RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 30, 2018 Hey guys. Sorry if this is inr he wrong sub-forum, but the mobile site only gave me one posting option. Anyway, with the recent popularity of adjustable pistol braces from companies like SB Tatical, Gear Head Works, KAK, etc etc I’m wondering what the legalities (or illegalities, more likely) could be for using one not on a pistol build, but on a full size and otherwise compliant rifle? These braces come with ATF paperwork specially citing that they ARE NOT a stock, at least federally. I’m wondering if and if so how NJ defines a “stock”. I very much appreciate any thoughts/insight. P.s. This is not a question of “if a cop sees you with this will you be arrested” we all know the answer to that and that here in NJ we’re guilty until proven innocent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pasu0115 200 Posted January 30, 2018 Why? What would be the purpose on a full size rifle? Not sure of legality, but if you want to make a full size rifle inaccurate and potentially unsafe, that' probably a way to do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 30, 2018 20 minutes ago, pasu0115 said: Why? What would be the purpose on a full size rifle? Not sure of legality, but if you want to make a full size rifle inaccurate and potentially unsafe, that' probably a way to do it. Of course when I saw full size rifle I actually mean a legal size rifle, a carbine. And because it could collapse for more compactness and easy of transport/storage yet still give a 3rd point of contact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 30, 2018 Also, if you’re not familiar with these braces you should do some research and perhaps watch some videos. They are indeed quite useful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pasu0115 200 Posted January 31, 2018 5 hours ago, RedBowTies88 said: Also, if you’re not familiar with these braces you should do some research and perhaps watch some videos. They are indeed quite useful. I watched some videos, I would still prefer a real stock on a full size or even carbine length gun. I get your question, If it is length adjustable the state of NJ may consider it a collapsible stock (you could pin it in one setting making it "fixed"). That of course would be in contradiction with ATF which say it is not a stock. I would say the best answer you would get would be from the State Police Firearms Unit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 31, 2018 2 hours ago, pasu0115 said: I watched some videos, I would still prefer a real stock on a full size or even carbine length gun. I get your question, If it is length adjustable the state of NJ may consider it a collapsible stock (you could pin it in one setting making it "fixed"). That of course would be in contradiction with ATF which say it is not a stock. I would say the best answer you would get would be from the State Police Firearms Unit. Yeah that’s basically the worst place to get legal advice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted January 31, 2018 Best answer: No stock? Then it's not a rifle. If it's not a rifle, what is it? What use do you have for it? I see no usefulness to them... Everyone uses them to avoid SBR classification as a pistol, and uses the arm brace as a stock.. No one actually straps the thing to their forearm, certainly not a full length rifle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 31, 2018 Just now, JackDaWack said: Best answer: No stock? Then it's not a rifle. If it's not a rifle, what is it? A shotgun is still a shotgun without a stock, why should a rifle be any different? As long as it’s 26” OAL or more I don’t see them changing the definition to anything other than a rifle.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted January 31, 2018 Just now, RedBowTies88 said: A shotgun is still a shotgun without a stock, why should a rifle be any different? As long as it’s 26” OAL or more I don’t see them changing the definition to anything other than a rifle.. Because the law say says so, both federal and state law requires a stock on a rifle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,634 Posted January 31, 2018 State definition of a rifle: NJSA 2C:39-1m."Rifle" means any firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder and using the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger. Federal definition of a rifle: 18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(7) and 27 CFR § 478.11 The term rifle means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger. “Designed to be fired from the shoulder” “ If an AR lower ever had a stock on it, it was designed to be fired from the shoulder and is therefore a rifle. Putting a brace on it doesn’t make the rifle a pistol. Same applies to shotguns. A mossberg 500 with a pistol grip is still a shotgun. An AK style underfolder with the sock pinned/fixed in the folded position is still a rifle. Ergo - A rifle with a pistol brace is still a rifle as long as it has a 16” barrel and is over 27” in length. You could use a lower bought on a pistol permit, but I doubt you’d make the weight requirement with a brace on it. I would say that a folding or adjustable pistol type brace would be a no-go in N.J. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 31, 2018 I believe you’re missing the point. I’m not looking to transform it from a rifle to a pistol. Even if that were legal federally it would be nearly impossible to get the weight under 50oz with an adjustable brace. I want to keep it designinated a rifle, abide by the 26” and 16” barrel regulation, and simply run it without a stock. Forget the adding a brace aspect for a moment. Let me ask this, if I take the fixed stock off of my AK and leave just the pistol grip, have I changed it to something other than a rifle? Same as if I had a folding stock Ak with the stock fixed to the folded position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 31, 2018 Err, let me try again now that I’ve re read your post If it’s legal to completely remove the stock from an AR style rifle and leave only then receiver extension, assuming that the rifle is compliant in every other way (16” barrel, 26” OAL, only one evil feature, etc) in that configuration, then why couldn’t one simply add a part that is not a stock, onto the receiver extension? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted January 31, 2018 21 minutes ago, RedBowTies88 said: Err, let me try again now that I’ve re read your post If it’s legal to completely remove the stock from an AR style rifle and leave only then receiver extension, assuming that the rifle is compliant in every other way (16” barrel, 26” OAL, only one evil feature, etc) in that configuration, then why couldn’t one simply add a part that is not a stock, onto the receiver extension? You could put Christmas decorations on it.... still a rifle 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,634 Posted January 31, 2018 If it is installed on an weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder, anything you add to the receiver extension can be a stock - attach a shovel handle to the back of an AR and it’s a stock. The pistol brace, in and of itself, isn’t a stock because it was never mounted to a rifle, only on a pistol - a weapon that isn’t designed to be shoulder fired. If a brace is mounted to a rifle, I believe it could then be considered a stock. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted January 31, 2018 Me thinks he wants to use an adjustable arm brace as an adjustable stock. Imo, it's just the wrong state to try this you may win a court case with the ATF letter in hand, but it will be an interesting ride. HE also brings up a point that arm braces we're designed for pistols. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,634 Posted January 31, 2018 I get exactly what he wants to do. I wonder what the brace manufacturer would say... I contend that the only reason these braces aren’t considered stocks is because they aren’t on a rifle. I think that the ATF would classify one of these braces as a stock if installed on a rifle as a rifle is designed to be fired from the shoulder. Ergo, anything on the back of a rifle is now intended to be the interface between the gun and the shooter’s shoulder ie: a stock. It is merely a brace and not a stock on a pistol because a pistol is not intended to be fired from the shoulder. I imagine, as soon as it is attached to a gun that is already classified as a rifle, it would become a stock. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 31, 2018 Again, this is all just hypothetical. I made it a point to mention in the OP that I’m not concerned if doing something like this could/would land you in jail, because we all know the answer to that question. I’m just curious if it could be a legal work around, to have something on your rifle to provide a 3rd point of contact. Something that is not a stock, and could be adjusted for easy storage, transport, and different shooting positions. 1 minute ago, High Exposure said: I get exactly what he wants to do. I wonder what the brace manufacturer would say... I contend that the only reason these braces aren’t considered stocks is because they aren’t on a rifle. I think that the ATF would classify one of these braces as a stock if installed on a rifle. A rifle is designed to be fired from the shoulder. Anything on the back of a rifle is now intended to be the interface between the gun and the shooter’s shoulder ie: a stock. It is merely a brace and it a stock on a pistol because a pistol is not intended to be fired from the shoulder. I imagine, as soon as it is attached to a gun that is already classified as a rifle, it would become a stock. That is an excellent argument. This is why I’m curious if there’s any language in NJ law that defines a “stock”. I’m going to check out one of those ATF approval letters to see if there’s any reference to it being installed on a pistol only. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairless_Ape 76 Posted January 31, 2018 Pistol braces are legal because they are NOT designed to be fired from the shoulder, regardless of how they're used it's not the designed purpose. As for NJ law, the important word is AND...designed AND intended. If it has a brace it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder. Since it doesn't meet the AND requirement it's not a rifle, its a firearm. You would have to do this with a stripped lower though, you can't convert a rifle to a firearm or pistol. That's a federal thing. You can contend that they're not stocks because they aren't on rifles all you want, but the fact is these firearms aren't considered rifles/SBR's because they have braces. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted January 31, 2018 36 minutes ago, PK90 said: Except the ATF ruled it's legal to shoulder it. What point is the strap then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted January 31, 2018 19 minutes ago, Hairless_Ape said: Pistol braces are legal because they are NOT designed to be fired from the shoulder, regardless of how they're used it's not the designed purpose. As for NJ law, the important word is AND...designed AND intended. If it has a brace it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder. Since it doesn't meet the AND requirement it's not a rifle, its a firearm. You would have to do this with a stripped lower though, you can't convert a rifle to a firearm or pistol. That's a federal thing. You can contend that they're not stocks because they aren't on rifles all you want, but the fact is these firearms aren't considered rifles/SBR's because they have braces. So what you’re arguing is that a rifle without a stock is no longer a rifle? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairless_Ape 76 Posted January 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, RedBowTies88 said: So what you’re arguing is that a rifle without a stock is no longer a rifle? No, not at all. If it is sold to you as a rifle with a sock, it's a rifle and there is no going back. That's Federal law. But if it never had a stock (a stripped lower) then it remains a firearm. Which is how stripped lowers are transferred, as firearms. It's the same way the Mossberg Shockwave skirts short barrelled shotgun laws. It never had a stock, so it's not legally a shotgun. It's over 26" long, so it's not a pistol. Which makes it a firearm. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,634 Posted January 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Hairless_Ape said: Pistol braces are legal because they are NOT designed to be fired from the shoulder, regardless of how they're used it's not the designed purpose. As for NJ law, the important word is AND...designed AND intended. If it has a brace it's not designed to be fired from the shoulder. Since it doesn't meet the AND requirement it's not a rifle, its a firearm. You would have to do this with a stripped lower though, you can't convert a rifle to a firearm or pistol. That's a federal thing. You can contend that they're not stocks because they aren't on rifles all you want, but the fact is these firearms aren't considered rifles/SBR's because they have braces. So you think a pistol brace on a semi auto gun with a 16” barrel and overall length greater than 26” makes it a Firearm? I don’t know about that... These AR type guns with short barrels and braces are that you see all over Instagram and YouTube are considered pistols not firearms. In most states an AR pistol is ok, just not here. Again, if I take a handle off a shovel, clearly something never designed or intended to be a stock, and stick it on then back of an AR receiver extension, and add a 16” barrelled upper it’s not a stock? Shit, I’ll make my own device that is a really a pasta maker. It happens to fit on a receiver extension and is adjustable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted February 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Hairless_Ape said: No, not at all. If it is sold to you as a rifle with a sock, it's a rifle and there is no going back. That's Federal law. But if it never had a stock (a stripped lower) then it remains a firearm. Which is how stripped lowers are transferred, as firearms. It's the same way the Mossberg Shockwave skirts short barrelled shotgun laws. It never had a stock, so it's not legally a shotgun. It's over 26" long, so it's not a pistol. Which makes it a firearm. You’re missing the point, I’m not arguing that it would be anything other than a rifle. It would just be a “stock-less” Rifle. According to that train of thought anyway. The argument remains that if a brace is used on something other than a pistol or “firearm” that it could then become considered a stock at either the state or federal level. I guess it would most likely depend on the definition of a stock, if one so exists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted February 1, 2018 Sounds legal to me. It's not a stock so it can not be considered an evil feature. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairless_Ape 76 Posted February 1, 2018 4 hours ago, High Exposure said: So you think a pistol brace on a semi auto gun with a 16” barrel and overall length greater than 26” makes it a Firearm? I don’t know about that... These AR type guns with short barrels and braces are that you see all over Instagram and YouTube are considered pistols not firearms. In most states an AR pistol is ok, just not here. Again, if I take a handle off a shovel, clearly something never designed or intended to be a stock, and stick it on then back of an AR receiver extension, and add a 16” barrelled upper it’s not a stock? Shit, I’ll make my own device that is a really a pasta maker. It happens to fit on a receiver extension and is adjustable. Do you know why AR "pistols" over 26" are allowed to have vertical forward grips? Because legally they're not pistols, they're firearms. That is Federal rule of law. Don't believe me, don't care. Look up the ATF ruling for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted February 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Hairless_Ape said: Do you know why AR "pistols" over 26" are allowed to have vertical forward grips? Because legally they're not pistols, they're firearms. That is Federal rule of law. Don't believe me, don't care. Look up the ATF ruling for yourself. Again, what you’re saying is that removing the stock from a rifle turns it into something other than a rifle. Correct? I’m not suggesting the possibility of changing a rifle into a pistol, a firearm, aow, or any of that stuff. I’m simply talking about replacing a stock with a brace on a RIFLE. If removing the stock from a rifle turns it into something else, then the argument is dead right there, but I don’t see how that would be possible assuming the barrel is 16” and the OAL is 26” the more realistic argument IMHO is the one stating that placing a “brace” on anything other than a pistol or “firearm” would immediately reclassify it as a stock. That’s why I’m curious if there’s any legal definition of a “stock” in NJ legislature. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hairless_Ape 76 Posted February 1, 2018 9 minutes ago, RedBowTies88 said: Again, what you’re saying is that removing the stock from a rifle turns it into something other than a rifle. Correct? I’m not suggesting the possibility of changing a rifle into a pistol, a firearm, aow, or any of that stuff. I’m simply talking about replacing a stock with a brace on a RIFLE. If removing the stock from a rifle turns it into something else, then the argument is dead right there, but I don’t see how that would be possible assuming the barrel is 16” and the OAL is 26” the more realistic argument IMHO is the one stating that placing a “brace” on anything other than a pistol or “firearm” would immediately reclassify it as a stock. That’s why I’m curious if there’s any legal definition of a “stock” in NJ legislature. That wasn't directed at you, I was dispelling HE's belief that an AR over 26" can legally be called a pistol. It cannot. You cannot legally conversation a rifle into a firearm or pistol. You can however convert a firearm into a rifle or pistol. You can even convert it back to a firearm from a rifle or pistol. It silly, I know, but that's the ATF for ya. So it all depends on how it was transferred to you on whether or not it becomes a firearm when you remove the stock. If it was transferred to you as a rifle, then it's still a rifle, just without a stock. But if it was transferred to you as a firearm (stripped lower), then removing the stock and installing a brace reverts to being a firearm. Makes perfect sense right? That's the feds for ya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedBowTies88 41 Posted February 1, 2018 9 hours ago, Hairless_Ape said: That wasn't directed at you, I was dispelling HE's belief that an AR over 26" can legally be called a pistol. It cannot. You cannot legally conversation a rifle into a firearm or pistol. You can however convert a firearm into a rifle or pistol. You can even convert it back to a firearm from a rifle or pistol. It silly, I know, but that's the ATF for ya. So it all depends on how it was transferred to you on whether or not it becomes a firearm when you remove the stock. If it was transferred to you as a rifle, then it's still a rifle, just without a stock. But if it was transferred to you as a firearm (stripped lower), then removing the stock and installing a brace reverts to being a firearm. Makes perfect sense right? That's the feds for ya. Exactly, it would still be a rifle, just without a stock... again in the real question is, does putting a brace onto a rifle convert that brace to a stock. Hard to believe it could be absolutely positively considered not to be a stock on a pistol but then immediately become a stock on a rifle. Actually, not that hard to believe with the way things are. Still curious about any legislature defining “stock” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GunsnFreedom 245 Posted February 1, 2018 2 hours ago, RedBowTies88 said: Exactly, it would still be a rifle, just without a stock... again in the real question is, does putting a brace onto a rifle convert that brace to a stock. Hard to believe it could be absolutely positively considered not to be a stock on a pistol but then immediately become a stock on a rifle. Actually, not that hard to believe with the way things are. Still curious about any legislature defining “stock” Not exactly. It can't still be a rifle if you are putting a brace on it and not calling it a stock. It's a rifle if the brace is a stock. If you purchased and assembled your "rifle" from scratch, or at least from a stripped lower sold to you as a firearm, then (under HApe's reasoning) the brace would be a legal brace - and not a stock - because you have a firearm and not a rifle. If you purchased the rifle as a rifle (bought the AR as a fully functional and assembled AR/AK) you cannot replace the stock with an adjustable brace and say "hey it's not an adjustable stock, it's a brace so it's legal." Because it was designed to be fired from the shoulder... And you cannot convert a rifle into a pistol or a firearm, but you can convert a firearm into a pistol or a rifle. In this case the brace acts as a stock if you bought the rifle assembled. IMHO this will turn into a lawsuit regardless of its legality in the PRNJ. If you have a lot of money, go for it because I would love to see the outcome. If not, I would stay away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites