Jump to content

AR Pistols (Truck Guns) Allowed under Concealed Carry?


robb01

Recommended Posts

Took my renewal class this weekend for IL CCL. Instructor mentioned that JCAR had defined a handgun as per concealed carry, and that an AR15 pistol no longer qualifies.


Now while I would never conceal carry an ar pistol, I do like having one loaded and in a case but immediately accessible in my vehicle for added peace of mind.


I can't find in the CC Act where the wording has changed, and thought there was already a case where someone was arrested for having an AK pistol in their vehicle but it was overturned.


Where does this currently stand? Is it a Federal vs. IL thing, as federally an ar pistol is defined as a handgun...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the definition from the law:

 

"Handgun" means any device which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas that is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. "Handgun" does not include:
(1) a stun gun or taser;
(2) a machine gun as defined in item (i) of paragraph

 

(7) of subsection (a) of Section 24-1 of the Criminal Code of 2012;
(3) a short-barreled rifle or shotgun as defined in

 

item (ii) of paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of Section 24-1 of the Criminal Code of 2012; or
(4) any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun, or

 

B-B gun which expels a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter, or which has a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second, or which expels breakable paint balls containing washable marking colors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Where does this currently stand? Is it a Federal vs. IL thing, as federally an ar pistol is defined as a handgun...

I really don't understand how they could. Because if an AR is not a pistol/handgun then it is a restricted firearm per NFA.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

 

It's not something that would hold up in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of related. I bought a Remington Tac-14. It is technically a pump action firearm. Not a shotgun, not a rifle, not a handgun. It is a non-NFA firearm. I looked into possibly carrying it in my car, but discovered that would be illegal because a "concealable weapon" must be below 26". This is 26.3", which keeps it legal and not needing any stamps, but not legal for conceal carry.

 

Long way of saying that if your AR pistol is below 26", you SHOULD be legal, on this aspect anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATF classified as pistol. If you can conceal it, it's legal, but God help you if dealing with an LEO who doesn't know the law.

The problem is we have 3 different definition of handgun in this state. We have the ATF definition of a firearm not fired from the shoulder, theFOID definiton of a "concealable firearm" (whatever that means, I can conceal my AK-47 under my winter coat) and the FCCL definition of a firearm designed to be used by a single hand

 

One could argue the forward handguard on a AR/AK pistol means its not for a single hand, despite being a pistol for ATF purposes and treated as "concealable" under the FOID law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes one could argue, and we do a lot of it. A cite of actual law or court precedence would help keep it in the realm of discussion as-opposed to argument. The known facts are: 1) it is concealable. 2) it can be fired using one hand, brace or no brace. Those can not be disputed. ^ this ***

AFAIK there is no binding court precedent, but there are some cases that have been dismissed

 

and as I noted even a rifle is concealable in a winter coat (and, conversely, I would not be able to conceal an AR/AK handgun in summer clothes) and I can fire all but the heaviest of my rifles with one hand without shouldering. Those can also not be disputed

 

But the FCCL does not say "can be fired using one hand" is says "designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand" which means the existence of a design element for your off hand (IE, the forward handguard) would have some impact on the application of the law

"Handgun" means any device which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas that is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. "Handgun" does not include:

 

 

It seems that with the waiting period now 72 hours for all firearms the references to "concealable firearms" are no longer anywhere in state law

 

 

Federal law does not, AFAIK, directly define "handgun" but defines rifle as

(7) The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder

Shotgun is defined with similar language, so a handgun would be anything not designed to be fired from the should (and not meeting the NFA definition of "any other weapon," because why not throw some definitions into the confusion)

 

 

 

So basically the federal government defines rifle, and IL defines handgun, and the AR/AK pistols seem to fall into a gap between the two definitions, being designed for 2 hands, but not designed to be shouldered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But the FCCL does not say "can be fired using one hand" is says "designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand" which means the existence of a design element for your off hand (IE, the forward handguard) would have some impact on the application of the law

"Handgun" means any device which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas that is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. "Handgun" does not include:

 

 

 

So basically the federal government defines rifle, and IL defines handgun, and the AR/AK pistols seem to fall into a gap between the two definitions, being designed for 2 hands, but not designed to be shouldered

 

 

I generally use a support hand, does that mean I now am in violation? /p

 

Good, if I build my own, the design intention is what I say it is since there is no set in stone bright line to guide one.

 

 

^ this ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the OP, the only JCAR rules regarding concealed carry were instituted shortly after the bill passed, and made zero changes to what is defined as a handgun.

 

The problem is that instead of all instructors just teaching the law as it is, there are some instructors who teach their opinions, some who teach their beliefs, and some who teach outright misinformation.

 

To my knowledge, nothing has changed, and AR pistols are perfectly legal under the FCCA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe we have had a test case. In my opinion some ar15 pistols would qualify as "handgun" as defined by Illinois law. While not specifically about concealed carry, this article applies my logic: https://www.gunrights4illinois.com/blog/the-ar15-pistol-in-chicago/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATF classified as pistol. If you can conceal it, it's legal, but God help you if dealing with an LEO who doesn't know the law.

Unfortunately, while it won't hurt your case, the ATF definition likely also wouldn't help your case. Illinois law has defined what is a handgun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't do it due to the potential legal costs if a local LEO finds it in your vehicle and doesn't understand law. The job of the police isn't necessarily to interpret law. They're only there to charge you and let the courts decide. Which would end up being extremely risky and very expensive.

IF I were to carry one, I'd be sure to buy a lower receiver that was clearly roll-marked as PISTOL on the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The problem is we have 3 different definition of handgun in this state. We have the ATF definition of a firearm not fired from the shoulder, theFOID definiton of a "concealable firearm" (whatever that means, I can conceal my AK-47 under my winter coat) and the FCCL definition of a firearm designed to be used by a single hand

 

One could argue the forward handguard on a AR/AK pistol means its not for a single hand, despite being a pistol for ATF purposes and treated as "concealable" under the FOID law

 

 

I'm not a lawyer, but if you're carrying under the ILCCL, I'd think the definition in that law would be most relevant.

 

For practicality's sake, I'd say having a an AR pistol in a case in the passenger compartment isn't something I'd really have the desire to do. It's difficult enough to deploy a handgun from a holster in an enclosed space like that. Now you're going to try to open a case and get what amounts to a miniature rifle? While you're operating an automobile at the same time?

 

I can see keeping a trunk gun. On the other hand, I'd be somewhat concerned about theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Snip) I can see keeping a trunk gun. On the other hand, I'd be somewhat concerned about theft.

One of the reasons I’m experimenting with a CAA MCK Glock arm brace chassis - my carry weapon gets snapped into place, I’m down to ten seconds and can probably get faster with practice. I gain the stabilizer, three point of contact stability and rifle style sights - and it’s not a gun in case it is stolen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Apologies for the late reply but -

let's forget whatever your opinion is of carring an AR15 pistol

let's assume you buy a Springfield AR 15 pistol -

legally you'd win a AR 15 pistol carry arrest case assuming it's concealed properly because:

  • it's less than 26 inches, so it's not a rifle
  • it has no stock on it so it's not a rifle.
  • it has a arm brace on it, intending for it to be fired one handed
  • it has not been modified
  • it is identified and sold as a "pistol" by the manufacturer, the seller, and in the state sales documentation. (hard to argue it's not a "pistol" when it's sold as one)

Does the LEO know the law enough to realize it's legal? Debatable, and with no court case used as a precedent yet, it's a gamble, but not illegal IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for the late reply but -

let's forget whatever your opinion is of carring an AR15 pistol

let's assume you buy a Springfield AR 15 pistol -

legally you'd win a AR 15 pistol carry arrest case assuming it's concealed properly because:

 

  • it's less than 26 inches, so it's not a rifle
  • it has no stock on it so it's not a rifle.
  • it has a arm brace on it, intending for it to be fired one handed
  • it has not been modified
  • it is identified and sold as a "pistol" by the manufacturer, the seller, and in the state sales documentation. (hard to argue it's not a "pistol" when it's sold as one)
Does the LEO know the law enough to realize it's legal? Debatable, and with no court case used as a precedent yet, it's a gamble, but not illegal IMO.
Many AR pistols, especially those with 10 and a half inch barrels, exceed 26in in length. The operative prerequisite is that the barrel be less than 16 in. I agree with the rest of your points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to me, the logical solution is to carry it under transport laws. You already said you would carry in a case, so simply carry unloaded in the closed case. Throw a loaded mag in the case but not in the gun and your perfectly legal. I can't imagine the deployment time being much different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't do it due to the potential legal costs if a local LEO finds it in your vehicle and doesn't understand law. The job of the police isn't necessarily to interpret law. They're only there to charge you and let the courts decide. Which would end up being extremely risky and very expensive.

 

IF I were to carry one, I'd be sure to buy a lower receiver that was clearly roll-marked as PISTOL on the side.

Making sure it's marked PISTOL is a very good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about pistols from Fight Lite ? they look more "pistol" than an AR with an arm brace that looks like a stock, at least to the cop who isn't sure or hasn't heard of arm braces. http://fightlite.com

Is it " designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas that is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand?" Then it would comply in my lay man opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How about pistols from Fight Lite ? they look more "pistol" than an AR with an arm brace that looks like a stock, at least to the cop who isn't sure or hasn't heard of arm braces. http://fightlite.com

Is it " designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas that is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand?" Then it would comply in my lay man opinion.

 

Nothing says you have to hold it with 2 hands and with that grip and no arm brace nobody can say it can be used as a rifle. carrying one could still be risky from a legal stand point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How about pistols from Fight Lite ? they look more "pistol" than an AR with an arm brace that looks like a stock, at least to the cop who isn't sure or hasn't heard of arm braces. http://fightlite.com

Is it " designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas, or escape of gas that is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand?" Then it would comply in my lay man opinion.

 

Nothing says you have to hold it with 2 hands and with that grip and no arm brace nobody can say it can be used as a rifle. carrying one could still be risky from a legal stand point.

 

Nor did I say you have to hold it with two hand. I simply quoted the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...