Magpul UBR...does this need to be pinned?

[axeman_g 128]

i dont think so, because it is not a folder. What is you all's thoughts.

[bbk 188]

It is telescoping, so, yes, I would say it still needs to be pinned.

[papercutninja 24]

Yes. The only Magpul stock that can be POSSIBLY not pinned is the PRS stock.

[Melgamatic 66]

There's no real way of knowing. The law says "folding or telescoping stock":

 

N.J.S. 2C:39-1w(2)

 

but who really knows what that means. There are smart, well-informed people on this board that will go both ways on the UBR. No one knows what they meant. They probably meant to include stocks that could be adjusted so that the weapon would be less than the legal length of a rifle, but unfortunately that's not what they wrote.

 

I recentlysaw a "pinned" adjustable stock to a fixed length by screwing a machine screw into the adjustable part. It's not the fancy "blind pinning" that some people do, but I'm willing to bet that it would be acceptable in a court, I suppose. But, who knows.

 

So, the official answer is "no one knows" - I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers don't know what they meant, either.....

[Zed's_Dead 16]

There's no real way of knowing. The law says "folding or telescoping stock":

 

N.J.S. 2C:39-1w(2)

 

but who really knows what that means. There are smart, well-informed people on this board that will go both ways on the UBR. No one knows what they meant. They probably meant to include stocks that could be adjusted so that the weapon would be less than the legal length of a rifle, but unfortunately that's not what they wrote.

 

I recentlysaw a "pinned" adjustable stock to a fixed length by screwing a machine screw into the adjustable part. It's not the fancy "blind pinning" that some people do, but I'm willing to bet that it would be acceptable in a court, I suppose. But, who knows.

 

So, the official answer is "no one knows" - I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers don't know what they meant, either.....

 

 

There is a criminal case pending in Cumberland County where the issue of the "telescoping" stock is very important to the defendant. A friend of mine is representing the defendant. I'm waiting to hear back from him to see if it went to the jury yet.

 

I'm waiting to hear back from him and will give the facts and outcome when I get it.

[Vlad G 345]

There's no real way of knowing. The law says "folding or telescoping stock":

 

N.J.S. 2C:39-1w(2)

 

That brings up the issue of what is law really, because the "Law" says nothing of the sort, the N.J.S. does but that's technically not law because it wasn't passed by an elected body, etc, etc, but yeah as far as we are concerned they are the same I suppose.

[KpdPipes 388]

i dont think so, because it is not a folder. What is you all's thoughts.

Has to be Pinned...Sorry. that said, the more I work with them, the more im liking the Magpul MOE stock.it's REALLY easy to pin the stock the way that it's designed. I had first toyed with the idea of making up a plug to fit, then pinning that, until i saw that just a pin itself will block the adjustment block perfectly.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

There is a criminal case pending in Cumberland County where the issue of the "telescoping" stock is very important to the defendant. A friend of mine is representing the defendant. I'm waiting to hear back from him to see if it went to the jury yet.

 

I'm waiting to hear back from him and will give the facts and outcome when I get it.

 

 

I had aome input on that case and yes, your friend won the case. It may be the beginning of case law that can be used to rescind the AWB, but one case on its own is long way from that......but it is a beginning. Since your friend was the lawyer on the case, could you PM NJ2AS-LL with the docket number? It may be of use to them in future challenges.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Zed's_Dead 16]

I've been trying to call Joe for a few days now to see what happened. I told him about the forum and was hoping he'd hop on to talk about it. I haven't been able to find a thing about the case online anywhere!

 

When I do talk to him, I'll get whatever information I can and post it here.

Edited May 18, 2011 by SJ_EAL

[Melgamatic 66]

I had aome input on that case and yes, your friend won the case. It may be the beginning of case law that can be used to rescind the AWB, but one case on its own is long way from that......but it is a beginning. Since your friend was the lawyer on the case, could you PM NJ2AS-LL with the docket number? It may be of use to them in future challenges.

 

Since it is a closed case, can we publish the docket here?

[Dan 177]

I'm very interested in reading about this case.

[NorthernYankee 94]

I'm very interested in reading about this case.

 

+1

[Cylinder Head 22]

I'm very interested in reading about this case.

 

+2

[vladtepes 1,060]

Since it is a closed case, can we publish the docket here?

 

 

or if the individual does not want all his public info out.. can we at least have the details sans any personal info (name or whatever...)

[NorthernYankee 94]

Any update on this? I tried looking on the CC Judicial website but I was unable to find anything.

[Zed's_Dead 16]

I talked to my buddy, Joe Chiarello, who represented the defendant. Here are the basic facts of the case as I understand them:

 

Defendant (hereinafter Good Guy or GG) is driving his work truck home and allegedly sideswipes a Cadillac Escalade driven by "victim" with his wife as passenger.

 

Victim then aggressively follows good guy home, allegedly attempting to force him off the road at points. Good guy calls wife to explain what's happening and asks her to call 911 to have police meet him at his house and unlock his gun safe. Victim follows good guy all the way to his house, blocking driveway with his car.

 

Both good guy's and victims wives are on phone with 911. Good guy goes in house and gets his semi-automatic handgun and goes back outside to ask what victim is doing and telling him to get off property. Good guy never points gun at victim, just holds it at his side.

 

Victim's wife is on phone with 911. According to testimony in case, she never once mentions to 911 that good guy is pointing gun at them until she is asked that question by 911 operator. She was merely complaining about car getting sideswiped.

 

Good guy gets on phone with 911 operator who tells him to go in house (he does) and put gun away. He refuses saying his wife is home and he's not putting the gun away until the police get there as he does not know the intentions of "Victim" who is on his property.

 

Police get there. Good guy secures his handgun and police arrest him for allegedly pointing the gun and charge him with aggravated assault. Search of the house turns up a Bushmaster AR15 clone with an adjustable stock. Charges added for possession of an assault weapon.

 

No charges filed against alleged victim believe it or not.

 

Defense attorney retains a retired member of the NJSP Firearms ID Unit as his expert. State has the current head (I believe) of the NJSP FIU as their expert. State expert acknowledges expert credentials of defense expert.

 

Testimony comes out that "telescoping" is not defined anywhere in the law, but that according to the dictionary definition of telescoping, the stock on the Bushmaster (sorry, don't have exact name)is NOT telescoping, it is adjustable. Further, it is adjustable only between two LEGAL lengths and at no point could the rifle be illegal in the state of NJ if stock was pinned at any of the adjustable stops.

 

Jury took 45 minutes to find not guilty on all counts. I may be leaving some stuff out, but this is the gist of it.

 

While the "not guilty" is great, the jury finding on whether the gun is an assault rifle is not a finding by the court that is not an assault rifle. So the State can still file a complaint seeking to have Good guy forfeit all his guns. This is a civil action with no jury so the state only has to show the judge by a "preponderance of the evidence", less than "reasonable doubt", that the rifle in an assault weapon and good guy will lose the rifle. Think OJ civil trial after he was acquitted of the murders.

 

There's more to come on this one.

[Vlad G 345]

Good to hear that the jury had some sense here, and good for the GG. Lets hope this sets some precedent and a path to better things to come.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I talked to my buddy, Joe Chiarello, who represented the defendant. Here are the basic facts of the case as I understand them:

 

Defendant (hereinafter Good Guy or GG) is driving his work truck home and allegedly sideswipes a Cadillac Escalade driven by "victim" with his wife as passenger.

 

Victim then aggressively follows good guy home, allegedly attempting to force him off the road at points. Good guy calls wife to explain what's happening and asks her to call 911 to have police meet him at his house and unlock his gun safe. Victim follows good guy all the way to his house, blocking driveway with his car.

 

Both good guy's and victims wives are on phone with 911. Good guy goes in house and gets his semi-automatic handgun and goes back outside to ask what victim is doing and telling him to get off property. Good guy never points gun at victim, just holds it at his side.

 

Victim's wife is on phone with 911. According to testimony in case, she never once mentions to 911 that good guy is pointing gun at them until she is asked that question by 911 operator. She was merely complaining about car getting sideswiped.

 

Good guy gets on phone with 911 operator who tells him to go in house (he does) and put gun away. He refuses saying his wife is home and he's not putting the gun away until the police get there as he does not know the intentions of "Victim" who is on his property.

 

Police get there. Good guy secures his handgun and police arrest him for allegedly pointing the gun and charge him with aggravated assault. Search of the house turns up a Bushmaster AR15 clone with an adjustable stock. Charges added for possession of an assault weapon.

 

No charges filed against alleged victim believe it or not.

 

Defense attorney retains a retired member of the NJSP Firearms ID Unit as his expert. State has the current head (I believe) of the NJSP FIU as their expert. State expert acknowledges expert credentials of defense expert.

 

Testimony comes out that "telescoping" is not defined anywhere in the law, but that according to the dictionary definition of telescoping, the stock on the Bushmaster (sorry, don't have exact name)is NOT telescoping, it is adjustable. Further, it is adjustable only between two LEGAL lengths and at no point could the rifle be illegal in the state of NJ if stock was pinned at any of the adjustable stops.

 

Jury took 45 minutes to find not guilty on all counts. I may be leaving some stuff out, but this is the gist of it.

 

While the "not guilty" is great, the jury finding on whether the gun is an assault rifle is not a finding by the court that is not an assault rifle. So the State can still file a complaint seeking to have Good guy forfeit all his guns. This is a civil action with no jury so the state only has to show the judge by a "preponderance of the evidence", less than "reasonable doubt", that the rifle in an assault weapon and good guy will lose the rifle. Think OJ civil trial after he was acquitted of the murders.

 

There's more to come on this one.

 

Wait, did they have a car accident and drive off? I would think if I side swiped someone in my car there would be some major damage, no?

[PK90 3,573]

Both at fault for leaving. Incident should never had escalated. But that is over.

 

While the "not guilty" is great, the jury finding on whether the gun is an assault rifle is not a finding by the court that is not an assault rifle.

 

I am confused on this explanation.

 

I also would like to know what stock it was.

[vladtepes 1,060]

while I am all for a victory on the pro gun side.. I have to wonder what stock this was..

 

tel·e·scope (tl-skp)

v.tr.

1. To cause to slide inward or outward in overlapping sections, as the cylindrical sections of a small hand telescope do.

2. To make more compact or concise; condense.

v.intr.

To slide inward or outward in or as if in overlapping cylindrical sections: a camp bucket that telescopes into a disk.

 

not to be negative but it appears that just about every collapsible stock I know of telescopes... the movement across the buffer tube seems almost identical to the way a telescope moves in and out..

[Dan 177]

Everything is clear besides the car accident part. If the guy hit the other guy, why didn't they both stop, call the PD, and swap insurance info? Something else might be going on there... like the Caddy "victim" perhaps was acting violent and the GG decided to get out of dodge while calling 911?

 

If we seperate out the car accident part... and fast forward to the GG having his gun at his side (not aiming it at the "victim") on his OWN property, that is entirely legal under the firearms statutes. I suppose if the "victim" and his wife both said he was aiming the gun at them, I guess the cops had no choice but to arrest and let the courts figure it out.

 

I'm also confused as to why the cops searched his home. He must have consented or they got a warrant as since this all occurred outside the home, there was no legal cause for the police to search the home that I can think of. Never consent and STFU until you get your lawyer, I'm betting he broke these cardinal rules.

 

This is a good example of a previous thread where we discussed HD with a gun. There is almost no benefit in defending your home on the outside when your family is safe inside. Best to lock the doors, family in safe area taking cover, gun at your side in a defensive position calling while calling 911.

 

Also, this kind of crap is why I have CCTV cameras at strategic locations. Any crap goes down around my house, I know where to stand to be recorded. Cheaper than going to court and playing the he said she said game.

[Dan 177]

while I am all for a victory on the pro gun side.. I have to wonder what stock this was..

 

 

 

not to be negative but it appears that just about every collapsible stock I know of telescopes... the movement across the buffer tube seems almost identical to the way a telescope moves in and out..

 

Its all about what the jury thinks. The defense got the jury thinking on the definition and intent of the law to mean a stock that can shorten a rifle into one that violates state and federal laws on overall length. Which makes sense... easy for someone to grasp that idea... that the intent of the law was to prevent a "loophole" of sorts in that the rifle is a legal length with the stock extended, then illegal with it collapsed/folded. That the intent of the law was to not throw someone in prison for 10 years because their stock moves a few inches back and forth for shooting comfort of different sized people, and one that does not bring the gun into illegal OAL rules.

 

Now, if we can only convince a few federal judges of this, how NJ's ambiguous AWB is unconstitutional with this guy as an example. How the laws ensnare otherwise law abiding people in their confusing, nondescript, and frivolous quagmire of rules.

[Zed's_Dead 16]

Both at fault for leaving. Incident should never had escalated. But that is over.

 

 

 

I am confused on this explanation.

 

I also would like to know what stock it was.

 

Ahh, I did leave that part out. GG was driving a big box truck. He says he didn't feel any impact and had no idea why victim was following him. Damage on car was minor. As to the "violent" actions of the guy in the Escalade I believe there was testimony that he was driving "aggresively" enough to concern GG.

 

As to the stock, my buddy didn't remember the specific model name off the top of his head, but he thought it was a Magpul.

[The Dark Knight 11]

 

 

not to be negative but it appears that just about every collapsible stock I know of telescopes... the movement across the buffer tube seems almost identical to the way a telescope moves in and out..

 

Not to be negative about it but it appears that just about every Saiga and WASR I know of is an AK-47... the action of the weapon seems almost identical to the way an AK-47 assault rifle operates.

 

 

Sorry bud, I just couldn't resist. You made it too easy.

 

Anyway, good to see this decision turned out this way. Hopefully the proper parties can forward the docket to the NJ2AS. I am also interested to see what happens with what the state may or may not do regarding him forfeiting his weapons.

[Dan 177]

Not to be negative about it but it appears that just about every Saiga and WASR I know of is an AK-47... the action of the weapon seems almost identical to the way an AK-47 assault rifle operates.

 

 

Sorry bud, I just couldn't resist. You made it too easy.

 

Anyway, good to see this decision turned out this way. Hopefully the proper parties can forward the docket to the NJ2AS. I am also interested to see what happens with what the state may or may not do regarding him forfeiting his weapons.

 

You should really stop with this. You are implying that NJ law abiding citizens are breaking laws owning a Saiga or WASR rifle; needless to say they are NOT. Not something to joke about. You are not making any friends.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Not to be negative about it but it appears that just about every Saiga and WASR I know of is an AK-47... the action of the weapon seems almost identical to the way an AK-47 assault rifle operates.

 

 

Sorry bud, I just couldn't resist. You made it too easy.

 

Anyway, good to see this decision turned out this way. Hopefully the proper parties can forward the docket to the NJ2AS. I am also interested to see what happens with what the state may or may not do regarding him forfeiting his weapons.

 

not sure what your obsession is with the AK variant discussion.. but..

 

the law says "telescoping stock" but then the law does not define "telescoping stock" so the only recourse is to take those words and define them.. to obtain a meaning.. the term "telescoping stock" to anyone not looking to get around something would basically describe the workings of MOST AR style stocks..

 

"substantially identical" IS fortunately defined so no need to guess... and a NJ compliant Saiga, WASR, etc.. is not substantially identical as it is literally described.. doesn't matter how much it LOOKS like one.. because LOOKS is a very subjective thing... unlike function.. which can be more clearly defined..

 

I mean the end result is of little consequence to me as I should be out of this state for good within the next 4 months.. but I fail to see the leverage you create for the firearms community as a whole (yourself included) by implying that the reach of the ban effects more guns than it actually does.. you assume a bizarre interpretation for someone who should be "pro gun"... but really keep crying from the rooftops about how they are assault weapons.. and maybe just maybe if you yell loud enough they will hear you... maybe they will get a little looser with the interpretations and ban one of your favorite guns..

 

we have this discussion time and time again.. agree or disagree.. the standard has been simple..

 

is the gun banned by name?

is the gun substantially identical as defined by law?

 

if the answer to both of those questions is NO then the gun in NJ is legal.. it is honestly irregardless as to what the intent was.. it doesn't matter that the evil features game was ONLY supposed to apply to clones of the list... because all of that has fallen by the wayside.. and now at this point in NJ.. (with the exception of the M1 carbine nonsense..) if it is a semi auto.. and has too many evil features.. it is OUT.. not too many features.. you are good to go.. again.. I do not believe that was the original intention.. but you and I both KNOW that is how business is done now..

[KpdPipes 388]

Vlad, as much as it pains me to agree with DK..I think you are missing his point. The VERY SAME THINGS that keep a Saiga, WASR, Arsenal, or other "Legal" variant not Substantially Identical to the Dreaded "Avtomat Kalashnikov" were deemed NOT TO COUNT when it came to the Auto-Ordnance "Carbine" We can play the semantics game all we want, but the bald, and pure truth is, the AG can declare your Saigs, WASRS and whatever other rifle Instantly Unlawful on a WHIM. Sorry Brother, but you can on one hand say "What it;s called doesnt matter" then in the next, Argue that it Does. Auto ORdnance was an opportunistic break for her..if it hadnt been brought directly to her attention, it would have flown under the radar, and we'd actually have something to work on lessening the AWB. That however isnt what happened...With the IO corp rifles, the took a BRAND NEW MANUFACTURER..an American manufacturer at that, and declared theit products "Substantially Identical" to a "Named Weapon" and since nobody answerd the challenge I put here before. Cheyenne Mountain no longet carries Saigs, or any other "AK" because they were told by NJSP that there was NO Variant including Saiga and WASR that is acceptable under the NJ State AWB. Will we win the court battle in the end? Almost certainly..however at what cost? How many people will have their proeprty taken and destroyed, or lose it to forced sales out of state before it's won?

[Dan 177]

Vlad, as much as it pains me to agree with DK..I think you are missing his point. The VERY SAME THINGS that keep a Saiga, WASR, Arsenal, or other "Legal" variant not Substantially Identical to the Dreaded "Avtomat Kalashnikov" were deemed NOT TO COUNT when it came to the Auto-Ordnance "Carbine" We can play the semantics game all we want, but the bald, and pure truth is, the AG can declare your Saigs, WASRS and whatever other rifle Instantly Unlawful on a WHIM. Sorry Brother, but you can on one hand say "What it;s called doesnt matter" then in the next, Argue that it Does. Auto ORdnance was an opportunistic break for her..if it hadnt been brought directly to her attention, it would have flown under the radar, and we'd actually have something to work on lessening the AWB. That however isnt what happened...With the IO corp rifles, the took a BRAND NEW MANUFACTURER..an American manufacturer at that, and declared theit products "Substantially Identical" to a "Named Weapon" and since nobody answerd the challenge I put here before. Cheyenne Mountain no longet carries Saigs, or any other "AK" because they were told by NJSP that there was NO Variant including Saiga and WASR that is acceptable under the NJ State AWB. Will we win the court battle in the end? Almost certainly..however at what cost? How many people will have their proeprty taken and destroyed, or lose it to forced sales out of state before it's won?

 

I started an entire thread awhile back on this

My link

[vladtepes 1,060]

The VERY SAME THINGS that keep a Saiga, WASR, Arsenal, or other "Legal" variant not Substantially Identical to the Dreaded "Avtomat Kalashnikov" were deemed NOT TO COUNT when it came to the Auto-Ordnance "Carbine" We can play the semantics game all we want, but the bald, and pure truth is, the AG can declare your Saigs, WASRS and whatever other rifle Instantly Unlawful on a WHIM. Sorry Brother, but you can on one hand say "What it;s called doesnt matter" then in the next, Argue that it Does. Auto ORdnance was an opportunistic break for her..if it hadnt been brought directly to her attention, it would have flown under the radar, and we'd actually have something to work on lessening the AWB. That however isnt what happened...With the IO corp rifles, the took a BRAND NEW MANUFACTURER..an American manufacturer at that, and declared theit products "Substantially Identical" to a "Named Weapon" and since nobody answerd the challenge I put here before. Cheyenne Mountain no longet carries Saigs, or any other "AK" because they were told by NJSP that there was NO Variant including Saiga and WASR that is acceptable under the NJ State AWB. Will we win the court battle in the end? Almost certainly..however at what cost? How many people will have their proeprty taken and destroyed, or lose it to forced sales out of state before it's won?

 

I agree with most of what you said.. but his post has nothing to do with the AO carbine...

 

His post states that somehow my literal interpretation of "telescoping stock" is somehow related to the fact that a WASR looks like an AK..

 

the system is the same that it has always been.. right or wrong.. we all know the NJ accepted legal criteria for SA rifles.. so no need to beat the point to death..

 

as far as the whole type thing goes it is very simple...

 

IO AK was screwed from day one.. the receiver was marked AK.. gun is banned by name.. why does CM not sell ANY AK variants? my guess is they felt very lucky to not be completely shut down for selling a banned gun.. so went along with the program..

 

the individual decision of one shop to NOT sell AK variants does not make a gun illegal in the same way a shop selling them legal.. a shops willingness to sell a firearm does not determine its legality.. the test is the same as it ever was..

 

is it banned by name?

is it substantially identical?

 

ironically IO has changed all of their SKUs on the site now... maybe they are planning to make another run on NJ.. lol

 

as for AO M1 carbine.. the same can be said... they rolled the dice.. and when challenged backed down.. this does not mean the gun is legal or not legal.. just because the AG makes a call.. that doesn't mean ****.. the manufacture has every opportunity in the world to step up to the plate to fight it.. but what is easier? fighting to sell a dozen guns in NJ via some insanely expensive court case? or just easier to sell them to the rest of America?

 

just because the AG makes a call.. it does not make that call correct..the AO carbine would have likely won IMO.. but they made the choice not to seriously fight it..

 

which brings it all full circle back to Colt which basically sums up the whole type garbage.. when dealing with law looking at the past is normally helpful..

NJ BANNED their rifles essentially.. Colt (unlike AO) stepped up to the plate and got the AG to acknowledge that the (target) gun was not substantially identical to the banned gun..

just like a WASR is not substantially identical..

just like a Saiga is not substantially identical..

just like the AO carbine is NOT substantially identical..

 

"Colt AR15 type is banned"

"AK types are banned"

 

"evil feature compliant Colt AR15s are legal"

"evil feature compliant Saigas are legal"

 

every time someone argues that a Saiga is illegal because it has AK action.. you are arguing AGAINST the Colt ruling which is a ruling in our favor..

[Joelk 61]

"Colt AR15 type is banned"

"AK types are banned"

 

"evil feature compliant Colt AR15s are legal"

"evil feature compliant Saigas are legal"

 

every time someone argues that a Saiga is illegal because it has AK action.. you are arguing AGAINST the Colt ruling which is a ruling in our favor..

Sorry to throw a wrench into your logic, but the problem with your statement is that 2C:39-1 says "Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms", but "Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series". It is funny how some guns, including the M1 carbine, use type, while others are specifically named. Unfortunately, it makes the whole situation even muddier, and more open to AG interpretation.