Did some searching, didn't find any specifics.  What is the minimum legal length, if any, in Minnesota?  Want to order one, want to be legal.....well at least for now.

Don't quote me on this, as I'm sure someone with more knowledge will come sooner or later. However my understanding is we simply follow the Federal definition, overall length under 26" not including muzzle device, barrel length under 16".

The State Law

It doesn't say anything about pistol sights, rifle sights, red dot sights, rifle scopes, long eye relief scopes, arm braces, calibers, or anything else.

Can someone refresh my recollection of why the muzzle device is excluded from the "overall length" language in the MN statute?

And personally I read the statue as having an alternative definition of any rifle with less than the 16" barrel being a pistol, so the 26.01+" length shouldn't matter if you don't have a stock that puts you into SBR territory with the feds... (Willing to be told why I'm wrong here.)

Not saying you're wrong, but just to quibble, isn't the permanently attached "rule" a federal thing?
Has MN ever explicitly endorsed or adopted that interpretation of "overall length?"
Or is it a moot point because of the alternative "less than 16 in." language in the statute, my second question?

Yes, I'm a lawyer I should know this, but I haven't spent the time to work up my own full blown legal opinion on the topic.

My concern is that some poor sap is going to build an AR pistol that's 25.5" without a muzzle device and 26.5" with a standard flash hider and get busted for something. I don't know exactly what the charge would be (maybe hunting with a rifle in the slug-zone?) but some asshole state prosecutor with a tape measure is going to say "this isn't a pistol, it's a dangerous sawed-off 'assault' rifle" that has an 'overall length' greater than 26 in. Throw the book at him, judge!"

Defense lawyer: "But judge, the defendant's AR has a 10.5" barrel. The statute says this is a pistol because it's an alternative to being under 26"."

Judge: Nope, the MN legislature really intended that OR to be an AND. I don't care what the Feds. call it. Pistols are less than 26" AND have rifle barrels under 16". GUILTY!

Defendant:

Please show me MN statute or case law that negates my hypo.

Unless the suppressor is permanently attached, it's simply a removable muzzle device. No issues there.

Also, why does everybody seem to think that a pistol in MN has to be <26"? I'll quote this from above, again.

Thus, in the case of a rifle...

Looks pretty clear to me.

I'm looking for evidence that MN defines "overall length" as only including the crown of the barrel and back (i.e., not the muzzle device).
The feds. just look at barrel length, which can include a permanent muzzle device, and the presence or absence of a stock. Right?

What if I have a "gun" with a 18" barrel and only 7" of receiver behind it? A federal rifle, but a pistol in MN?

In theory, an AR with a 14.5" barrel and no shoulder stock could be a legal pistol regardless of it's overall length, at least that's what Rebby seems to be suggesting. Yet everyone cites the <26" part of the MN statute.

I'm not worried about suppressors. I believe they're more easily removed than most muzzle devices.

In my long discussion with the MN DNR RTO I actually ran a similar theoretical pistol by him and asked, per statute, if it would be legal to use for deer hunting in SE MN. My theoretical build had a 15.5” barrel, a 2-12x40 riflescope, a Shockwave brace and an OAL of ~32”. Per written statute, he agreed that it would technically be a legal pistol (and hated admitting it).

I also asked for clarification on how to measure “length” as far as the state was concerned. Should I follow ATF “norms” or was there a published method somewhere that I should be using in MN? MN doesn’t have a published procedure so the assumption was that we should follow the same process that the ATF does. This gets even more confusing with “featured” braces that can extend like the SBA3 or a LAW Tactical folder that the ATF can’t even appear to measure consistently from one day to the next.

I think that the concern about a <26” OAL is just playing it safe. I’ve done quite a few builds that come in at 25.875” for exactly that reason. I don’t blame anyone for wanting to go that route.

There is so much ambiguity here that it’s not even funny and certainly not fair to those of us who are doing our best to adhere to these ascinine quasi-regulations. When I mentioned that on the phone I was strongly encouraged to call our new governor and request that he make it a top priority to clarify these laws. I seriously laughed at that suggestion and said that with the current political climate in MN, the best thing that I can do for my firearms business and my personal liberties is to instead pray that these issues never come before any of them. I sure as hell am not about to ask any of them to address any laws/regulations on any firearms! We all know how that would turn out.

And there you have it, OP. Clear as mud?

I have an AR pistol with a 10.5" barrel. I can configure it to be over or under 26" (total length) depending on the length of the muzzle device. It's under 26" without a muzzle device. It's a great range toy but due to the ambiguity in the law I like keeping it under 26".

rebby is absolutely correct that we don't want to open a can of worms by attempting to amend these statutes at the present time.

Great idea. I hadn’t thought of that. I only queried the DNR to get clarity on the hunting regulations. For other questions I just go straight to my contacts in the ATF. I look forward to any reply that you may receive. To be totally honest, I’m very disappointed in the DNR. I attempted contact with a number of individuals (including the “general” contact) and my RTO was the only one who replied to me.

Thanks for so many replies. I have seen 10.5 AR pistols advertised for sale in MN. I guess if I buy one from an FFL in this state, it’s as much on the seller as it is on me the buyer, or so logically one would think.

Not surprising; the DNR won't want to provide direction that's not backed up by hunting regs (i.e. law).  I honestly don't know why people are asking so many of these questions.  "But But But look at this!!! Are you suuurree  it's legal!?"  The CO will agree that it doesn't make sense, but what do you want him to do besides that, if there's no black letter law in place?  You're asking for an interpretation when there can't be one due to no law and no case history.  Keep doing that and it starts to come across in a taunting manner, IMO.   Just my opinion and I mean no offense.  If you have a good relationship with the RTO I understand the discussion; I just think there are limits to how far we should go.

I asked due to the number of questions I’ve been fielding on the issue (I’m a certified Hunter Safety Instructor AND an 07 FFL). In the end I figured that I already have a good relationship with some of these individuals so it wouldn’t hurt to ask. One question from someone who understands the nuances of the definition/classification is better than 30 who don’t fully understand what they’re asking. I agree that continued pestering won’t get us anywhere though. I now have my answer (in writing) and will share that answer when I’m queried which might save a direct inquiry or two.