Conflicting Assault Weapon Definitions for Semiautomatic Shotgun

[TheDon 3]

This has probably been discussed before, but I could not readily find it.

The “Assault firearm” definition as it pertained to semi-automatic shotguns reads as follows:

 

"Assault firearms" means:

2. … A semi-automatic firearm should be considered to be "substantially identical," that is, identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon if it meets the below listed criteria:

iii. A semi-automatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

(1) A folding or telescoping stock;

(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(3) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of six rounds; and/or

(4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

3. A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a folding stock or a pistol grip;

 

I always interpreted it as:

[2. iii. (3)] This shotgun has a “pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon”.

http://www.gunslot.c...mages/51566.jpg

 

[3.] This shotgun has a pistol grip:

http://www.marstar.c...-BR003XL-EX.jpg

 

But, my FFL said no. Any pistol grip is illegal.

 

If that is the case, then section 2 becomes irrelevant and the vast majority of turkey guns would also be illegal. That does not seem right.

 

Second question, it that is true, then when does a pistol grip become a pistol grip?

http://t1.gstatic.co...xGCxbGFJT1lYyMa

http://t0.gstatic.co...5ETP5aJjyrOU1-g

http://t1.gstatic.co...xdb4zrUUG6ZvCHf

 

(Sorry about the links. Community settings prohibit inclusion of images.)

 

Thanks,

Don

[Nikos 31]

If you go down the list of taboo assault weapon firearms, you'll see this:

 

(3) A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six

rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock.

[vladtepes 1,060]

the answer is actually fairly straightforward and not contradictory...

 

ANY of the following is an "assault weapon"

 

iii. A semi-automatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

(1) A folding or telescoping stock;

(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(3) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of six rounds; and/or

(4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

 

OR

 

3. A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a folding stock or a pistol grip;

 

 

the criteria is pertaining to SEMI AUTO only.. pump does not apply...

it sounds contradictory because it sounds like you HAVE to have 2 evil features.. but then the law goes on to put forth other criteria..

[TheDon 3]

I still see it as contradictory. Section 2. iii. allows one of a list evil feature and Section 3 disallows any of almost the same list of evil features.

How is that not contradictory?

[vladtepes 1,060]

I still see it as contradictory. Section 2. iii. allows one of a list evil feature and Section 3 disallows any of almost the same list of evil features.

How is that not contradictory?

 

because it is an OR situation...

 

criteria 1 makes this shotgun an assault weapon...

OR

criteria 2 makes this shotgun an assault weapon...

 

you are reading it as criteria one (evil features list) is the ONLY way for the gun to be illegal.. it is the same for rifles.. you have the evil feature list and then an ADDITIONAL disclaimer covering "a semi automatic rifle magazine capacity more than 15 rounds" the point being there are multiple criteria for defining assault weapon.. so you can not just read one criteria...

[JamesC 2]

I still see it as contradictory. Section 2. iii. allows one of a list evil feature and Section 3 disallows any of almost the same list of evil features.

How is that not contradictory?

 

I'm with you, TheDon, it's confusing. As a newbie to NJ Gun Law, I read this and thought that it was less contradictory and more redundant. It seems that perhaps section 3 may have been passed later to revise the rules but the legislature may not have rescinded the original verbiage.

 

I assume that this mean the Benneli M4 is out?

[vladtepes 1,060]

I'm with you, TheDon, it's confusing. As a newbie to NJ Gun Law, I read this and thought that it was less contradictory and more redundant. It seems that perhaps section 3 may have been passed later to revise the rules but the legislature may not have rescinded the original verbiage.

 

I assume that this mean the Benneli M4 is out?

 

law is full of redundancy that is why you MUST read it in its entirety....

it is only confusing if you allow it to be.. or read into it... read the law as it is written and take it at face value...

 

this is illegal if... ok well it doesn't have that so I am ok.. let me read on...

 

this is automatically illegal if.. oh shit it has that.. so it is illegal.. even though legal under the other criteria..

[compujas 21]

It still seems contradictory to me. I understand vlad's point that it is an OR statement, however, section 3 nullifies all of section iii. There is no way to have anything legal via section iii because section 3 makes it illegal, so why bother having iii. Like JamesC said, it seems like the legislators were lazy and didn't rescind section iii when implementing 3.

[PK90 3,573]

It is contradictory because the NJAG back in 1996 did not know what the fugg they were talking about. They came up with that guideline without reading the friggin law.

 

BTW: I don't use FUGG or FRIGGIN words.

[compujas 21]

It reminds of that statement in the Aitken opinion about how laws are written using language the anyone of "ordinary" intelligence can understand them so they know how to stay within the law. I consider all of us to be at least of ordinary intelligence, and yet we can't seem to make heads or tails of just about any law.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

There is an important distinction that you are overlooking - TheDon is correct, there are conflicting definitions in the Administrative Code. The NJAC is not law.

 

The relevant statute is 2C:39-1,w(3)...

A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock.

 

The "two evil features" in the NJAC, as it applies to semi-auto shotguns, is simply a mistake and is irrelevant as it is not law. There are no such conflicting satetments in the statutes.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[compujas 21]

There is an important distinction that you are overlooking - TheDon is correct, there are conflicting definitions in the Administrative Code. The NJAC is not law.

 

The relevant statute is 2C:39-1,w(3)...

A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock.

 

The "two evil features" in the NJAC, as it applies to semi-auto shotguns, is simply a mistake and is irrelevant as it is not law. There are no such conflicting satetments in the statutes.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Looks like we have a winner. I always forget AC vs statute. Really it's pretty dumb to have both. If the AC holds no weight as a law, it shouldn't exist. It only seems to exist for the sole purpose of contradiction and confusion. Then again, IANAL and don't understand the difference.

[raz-0 1,259]

There is an important distinction that you are overlooking - TheDon is correct, there are conflicting definitions in the Administrative Code. The NJAC is not law.

 

The relevant statute is 2C:39-1,w(3)...

A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock.

 

The "two evil features" in the NJAC, as it applies to semi-auto shotguns, is simply a mistake and is irrelevant as it is not law. There are no such conflicting satetments in the statutes.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

There used to be. At least searching via the official search over the years, I came up with at least three revisions of the statute without any peep about the legislature voting on anything. Fills you with a sense of confidence.

[RedBowTies88 41]

There is an important distinction that you are overlooking - TheDon is correct, there are conflicting definitions in the Administrative Code. The NJAC is not law.

 

The relevant statute is 2C:39-1,w(3)...

A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock.

 

The "two evil features" in the NJAC, as it applies to semi-auto shotguns, is simply a mistake and is irrelevant as it is not law. There are no such conflicting satetments in the statutes.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

So, If the statute simply lists "pistol grip" as making the weapon illegal does this then apply? "z. "Pistol grip" means a well-defined handle, similar to that found on a handgun, that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, and which permits the shotgun to be held and fired with one hand"

 

If i'm not mistaken I believe on the rifle "evil features list" It defines a pistol grip as a defined pistol-like grip the protrudes conspicusiously benith the action..

 

Basically trying to argue the legality of a thumbole type stock like found on a PAP type rifle on a shotgun.

[compujas 21]

So, If the statute simply lists "pistol grip" as making the weapon illegal does this then apply? "z. "Pistol grip" means a well-defined handle, similar to that found on a handgun, that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, and which permits the shotgun to be held and fired with one hand"

 

If i'm not mistaken I believe on the rifle "evil features list" It defines a pistol grip as a defined pistol-like grip the protrudes conspicusiously benith the action..

 

Basically trying to argue the legality of a thumbole type stock like found on a PAP type rifle on a shotgun.

 

A thumbhole stock does not protrude conspicuously beneath the action like a handgun. It is a hole in the stock. Thumbhole stocks are typically the workaround for this situation, just like with rifles.

[KpdPipes 388]

Looks like we have a winner. I always forget AC vs statute. Really it's pretty dumb to have both. If the AC holds no weight as a law, it shouldn't exist. It only seems to exist for the sole purpose of contradiction and confusion. Then again, IANAL and don't understand the difference.

 

The ADministrative code addresses hoe the law is applied, it does that with pretty much all of the Criminal Code..it's a "Lazy" feature, it allows for things such as Case-law changes to be added on without having the Legislature actually Change the Statute itself. I;m sure Paul will remember this, back around 1992-3 there were a lot of Conflicting cases with Domestics, where the Appellate Division reversed themselves on something like 5 cases over the span of 8 weeks, and with each one the AC was changed and distributed, and we had a period of about 2 months were we were doing 180 degree changes in how Domestics were handled..Literally you would have something that was a "Shall Arrest" (as opposed to "May Arrest") action for someone on Monday, and on Tuesday of the same week, when the Prosecutors notified of the AC change, you would not be PERMITTED to Arrest on that same violation. The administrative code has its uses, but it also gets abused.

[intercooler 41]

a thumbhole stock is a pistol grip according to the NJSP firearms unit, i wanted to convert my saiga to a thumbhole SLR type stock...their advice was that it was not legal...i provided pictures of a similar saiga that was done in another state. Needless to say, my saiga is new in the box still as it came from Iszmash...no conversion for me

[vladtepes 1,060]

A thumbhole stock does not protrude conspicuously beneath the action like a handgun. It is a hole in the stock. Thumbhole stocks are typically the workaround for this situation, just like with rifles.

 

sure it does..

 

NJ state law does not define thumbhole stock.. it means nothing in NJ law..

 

it does loosely define pistol grip..

and that definition would make me really uneasy with one on a semi auto shotgun..

 

"Pistol grip" means a well defined handle, similar to that found on a handgun,

 

"similar" to one found on a handgun? sure.. it is similar..

 

that protrudes

conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

 

if it comes under the gun.. where the action is.. then I regretfully think it could be argued that is protrudes beneath the action..

 

which permits the firearm to be held and fired

with one hand.

 

keep in mind.. it says shoot with one hand.. it doesn't say comfortably.. it just says shoot with one hand..

 

 

 

 

and rifles don't need work arounds in NJ.. pistol grip on a semi auto rifle is legal..

[RedBowTies88 41]

I think "conspicuously" is the key wood. I think you would be hard pressed to find a jury that would consider a thumbhole stock conspicous.

 

 

IMHO and IANAL

[vladtepes 1,060]

I think "conspicuously" is the key wood. I think you would be hard pressed to find a jury that would consider a thumbhole stock conspicous.

 

 

IMHO and IANAL

 

really... you really think a prosecutor could not sell your thumbhole stock equipped Saiga 12 to a non firearm enthusiast jury as being a pistol grip..

in NJ it is a regular stock or it is not.. thumbhole stock is not defined..

 

keep in mind the "action" of the weapon takes up a pretty large area and your entire argument will hinge on centimeters at best..

 

I was also told by the NJSP firearms division it is a no go..

[RedBowTies88 41]

Oh I wouldn't argue about the stock being partly under the action I would argue that fact that it must "Conspicuously" protrude.

 

 

con·spic·u·ous

   /kənˈspɪkyuəs/ Show Spelled[kuhn-spik-yoo-uhs] Show IPA

 

adjective

1.

easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable: a conspicuous error.

2.

attracting special attention, as by outstanding qualities or eccentricities: He was conspicuous by his booming laughter.

 

I think a decent lawyer could definitly sucessfully argue that a thumbhole stock does NOT "conspicuously" protrude below the action.

[Dan 177]

I think "conspicuously" is the key wood. I think you would be hard pressed to find a jury that would consider a thumbhole stock conspicous.

 

 

IMHO and IANAL

 

The idea is to stay out of court in the first place... so even if technically you could prove with expert witness that a thumbhole stock is not a pistol grip, I doubt anyone wants to be facing 10 years and spending their life savings in court with some shark prosecutor, anti-gun judge, and a firearms ambivalent jury trying to do so.

 

For me the theory is to not "tickle the dragon's tail" as much as possible. I stick with the obvious things, like perm pinning brakes, stocks, mags, etc. Those are pretty easy, as there is no case if the brake can't unscrew, stock can't "telescope", or mag can't hold more than 15 all via permanent methods that would require machining/physical alterations to undo.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Oh I wouldn't argue about the stock being partly under the action I would argue that fact that it must "Conspicuously" protrude.

 

 

con·spic·u·ous

   /kənˈspɪkyuəs/ Show IPA

 

adjective

1.

easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable: a conspicuous error.

2.

attracting special attention, as by outstanding qualities or eccentricities: He was conspicuous by his booming laughter.

 

I think a decent lawyer could definitly sucessfully argue that a thumbhole stock does NOT "conspicuously" protrude below the action.

 

it doesn't say the entire pistol grip has to be under the action..

it simply says it has to conspicuously stick out.. as in contrasting a traditional stock which is swept to the rear..

[RedBowTies88 41]

I'm taking it's location relative to the action out of the equation. I'm focusing on weather or not a thumbhole stock is conspicuous. Is it "easily seen or noticed"? I think not ( IANAL of course)

 

In order for it to be considered a pistol grip it must be conspicuous. reguardless of its location under the action. A gun ignorant (if you will) jury would probably only help in this case as they certinally at first glance wouldn't pick out the pistol grip likeness of that type of stock in my opinion. If i showed one to my mom she would just think its a funny looking stock. If I were to show her an AR and ask her what that thiing is under the action I'm sure she could say its a pistol grip.

[mipafox 438]

 

 

Looks like we have a winner. I always forget AC vs statute. Really it's pretty dumb to have both. If the AC holds no weight as a law, it shouldn't exist. It only seems to exist for the sole purpose of contradiction and confusion. Then again, IANAL and don't understand the difference.

 

N.J.A.C. is regulation and you CAN be held accountable to it. However, being covered under regulation does not protect you from statute. Usually, however, it's the reverse. Usually, N.J.A.C is more stringent and detailed than the law. The law authorizes promulgation of the regulation.

 

The draft regulation must be provided for public comment, and the answers given to the comments are BINDING and protective to the regulated population. That means, if the regulation says you are in trouble, but the answers to comments says you would not be in trouble in your specific situation (even though it is not mentioned in the reg), you can point to the comment response and you are off the hook.

 

I am not a lawyer. I just deal with about 5 sections of N.J.A.C. on a daily basis.

[TheDon 3]

(Frustrating that we cannot post pictures in this community)

 

No question, this is a pistol grip.

http://t1.gstatic.co...xdb4zrUUG6ZvCHf

 

Is this a pistol grip? No? Why not? There are no ergonomic differences? It is a grip, and it is below (in a lower plane from) the action.

http://t1.gstatic.co...xGCxbGFJT1lYyMa

[RedBowTies88 41]

Both those links are fairly conspicuous... however you might be able to make a case for them not being under the action.

[KpdPipes 388]

(Frustrating that we cannot post pictures in this community)

 

No question, this is a pistol grip.

http://t1.gstatic.co...xdb4zrUUG6ZvCHf

 

Is this a pistol grip? No? Why not? There are no ergonomic differences? It is a grip, and it is below (in a lower plane from) the action.

http://t1.gstatic.co...xGCxbGFJT1lYyMa

Let me help you with that.....

 

#1

#2

 

Ok..Try Photobucket..that way you CAN post pics

 

Now, that out of the way, there is also a type of wood Straight-stock called a "Pistol-Grip" which is not as pronounced as your #2 example, which was used in both Shotguns and Rifles, and looks like this:

 

Again, referencing your #2 photo, i am unaware of any shotguns other than single-shots that have that particular stock type, so it really isnt applicable, unless someone makes the stock for a Semi, HOWEVER, since the grip does not protrude below the plane of the stock, IMO it would not be viewed as a "Pistol Grip" that isnt to say a zealous Prosecutor might not come up with a different view. It's simple, we ALL know what a Pistol Grip on a rifle or shotgun looks like, if YOU want to try and play semantics and push the envelope, that's fine, Your choice (Not you necessarily TD) but as i;ve stated dont expect a lot of Sympathy if it bites you on the butt. SHOULD a Thumbhole type stock be allowed?? again IMO, Yeah, it meets the letter of the statute, if not the "Spirit" but we;ve never had a ruling one way or the other, so IM not going to play games with it.

 

One last note on your #2 pic..I BELIEVE that is a T/C single-shot, which was derived FROM a Pistol action to begin with, and due to the design of the action itself requires the stock to be in that shape.

[KpdPipes 388]

doubletap

[PK90 3,573]

I believe that the criteria that Kalifornia goes by, is that if the web of one's hand formed by the index finger and thumb, is above the trigger, it is a thumbhole stock.

 

 

The above picture is of a Kali grip which eliminates the pistol grip on an AR.