Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
emulzhn

forgive me ignorance... would this shotty b legal?

Recommended Posts

is it worth the xtra?

 

thanks

 

Without a doubt.

 

The Catamount is basically a chinese-knockoff of the Saiga12 as far as I know it. There is not much more that has to be said. I believe they are imported by Century. 

 

Plus it doesn't accept Saiga mags? Pretty lame. So you have to buy your own Catamount mags, and the market for Catamount Fury's is not large. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until NJ gets on top of the loophole a skeleton stock is not a pistol grip. That's legal. I'd still spend the extra on a saiga 12 as well.

 

I disagree.. completely.. 

 

NJ does not define thumbhole stock.. so therefore it is nonexistent in NJ law.. they do however define pistol grip.. and that is by NJ definition essentially a pistol grip.. take notice that the law does not state a pistol grip stops being a pistol grip if it is attached to the stock.. there is simply no mention of stock at all.. 

 

"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 firearm to be held and fired

with one hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, the loophole is that they don't define it. They will sooner or later but until then its legal! :)

 

 

if they dont define it.. then it does not exist.. for it to be a loophole they would have to say something like 

 

"thumbhole stock - is any stock in which the stock is one complete piece attached to the rear of the rifle"

 

that would create a loop hole because it would take that obvious pistol grip and turn it into a thumbhole stock by being one piece... since that is not the case then the piece protruding off the gun is judged solely on if it meets the criteria of a pistol grip...

 

ask yourself.. you are in front of a jury.. the prosecutor holds of that gun, which he has already demonized.. and then begins to read the definition of pistol grip.. showing that the thing he is holding meets all that criteria... whats your defense? there isnt one.. because it is a pistol grip as pistol grip is clearly defined in NJ law..

 

"Pistol grip"

means a well defined handle check,

similar to that found on a handgun, check

that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, check

and which permits the firearm to be held and fired with one hand. check

 

it is.. as defined by NJ law.. a pistol grip.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks all for the valued opinion.  As per my LGS, I believe this remains to be legal.  It is obviously a 2nd looker and thus my query.  I did consider at first as it just looks "Bad Ass", however will I research more as well as looking into the Saiga.  there is certainly more than being a "bad ass"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks all for the valued opinion.  As per my LGS, I believe this remains to be legal.  It is obviously a 2nd looker and thus my query.  I did consider at first as it just looks "Bad Ass", however will I research more as well as looking into the Saiga.  there is certainly more than being a "bad ass"....

 

 

ask him what part of the law makes it not a pistol grip... you have an FFL in this thread telling you its NOT legal... so just being an FFL is moot.. what matters is what the law literally says... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just was reiterating what Vlad had posted in the sticky. Its not defined. The definition of a pistol grip does not include it.

 

I think I'll crawl back to my AK variant corner now thanks guys ....

 

 

I will go slower.. 

 

in the eyes of NJ law it is not a thumbhole stock.. because a thumbhole stock does not exist.. 

 

because thumbhole stock does not exist it can not be one in the eyes of the law...

 

that leaves you with it being a pistol grip OR not a pistol grip....

 

since it meets the criteria of being a pistol grip it is by my best estimation a pistol grip.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they dont define it.. then it does not exist.. for it to be a loophole they would have to say something like 

 

"thumbhole stock - is any stock in which the stock is one complete piece attached to the rear of the rifle"

 

that would create a loop hole because it would take that obvious pistol grip and turn it into a thumbhole stock by being one piece... since that is not the case then the piece protruding off the gun is judged solely on if it meets the criteria of a pistol grip...

 

ask yourself.. you are in front of a jury.. the prosecutor holds of that gun, which he has already demonized.. and then begins to read the definition of pistol grip.. showing that the thing he is holding meets all that criteria... whats your defense? there isnt one.. because it is a pistol grip as pistol grip is clearly defined in NJ law..

 

"Pistol grip"

means a well defined handle check, - that's debateable since it's incorporated into an entire stock, "well defined" is less clear

similar to that found on a handgun, check - Very rare to see a skelton stock on a handgun

that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, check - NO, that hand grip is clearly not "beneath" the action of the weapon, it is behind the action of the weapon. The hand grip also is not "protruding conspicuously" since it part of the skeleton stock.

and which permits the firearm to be held and fired with one hand. check - Yes

 

it is.. as defined by NJ law.. a pistol grip.. 

I'm not saying the NJSP or the AG's office will tell anyone it's legal, since they have their own agenda that isn't necessarly based interpreting our laws objectively, as we have seen time and time again with other firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying the NJSP or the AG's office will tell anyone it's legal, since they have their own agenda that isn't necessarly based interpreting our laws objectively, as we have seen time and time again with other firearms.

 

 

the issue is the law does not state that the grip needs to be separate from anything.. it does not state how it can or can not attach to the gun.. for it to be legal it would need to state that if it is connected to the stock it stops being a pistol grip.... remember we are viewing this as gun enthusiasts not law makers... the word similar is extremely vague.. most would argue intentionally vague.. 

 

the word beneath implies something is below something else.. it does not need to be directly below it to be beneath.. if you want to split hairs it is not really behind the action either.. technically of course.. 

 

the biggest issue is you are resting your freedom on the fact that it is attached to the stock.. "it is not because of this, which is ultimately it being attached to the stock" but the law does not address that.. a pistol grip can be part of a stock by the way it is worded... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...