Is it legal to carry military-style pistols?

[Guest EyeOfMidnight]

Like an AK-47 or AR-15 pistol? The law here says " (16) 'Handgun' means any firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve inches (12²) that is designed, made or adapted to be fired with one (1) hand" Michie's Legal Resources

I know Kwik was let go without a citation when he carried his AK-47 pistol at Radnor Lake.

I'm looking for a simple "yes" or "no." Not lecture about "why would you want to carry that?"

[DaveTN]

If BATF says it is a pistol (Federal law) and the barrel is under 12” (Tennessee Law)… Yes.

And of course it’s not a “fully” as the military would have.

Edited April 9, 2011 by DaveTN

[dunndw]

Yes it's legal.....

I'll keep my eyes open for another news report

[JayC]

Like an AK-47 or AR-15 pistol? The law here says " (16) 'Handgun' means any firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve inches (12²) that is designed, made or adapted to be fired with one (1) hand" Michie's Legal Resources

I know Kwik was let go without a citation when he carried his AK-47 pistol at Radnor Lake.

I'm looking for a simple "yes" or "no." Not lecture about "why would you want to carry that?"

It's not a simple yes or no answer... According to the ATF it's a pistol, and therefore you should be able to carry it... But there is a case currently working it's way through the Sumner County court system where a HCP permit holder was caught carrying a AR-15 pistol, and was charged under the law.

IANAL, but I'd get a legal opinion from a good one before I carried one until that case is sorted out one way or another.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi JayC

Do you know if the Sumner County case (PLR-16) had a vertical fore-grip attached? I haven't followed it and dunno.

One person said the Sumner County PLR-16 had a vertical fore-grip, which is a no-no in the eyes of the ATF unless you get it approved by the ATF as an AOW or something?

But I dunno if a vertical foregrip was present or is the problem in the Sumner County case.

[DaveTN]

I also heard that the Sumner county case was a PLR-16; not an AR. The difference is important in that the PLR-16 is not now and has never been used as a rifle. It was designed as and has always been a pistol. I don’t know how Sumner County would have the authority to change that if the BATF has designated it a handgun.

Do we know if the vertical grip is fact or fiction in that case?

I care because I have one (but no VG).

[JayC]

I'm sorry, I should have stated an AR-15 "style" pistol... but yes it's my understanding that it was a PLR-16

I'm not aware of a vertical fore-grip being attached... but it's been months since I read through the proceedings... my recollection is it had a hand guard on the front of the pistol which would allow somebody to hold the pistol with 2 hands... but my recollection may very well be incorrect.

Which is why I suggested the poster above, contact a good gun rights lawyer before carrying to get the exact details.

Hi JayC

Do you know if the Sumner County case (PLR-16) had a vertical fore-grip attached? I haven't followed it and dunno.

One person said the Sumner County PLR-16 had a vertical fore-grip, which is a no-no in the eyes of the ATF unless you get it approved by the ATF as an AOW or something?

But I dunno if a vertical foregrip was present or is the problem in the Sumner County case.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi JayC and DaveTN

I wasn't arguing, just asking about it. The PLR-16 is close enough looking to an AR or AK pistol that they would all seem fit the same "public perception category" or legal situation.

I also have a PLR-16 and am interested in the case. Dunno if a VFG was involved. One person said it had a VFG but perhaps it was just the factory-manufactured front horizontal grip.

The "designed to be fired with one hand" seems an odd part of the law. In the old days perhaps most folks would fire pistols one-handed, but nowadays it seems almost universal that people almost always fire them two-handed except certain target shooting games or in an emergency.

If a manufacturer managed to design a pistol which can NEVER be fired except with one hand it seems likely to severely damage the marketability of the weapon, because most people prefer two-handed pistol shooting nowadays. So it seems odd to worry about what part of a pistol which both hands touch.

However, law never was and will likely never be especially logical or consistent, so it is likely a waste of time complaining about it.

[Jonnin]

The plr is 100% a pistol. Its 9 inch barrel, sold as a handgun, designated as a handgun, and you have to pay fees and do stuff to make it not a handgun. The barrel wrapping forend adds a rail for a laser sight, flashlight, or other things and is NOT a forward grip under any normal defination of that term. It does not require the AOW paperwork, does not make it "no longer a pistol", etc. A true grip attached to this rail WOULD make the gun no longer a pistol, at which time it is no longer acceptable for carry under a HCP.

I have tried to get a straight answer on this stuff, the above is as I understad it today. Asking at the baft, they do not really know, and I could not get a straight answer to the question.

Techincally, in TN (possibly nationally too) all pistols must be usable one handed (but, it does not say who the user is, could be 140 year old that can barely breathe without help or a bodybuilder that can fire a rifle one handed) so depending on the user, the term pistol may or may not be ok for large pistols.... it makes no sense, if you read all the rules and definations, the stuff is so poorly worded a case can be made every which way.

[DaveTN]

The front grips on mine are hand guards. That is what they are and that is how they are sold. I don’t use lights or add-ons, they are there so I don’t burn the piss out of my weak hand when I use it to support the weapon. And the BATF had to know that when they approved it for sale as a handgun. I wouldn’t get on a witness stand and lie about how I use the weapon and shouldn’t be required to once the Feds have put their stamp of approval on it as a handgun.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I can fire the PLR most accurately with the strap + both hands on the grip. The factory horizontal front piece could be held during firing, but in my experience the changed stance reduces accuracy shooting it thataway. As DaveTN says, the front guard is quite useful to avoid burns if you accidentally touch the front of the gun after emptying a mag.

As far as that goes, the front of the PLR-16 mag well suffices as a dandy built-in vertical fore-grip even if you remove the front guard. Is the pistol legal only if the user keeps his weak hand away from the mag well?

Quibbling could bring into question the square knurled front on the trigger guards of Glock, Beretta 92, CZ-75 and others. That feature is OBVIOUSLY designed by the manufacturer for the user to place his weak-hand index finger, if the user chooses to use that kind of grip. The presence of such a square knurled front on the trigger guard is obvious evidence that the gun was factory-designed to be fired two-handed, and therefore is not a pistol under the legal definition.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[MikePapa1]

Let me update you on the Sumner County case. It was resolved on Thursday. The state dismissed the case on the sale of the gun. The defendant's attorney tendered to the court a bill of sale to a gun store in Nashville, if I remember correctly, it was the East Side Gun Shop, and the state dismissed the charge. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with such cases.

[DaveTN]

Let me update you on the Sumner County case. It was resolved on Thursday. The state dismissed the case on the sale of the gun. The defendant's attorney tendered to the court a bill of sale to a gun store in Nashville, if I remember correctly, it was the East Side Gun Shop, and the state dismissed the charge. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with such cases.

Can you fill us in anymore? What was the charge or complaint?

So the DA dismissed the charge; so there was no court ruling or interpretation?

Also, do you know if the arrest was by Gallatin PD or SCSO?

Edited April 10, 2011 by DaveTN

[mikegideon]

Yes it's legal.....

I'll keep my eyes open for another news report

[Spiffy]

I clicking thinking 1911 or M9. I am unaware that any .mil uses the ak/ar pistols.

[Jonnin]

I clicking thinking 1911 or M9. I am unaware that any .mil uses the ak/ar pistols.

The AKs might be used by informal militant groups, alongside the regular AKs, some of those guys use whatever they can get. But formal use? Probably not a lot.

[Steelharp]

The case was, truthfully and sadly, a case of DWB. Shameful.

[memphisjim]

It's a pistol and I bet the guy gets off. But with the defense that's one expensive pistol

[Steelharp]

It's a pistol and I bet the guy gets off. But with the defense that's one expensive pistol

Post #12.

[MikePapa1]

Can you fill us in anymore? What was the charge or complaint?

So the DA dismissed the charge; so there was no court ruling or interpretation?

Also, do you know if the arrest was by Gallatin PD or SCSO?

He was charged with possession of a Prohibited Weapon under §39-17-1302.

The case was dismissed so there is no ruling. The DA told me that the regional director of the ATF was prepared to come and testify on behalf of the defendant that the weapon was, in fact, a handgun. The DA also told me he was happy with the resolution of the case because this dangerous weapon was no longer in Sumner County. The DA in question has his HCP and is an NRA member so he's not anti-gun, but the defendant was the driver of a vehicle that had 3 passengers, all convicted felons with gang connections, so despite his HCP was arrested for this "prohibited weapon."

My recollection is that the arrest was made by Hendersonville PD, but I honestly am not sure. I'll look it up if you'd like.

[Jonnin]

Thats the important part. If the ATF guy is willing to go there and the case was dismissed, the answer has been given.

I am concerned that someone feels it was OK to arrest the guy over a "dangerous weapon" (all the weapons carried on a HCP are dangerous, at least I hope so, should the person ever actually have to use the weapon), or feels that it was OK to arrest because the permit holder's buddies were of questionable character. Neither of these things are acceptable and the DA is flat out wrong here --- its the entire basis of our system that folks are innocent until proven otherwise, yet the DA is making a case for guilty until proven innocent... not a good stance.

[JayC]

Just curious, but couldn't the defendant just go and buy the same type of handgun tomorrow and start carrying it again?

He was charged with possession of a Prohibited Weapon under §39-17-1302.

The case was dismissed so there is no ruling. The DA told me that the regional director of the ATF was prepared to come and testify on behalf of the defendant that the weapon was, in fact, a handgun. The DA also told me he was happy with the resolution of the case because this dangerous weapon was no longer in Sumner County. The DA in question has his HCP and is an NRA member so he's not anti-gun, but the defendant was the driver of a vehicle that had 3 passengers, all convicted felons with gang connections, so despite his HCP was arrested for this "prohibited weapon."

My recollection is that the arrest was made by Hendersonville PD, but I honestly am not sure. I'll look it up if you'd like.

[Oh Shoot]

...The DA also told me he was happy with the resolution of the case because this dangerous weapon was no longer in Sumner County. ..

Just curious, but couldn't the defendant just go and buy the same type of handgun tomorrow and start carrying it again?

Don't understand. He didn't get his gun back? Why?

- OS

[MikePapa1]

Just curious, but couldn't the defendant just go and buy the same type of handgun tomorrow and start carrying it again?

Yes.

[MikePapa1]

Just curious, but couldn't the defendant just go and buy the same type of handgun tomorrow and start carrying it again?

Well, technically, he did get it back, but the agreement they worked out was that they would dismiss the charges, saving him further grief, expense and time, in exchange for proving that he had, in fact, sold the gun. He produced a sales slip from a gun store showing he'd sold it so the case was dismissed.