And.....
If you push the collapsible stock on the “rifle” all the way down you essentially have the same “stock” and characteristics of the “pistol” minus the velcro strap that nobody uses on the wrist brace.
To the average person this is all semantics and hair splitting.
The whole AR/AK pistol movement was what technically made green tip ammo illegal as armor-piercing ammo that could be fired from a pistol. The law stated armor piercing ammo for a pistol was a no-no. A law that was on the books long before the popularity of the AR/AK pistols began.
It’s enough to make you go bald.
I would argue that an AR pistol is inherently no different than an AR rifle in the shortest configuration. The few inches of the barrel makes little difference until you are trying to shoot at distance and you don’t get enough spin on the bullet for stabilization.
This is how the left frames the argument. They are concerned about “features” and “appearance” and that is what they use to attack the 2A.
It is my personal opinion that it is a mistake for 2A advocates to attack them on semantics instead of the core issue (firearms). Trying to pooh-pooh a bill or classification based on technicalities and “legal definitions” guarantees a loss. The public does NOT understand the difference like you and/or I do and in reality it makes little difference.
Stating that it was a “pistol” and not a “rifle” is not going to win this argument when 90% (or more) of people don’t understand it. That was my intended point.