CT AWB - Pistol Grip Fingers below action PoV

[jrdoran]

CT defines one of the defining features as a grip which results in trigger finger + any finger on trigger hand directly below any portion of the action.

I recently built a ruger PCC 9mm rifle ( 10/22 on steroids ). No functional buffer tube, no threaded barrel, etc; As there is only a bolt in the receiver that does not come back above my hand, I would like to get a read on if this is compliant with CT AW definition ;

For the sake of discussion use this model ( but ignore folding / collapse stock as that has been removed and is now pinned ) ;

Ruger® PC Carbine™ Autoloading Rifle Model 19126

ruger.com

The definition of an assault weapon includes any semiautomatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine (one that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action) and has at least one of the following features:

1. a folding or telescoping stock;
2. a grip, such as a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;
3. a forward pistol grip;
4. a flash suppressor; or
5. a grenade launcher or flare launcher.

 

[SJan]

What the hell does that mean? who writes this stuff
What if you hold and fire it upside-down, is it any less killy?





Sorry i have nothing helpful to add

 

[allen-1]

Yeah, you're fcked.

They went from "two evil features" to detachable mag and "one evil feature".
That's a "pistol grip", so it's an "assault weapon".

I have the same firearm, but in CT legal form.

Ruger® PC Carbine™ Autoloading Rifle Model 19100

ruger.com

I have thumbhole stocks on a couple of my .22's - they're "legal" only because they're rimfire, not centerfire.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

Wonder how they classify a Kriss Vector with that language. The action is technically in front of the grip and below the trigger when in use. But I'm sure they'd lump it in with the "bad" guns.

 

[jrdoran]

It is clear that an AR platform with a traditional buffer tube is classified as an AW. I called the central office to verify.

@allen-1 it is not a blanket pistol grip that defines AW, the position relative to action is part of it. Granted I'm bias given I own one of these, but looking for a deeper read on the criteria;

The Kriss Vector would be in the same boat as the Ruger with a pistol grip.

 

[JAD]

What the hell does that mean? who writes this stuff
What if you hold and fire it upside-down, is it any less killy?





Sorry i have nothing helpful to add

They were trying to write it in a way that effectively defines a pistol grip, and the likely substitutes, in a functional way to prevent people from developing a work around to that feature.

 

[jrdoran]

Anyone have a point of view on the Ruger ( no functional buffer tube ) as to whether that falls into the pistol grip definition ?

 

[JAD]

Anyone have a point of view on the Ruger ( no functional buffer tube ) as to whether that falls into the pistol grip definition ?

The pistol grip on the PC Carbine in the OP very clearly meets the definition. There's no question about the fact that model is not Connecticut compliant.

 

[dcmdon]

It absolutely meets the definition of an AW. The hand is directly below the action by any reasonable interpretation.

If you want a pistol caliber carbine, either get the version of this gun with a traditional stock (Mentioned by Allen1 in post 3 of this thread)
or spend the money for a pre-ban AR lower and build off of that.

 

[jrdoran]

I guess I could transport it in the traditional stock and given it is only 2 screws to swap stocks / chassis on the ruger I could swap it over during competitions at the range;

 

[Twigg]

What the hell does that mean? who writes this stuff
What if you hold and fire it upside-down, is it any less killy?





Sorry i have nothing helpful to add

Everybody knows that only works with glocks.

In fortay

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I guess I could transport it in the traditional stock and given it is only 2 screws to swap stocks / chassis on the ruger I could swap it over during competitions at the range;

So you would make it compliant for travel and then convert it back into an illegal AW for competition? What do you gain by doing that?

Bob

 

[jrdoran]

It is substantially lighter and the trigger LoP are better when in 'competition' form; Also the same geometry as my rimfire in picking up red dot on target.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

It is substantially lighter and the trigger LoP are better when in 'competition' form; Also the same geometry as my rimfire in picking up red dot on target.

I understand the performance gains but aren’t you turning it back into an illegal AW once you swap it over? How long will it take for a sore loser to drop a dime on you?

I’m not a CT resident but I have my NR perming and I’m “down there“ quite a bit so I’m always interested in the nuances of the law; and yes I agree it is ridiculous.

Bob

 

[JAD]

I guess I could transport it in the traditional stock and given it is only 2 screws to swap stocks / chassis on the ruger I could swap it over during competitions at the range;

That's another felonious idea.

Even if it was in a knock-down configuration, it would still be an assault weapon based on possession of parts and combinations of parts (constructive possession) language in the assault weapons ban.

 

[dcmdon]

It is substantially lighter and the trigger LoP are better when in 'competition' form; Also the same geometry as my rimfire in picking up red dot on target.

Just spend the cash on a pre-ban and be done with it.

You are making absolutely no sense.

The traditionally stocked gun has an adjustable length of pull of between ~12 and ~14 inches.
The gun you want shows a length of pull of 13.5 inches.

You are similarly WRONG with regards to weight. The chassis gun is NOT "substantially lighter". The traditional gun is lighter. 6.8 lbs vs 7.3 lbs.

Besides, have you ever handled one of these guns? Half the weight is in the enormous bolt.

Finally, if you practice, it isn't difficult to learn to shoot 2 different guns instinctively. Bottom line is that a very minor perceived advantage in a local practical shooting match is not worth breaking the law.

So lets be real. You want the chassis gun because looks cooler. I get it. But its not worth breaking the law over.

If we were talking about you driving to NH to buy a 17 round mag to keep in your house for home defense, well that's different. One could make a reasonable case for that. But we're talking about perceived minor benefit in shooting a toy gun to be used to play games. Not worth it.

Or you could always step up and build a 9mm AR on a pre-ban lower.

Don