Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


oldguysrule649 last won the day on February 24 2017

oldguysrule649 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

373 Excellent

About oldguysrule649

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular
  • Birthday 01/01/1954

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Home Range
    Union Hill Gun Club; Easton Fish & Game; ANJRPC Cherry Ridge

Recent Profile Visitors

4,722 profile views
  1. Very good point and I completely agree. I think at this point I have too far gone down a mental rabbit hole on this whole topic. Time for me to detach and go medal detecting on the beach, lol.
  2. We are in a precarious position. As if threading the needle legally was not enough of a challenge when we originally purchased our Others, we now have the complex criteria and complications of the Brace Rule to navigate. In today's edition of AMMOLAND (https://www.ammoland.com/2023/02/citizens-rights-group-seeks-emergency-restraining-order-against-weapon-ban/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)) there is an article on SAF's new lawsuit against Connecticut. From the article: "ATF’s new rule suddenly reclassifies certain “other” firearms (firearms that are neither rifles, shotguns, nor pistols) as being “rifles.” This technical change pushes “others” within the definition of “assault weapon” under Connecticut’s ban." This is concerning and does not bode well for us. It seems the SAF's legal team has concluded that the Brace rule has in fact reclassified our "Others" as "Rifles". I think the bottomline legal question in NJ is whether our "Others" are still "Others" if you just remove the Brace. If yes- then we are fine. If no- I fear we are screwed. Then perhaps extending the barrel or swapping the upper to make it a normal non-SBR rifle would be the only remedy. Even then, does the fact my receiver is engraved with "Other" and was sold/transferred that way matter at all. (Btw, when I refer to removing the brace I really mean removing the brace and then discarding/destroying/storing it offsite to avoid constructive possession.)
  3. All, for your information, moments ago I just made a long post including pics of my assessment of the Pistol Storage Device. Refer to the "ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces" thread in the National Gun Law Discussion section.
  4. As promised in my earlier post I am sharing my observations regarding the Pistol Storage Device sold by Pistol Mounted Solutions (pistolmountedsolutions.com). A few disclaimers/caveats up front: - IANAL, I repeat IANAL. - I am not trying to promote this product. Just sharing information for your awareness. Do your own due diligence. The "2A Edu" Youtube channel did a review of it about one year ago. That is where I first learned of it. - I purchased it out of curiosity and wanted to assess whether it could be adapted for use on our Others. - Aesthetically it is better than just living with a bare buffer tube. Plus, it does offer some practical benefits. Installation instructions and their 2016 ATF letter are available on their website. So, ASSUMING the Brace Rule withstands the many legal challenges in progress and ASSUMING removal of the brace is ultimately legally viable for NJ owners of Others; then for me this is the option I will go with at least for short to medium term. I have included three pictures: The first with a 10 round PMAG inserted. The second with the Troy 10 round long mag (which came with the firearm) inserted. The third shows how out it extends past the buffer tube by approx 1/2 inch. I have had several email exchanges with their representative. The bottomline is they are of the opinion that they have their 2016 letter from the ATF, their product is not a brace, and therefore this rule does not affect the use of their product. The last paragrah of their 2016 ATF letter: "Based on FTISB's examination of you device, FTISB finds that your device is designed to be attached to a pistol and hold an additional magazine. Providing the modifications are made as described above, the PMSD would not be designed to support an AR-15 pistol from the shoulder of a shooter during firing. Consequently, the attachment of your PMSD would not change a pistol's classification to a "SBR.'' Nevertheless, it is now 2023 and I am uncomfortable using the PSD as is given the criteria in the ATF Brace Rule having to do with extending LOP and providing rear surface area with which to shoulder the firearm. To mitigate my concern, I suppose a potential modification would be to cut 1/2 inch off the front of the PSD so that the buffer tube protrudes out the back a small amount. Note that doing so may necessitate also removing some material from the bottom front corner of the wings so they do not dig into your hand. - Installation was easy. You can see in the pics where I chose to insert the screws through the wings. - Holds the magazines securely in place. I have not yet applied Loctite nor fired the firearm with it mounted. - Given the Troy "rifle style" buffer tube has the ridge running along its bottom, I had to omit the "Part B- Buffer Spacer". OK to do so per the instructions. - Especially with the longer mag, the ability to rest/press the mag against your forearm does provide another contact point with which to steady the firearm. - And of course, it holds an extra mag. Lastly, the manufacturer's instructions state "Please don't be an idiot with our product by doing idiot things with our product". I don't think anything I stated above constitutes being an idiot.
  5. Pistol Storage Device from pistolmountedsolutions.com. More to follow....stay tuned.
  6. SAF has filed for a TRO in Connecticut challenging the Brace Rules impact on Ct owners of AOWs and Others. See below. Am left wondering if the need a NJ specific lawsuit like this. SAF FILES FOR EMERGENCY TRO IN CHALLENGE OF CONN. GUN LAW The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging a Connecticut gun control law have filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order because a new rule published by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on firearms designation places thousands of Constitution State citizens in serious legal jeopardy. SAF is joined by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Stiefel and Eddie Grant, Jr. They are represented by Connecticut attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford and Cameron L. Atkinson of Harwinton. “When ATF published its new rule, redesignating a class of firearms known as ‘any other firearm’ or simply ‘others’ as either ‘rifles’ or ‘short barreled rifles’ depending on the barrel length, all of those guns suddenly fell within the state’s definition of an assault weapon,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This immediately put thousands of owners of previously-classified ‘other’ firearms in harm’s way legally because now their possession is a felony.”
  7. Facepalm? Ok, I will rephrase that. "I will use an appropriate tool to remove 0.5 inch of material from the front of the PSD enabling it to not extend beyond the rear of the buffer tube; thus not extending LOP nor providing surface area with which to shoulder the firearm".. Better?
  8. I agree. The immediate issue I see is that is it longer than the Troy buffer tube(which btw I have come to learn is a “carbine length” buffer tube). Even with the PSD positioned all the way forward against the back of the castle nut, it still extends about half an inch past the rear of the buffer tube. Thus could be construed as a device that increases LOP and provides surface area which is not essential to the operation of the firearm. Am writing to the company to get their perspective before I take a hacksaw to it.
  9. I definitely will. I anticipate posting early next week. Stay tuned.
  10. Just a heads up for those that may be interested in the PSD device. Out of curiosity, I "took one for the team", spent the $80 plus shipping and purchased one. I am in the process of assessing it and mounting it to my existing Troy buffer tube. I do have an inquiry for the company. When I hear back from them, will update you here with additional info.
  11. I would not hold my breath. If the various lawsuits are not successful, I anticipate we will have received some true legal guidance from ANRPC, CNJFO, Evan Nappen, et al by the deadline.
  12. Thank you, was just curious since you then disappeared for three years. Fwiw, I plan to shoot my qualification at GFH. Last weekend I practiced the GFH course of fire on my own. Scored 46/50 with my Glock 19 and 48/50 with my Glock 26(using a G19 mag and XGRIP spacer). The first 38 shots are at 7yds and 10yds. I was 38/38 both times. So needed a minimum of two hits on the Q target out of the remaining 12 shots (6 at 15yds and 6 at 25yds). p.s. For context, I am almost 70. I may try to qualify at a later date using my Glock 43. However its single stack slim design is really painful due to arthritis in my hand.
  13. @Frank Thomas In an earlier 2019 post when you first joined these forums, you stated that your were going to submit your carry permit application to Middlesex on 7/22/2019. Care to share the results of that experience?
  14. Further to HE's advice, which I agree with; note that not all 50 shots are at 25 yards. Recommend you check the gunforhite.com website and look at, and practice their specific course of fire.
  15. For you Troy A4 owners, I just posted an update in the "ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces" thread in the National Gun Law Discussion section with updated information from TechOps International, the distributor.
  • Create New...