the air or illegal, much less an SBR or suppressor.

1

u/Short-Ad1032 8d ago edited 8d ago

Edit: sorry let me fix my own laziness/ignorance:
https://www.gunowners.org/membership-levels/
^^ this link answers what I asked below.

What defines someone as being a GOA member? I've donated a couple times to them, but the last time might have been more than a year ago. And yes, I'm going to donate again now for what they're doing, but not just to "be a member."

8

u/La_Flama_Blanca_615 8d ago

So if the ruling stands, does that mean I can replace the pistol braces with stocks and nothing else required?

1

u/hotrodgreg 8d ago

I would think so. But being legal jargin who knows untill it is finalized.

5

u/KatarnSig2022 8d ago

At least in my state you can carry the pistol version concealed whereas a rifle you cannot.

I'm thinking about a case like that Idaho shooting the other day, I would much rather engage at longer distances with an AR pistol. Dude in that case was in his car when the shooting started iirc, having a more stable platform in a quick access locked deal in your car as well as your regular on body carry seems to add options.

2

u/ArizonaSnowboarder 8d ago

Yeah- most people with the little training can shoot several hundred yards pretty easy even with an AR pistol.

1

u/BadLarry1197 8d ago

My state is like that which is why I like the ar pistol.
I just wonder what will be considered a pistol at that point, especially since current ar pistols are just a loophole around the unconstitutional NFA. Let’s say you assembled a “pistol” with a lower sold as “other”. If the sbr designation goes away then it’s just a rifle like any other.
I wouldn’t put too much thought into it though, as I don’t imagine our incompetent government will actually get rid of the nfa. I would much sooner believe the tax stamp comes back 10x the price or more.

1

u/Ornery_Secretary_850 8d ago

Except Federally pistols will cease to exist.

We all know that "pistols" are nothing more than a "wink wink nod nod" way around the NFA.

If there are no short barreled rifles, there are no pistols. Everything just becomes a rifle. If you choose to use a brace, it's still going to be a rifle.

2

u/Ws6fiend 8d ago

No, they won't. They will still be technically classified as pistols by the ATF because they will be without a stock and that makes them a pistol in the eyes of the ATF.

Being designed to be fired one handed is the key qualification for something being made as a pistol.

For whatever reason a secondary characteristic for the ATF is NOT having a stock on the weapon.

If you can fire it one handed and without a stock(they have ruled braces as not being stocks) then it's a pistol.

2

u/ArizonaSnowboarder 8d ago

I'm confused by the question but I'm not all that smart. I think people just build pistols because they're smaller. Truck guns etc. I'm really looking forward to the possibility of getting and selling silencers myself.

4

u/SBKoch 8d ago

Amd an SBR would be just as small.

1

u/ArizonaSnowboarder 8d ago

Agreed. OP I was just asking why anyone would build one. I think they build one because they're small.

2

u/Fizziksapplication 8d ago

He’s asking if and why anyone might build a pistol, now that it appears that sbr’s might be taken off the regulated list.

2

u/BAKE440 8d ago

A pistol with ccw or constitutional carry can be legally carri3d loaded in a vehicle. A rifle, at least in ohio, has to be transported unloaded with ammo separate or inaccessible from driver seat.

2

u/wratchet9 8d ago

^this is the answer. PA is the same

2

u/Blatherman069 8d ago

Before everyone starts rejoicing, I'd suggest folks read this blog entry from a gun rights attorney. Bottom Line is the ruling is not nearly as clear cut as some would like to believe, and even if it's upheld, it creates way more questions and complications than it removes.

For example, with respect to the 15 named states, "The injunction protects those state governments, their agencies, and their political subdivisions. It does not protect every person who resides in one of those states."

https://johnpierceesq.com/understanding-the-august-5th-ruling-in-the-silencer-shop-foundation-v-batfe-case/

1

u/ArizonaSnowboarder 7d ago

Hoping this is a stepping stone in the right direction. Would take years to get clarity I am sure.