Can a gun be a pistol under state law and an SBR under NFA?

[dogtown tom]

As others have pointed out, a state can define a handgun anyway it wants, including a definition that conflicts with how the feds define it. If the state definition is more restrictive than the federal definition, one has to comply with the state's definition. If the state definition is less restrictive, then one has to comply with federal law....

In either case you must comply with federal law due to the Supremacy Clause.
Lets take this for an example: https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa...to-1-7-phosphate-12-m-lok-moe-ept-pistol.html

Under federal law it is clearly a pistol because of how "pistol" is defined in federal law. That doesn't change just because you live in a state that defines "pistol" differently. A dealer transferring that firearm is required to indicate "Handgun" on the Form 4473 and record it in his bound book as a pistol. No way around that. On the NICS check the dealer would tell the NICS "handgun" for type of firearm.

But the state may define a pistol differently. For example if state law says a pistol cannot have a bbl length over 10" and the AR pistol above being 10.5" in bbl length....its a pistol under federal law and not a pistol under state law. BOTH apply. A buyer under age 21 seeking to buy this from a licensed dealer would be denied because federal law is supreme. If he's 21, he buys it legally.

 

[KyJim]

In either case you must comply with federal law due to the Supremacy Clause.
Lets take this for an example: https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa...to-1-7-phosphate-12-m-lok-moe-ept-pistol.html
View attachment 1062686
Under federal law it is clearly a pistol because of how "pistol" is defined in federal law. That doesn't change just because you live in a state that defines "pistol" differently.

That is what I said. You have to comply with the stricter of state or federal law. If you comply with the stricter, then you are in compliance with the law that is less restrictive. The Supremacy Clause does not come into play when complying with a stricter state law.

 

[dogtown tom]

That is what I said. You have to comply with the stricter of state or federal law. If you comply with the stricter, then you are in compliance with the law that is less restrictive. The Supremacy Clause does not come into play when complying with a stricter state law.

I wrote that post due to your last sentence: "If the state definition is less restrictive, then one has to comply with federal law...."
Again, you have to comply with federal law no matter what. Its not a matter of choosing the more restrictive. There is no need for this sentence.

 

[KyJim]

Again, you have to comply with federal law no matter what. Its not a matter of choosing the more restrictive. There is no need for this sentence.

You know that and I know that. I like to be very explicit about such things to avoid any misunderstanding, even if there is some strictly unnecessary verbiage.