Clarification..

[Guest]

when they say "collapsible stock" it doesnt include adjustable long range shooting stocks does it?

like would this be legal?

 

 

http://www.magpul.com/catalog/index.php ... cts_id=191

[coldsolderjoint 84]

I think logical thinking and consensus will say no, they are OK. I've seen guys with them.

 

But I'm pretty sure no less than 3 people in this thread will tell you that they are a no-go.

[tbtrout 141]

It is A OK

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

I'm not going to tell you one way or the other. Logically, I agree with the others that this is an adjustable stock, not a collapsible one. But someone wasn't satisfied with logic, and had to go and write the BATFE. The following is from a post on ar15.com...

 

To: EPS Directorate

Subject: Question about legality of Magpul PRS rifle stocks in New

Jersey

 

Hello, I have a question about the New Jersey Assault Weapons Ban. As you probably know, the federal ban expired in 1994, but certain states have their own AWB that did not expire. New Jersey's is similar to the federal ban in regards to flash hider, collapsible or telescoping

stocks, bayonet lugs, etc on semiautomatic weapons. My question is in regards to a stock for AR-15 type rifles, known as the Magpul PRS. As quoted from Magpul's website, the stock is adjustable for length of pull. "Compared to the A2 stock, the PRS can shorten the LOP by

0.25" or extend it by 0.75"."

 

(http://www.magpul.com/catalog/index.php ... o&cPath=70

_88_90&products_id=193).

 

Does this constitute a collapsible or telescoping stock? It is my understanding that the Magpul PRS is designed to be adjustable only for shooter comfort, not for concealment purposes. The only part of the stock that is adjustable is the butt pad (which will only adjust 1''),

whereas the main body of the stock is fixed and does not move.

 

Thank you for your time

 

[Malsua 1,422]

Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie

 

On issues like this where they can take your freedom from you and forever prevent you from owning any firearms, I don't want any gray areas.

[PK90 3,573]

I question the validity of that response. It was from a friend to the ATF through an email and was one sentence. AFAIK, they do not respond to emails and all the letters that I've seen repeated the question asked in their lengthy responses.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

I question the validity of that response. It was from a friend to the ATF through an email and was one sentence. AFAIK, they do not respond to emails and all the letters that I've seen repeated the question asked in their lengthy responses.

 

Yeah, seemed kind of fishy to me too. Makes no sense, but since when did gun laws have to make sense?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Hate to follow-up my own post, but Paul made a very good point and I failed to follow logical confirmation methods: Go to the horses mouth - in this case I DO NOT mean the BATFE - the less contact with them the better. Rather, I just wrote Magpul asking if they had a ruling from the BATFE as to the status of the PRS in "ban" states. Following is the content of the e-mail...

 

The question of legality of the above-captioned stock, in states with an AWB still in place, was recently called into question. A post in a forum on ar15.com alleges that the BATFE stated that the PRS is a "collapsible" stock and thus banned under many state's AWB laws. I was under the impression that the BATFE did not respond to e-mails when the questions dealt with legal issues, and especially not the curt, one-line reply espoused in this instance. Here is a link to that post...

 

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=50&t=386150

 

Logic would seem to dictate that this stock does not constitute a folding or collapsible stock, simply an adjustable one to better suit a wider range of shooters in keeping with precision riflery. This would also impact your commercial customers such as Sig Sauer, that equip their 556 DMR with your stock - which otherwise is in compliance, or can be made easily compliant (mag capacity) in AWB states.

 

Do you have a ruling from the BATFE on whether the PRS stock is compliant for the "ban" states. If so, it would behoove you to publish it on your website and put an end to this speculation once and for all. Thank you.

 

 

Let's see if they respond and what they have to say. Sorry to have muddied the waters.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[ah141nj 0]

I question the validity of that response. It was from a friend to the ATF through an email and was one sentence. AFAIK, they do not respond to emails and all the letters that I've seen repeated the question asked in their lengthy responses.

 

 

According to what I read on AR15.com....it was an edited reply

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Heard back from Magpul and they are essentially saying they don't certify anything. It's not up to the BATFE - we're talking about state law. I pointed out that the state law often takes its lead from the BATFE rulings. They said that it depends on how the state defines "telescoping" (and that is the term used in the firearms code) stock. Magpul said some states define telescoping or collapsible stocks as any stock that has the capability to change length without the use of tools - that would be the case with the PRS. However, I combed through the statutes looking for a definition, to no avail. Not sure where to go from here. Suggestions?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[KpdPipes 388]

Heard back from Magpul and they are essentially saying they don't certify anything. It's not up to the BATFE - we're talking about state law. I pointed out that the state law often takes its lead from the BATFE rulings. They said that it depends on how the state defines "telescoping" (and that is the term used in the firearms code) stock. Magpul said some states define telescoping or collapsible stocks as any stock that has the capability to change length without the use of tools - that would be the case with the PRS. However, I combed through the statutes looking for a definition, to no avail. Not sure where to go from here. Suggestions?

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

I know that I Look at it as a target stock, not a telescoping one...guess i'd better look into installing some kind of set screws into mine now if that is going to be considered a telestock

[Guest]

this really pisses me off... thanks for the feedback guys... i really want stock options like this.. as you guys pointed out.. it is not what someone thinks in reference to folding or collapsible... if this were illegal that would be ridiculous.. are there ANY guns that have similar stocks that we KNOW are legal?

[KpdPipes 388]

this really pisses me off... thanks for the feedback guys... i really want stock options like this.. as you guys pointed out.. it is not what someone thinks in reference to folding or collapsible... if this were illegal that would be ridiculous.. are there ANY guns that have similar stocks that we KNOW are legal?

 

 

JT has one that looks like a regular A-2 with an adjustable LOP, it has a single "Pin" that the recoil pad is attached to, and IIRC is set for the right length then tightened with set-screws. looks like a typical "Target" stock. but then again I always saw the PRS as the same way. I cant wait to get the hell out of this state.

[PK90 3,573]

Wait a minute. Can't this stock extension be used on an A2 and then be considered illegal because it would change the intended length?

 

 

:angry-soapbox: How far are you guys willing to bend over? The law says nothing about fixed, permanent, collapsible, telescoping or folding stocks on rifles being illegal. The NJAG in 1996 made a statement of their opinion regarding what is "substantially identical" to the named firearms in the law, i.e. "a folding or telescoping stock". IMO, if an AR stock does not fold or telescope, it is legal.

 

[Guest]

Wait a minute. Can't this stock extension be used on an A2 and then be considered illegal because it would change the intended length?

 

 

:angry-soapbox: How far are you guys willing to bend over? The law says nothing about fixed, permanent, collapsible, telescoping or folding stocks on rifles being illegal. The NJAG in 1996 made a statement of their opinion regarding what is "substantially identical" to the named firearms in the law, i.e. "a folding or telescoping stock". IMO, if an AR stock does not fold or telescope, it is legal.

 

 

 

well ill tell you what.. maybe ill be the test bed when i get that AR in 308... you really are right.. and i faced that whole deal with the Saiga i built up.. everyone was like "thats an AK thats illegal" i simply told them it is absolutely NOT an AK its a Saiga.. i kind of feel the same way here.. its like OK you dont want collapsible stocks because you are afraid that i may somehow conceal it and use it in a crime.. i get it.. whatever.. its ridiculous but i get it.. an adjustable stock is NOTHING like that..