Adjustable “Brace” on a Full Size AR.

[capt14k 2,052]

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.

Neither NJ or Federal define a rifle as having a stock. It is defined as being fired from the shoulder. Feds say brace isn't a stock. NJ law says evil feature is adjustable or folding stock. How can NJ sell something a stock the ATF says isn't a stock? To be guilty NJ would have to change the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GunsnFreedom 245]

Just now, capt14k said:

 

Neither NJ or Federal define a rifle as having a stock. It is defined as being fired from the shoulder. Feds say brace isn't a stock. NJ law says evil feature is adjustable or folding stock. How can NJ sell something a stock the ATF says isn't a stock? To be guilty NJ would have to change the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Eh, wouldn't be the first time NJ ran afoul of federal law.  Look at BB guns. 

[raz-0 1,259]

On 1/31/2018 at 0:28 PM, 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.. 

A shotgun is not a shotgun without a stock. It is a firearm. At least federally. A firearm is neither pistol, rifle, nor shotgun. Noir ABR, AOW, DD, or machine gun. 

[PK90 3,570]

21 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

A shotgun is not a shotgun without a stock. It is a firearm. At least federally. A firearm is neither pistol, rifle, nor shotgun. Noir ABR, AOW, DD, or machine gun. 

If it was designed to be a shotgun, it is still a shotgun if you take off the stock.

[raz-0 1,259]

3 minutes ago, PK90 said:

If it was designed to be a shotgun, it is still a shotgun if you take off the stock.

Since the only place I've run into laws regulating the possession of either a firearm or shotgun don't deal with issues of legality in turning one into the other, my assumption is the only place it matters it manufacturer and transfer. 

In which case, unless I understand incorrectly, if it comes form the factory as a firearm, it stays one even if you put a stock on it. 

It's all stupid. and doesn't matter as states are permitted to adopt differing regulations than the federal government provided they don't get in a pissing match to legalize stuff the fedgov has made illegal. 

[PK90 3,570]

IMO, if you put a stock on a Mossberg Shockwave, it becomes an NFA SBS. If you put a 18+" barrel on first, then put a stock on it, it becomes a Shotgun.

[Zeke 5,504]

11 minutes ago, PK90 said:

IMO, if you put a stock on a Mossberg Shockwave, it becomes an NFA SBS. If you put a 18+" barrel on first, then put a stock on it, it becomes a Shotgun.

Calling pistol grip also

[GunsnFreedom 245]

So when is a duck not a duck?

[Zeke 5,504]

2 minutes ago, GunsnFreedom said:

So when is a duck not a duck?

When it’s born/ mfg a swan

[capt14k 2,052]

Eh, wouldn't be the first time NJ ran afoul of federal law.  Look at BB guns. 

Of course it wouldn't be but the defense is NJ makes adjustable and folding STOCKS and evil feature. NJ doesn't clearly define stock but ATF clearly defines a brace as not being a stock. Being ATF is the top law enforcement agency in regards to Firearms I would consider their opinion to be correct. I all other dimensions apply. If AK has stock removed and shovel is mounted or shovel is used to make stock or there is no stock as long as minimum dimensions are met its legal

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[GunsnFreedom 245]

1 minute ago, capt14k said:

Of course it wouldn't be but the defense is NJ makes adjustable and folding STOCKS and evil feature. NJ doesn't clearly define stock but ATF clearly defines a brace as not being a stock. Being ATF is the top law enforcement agency in regards to Firearms I would consider their opinion to be correct. I all other dimensions apply. If AK has stock removed and shovel is mounted or shovel is used to make stock or there is no stock as long as minimum dimensions are met its legal

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Actually, arm braces are not absolutely defined as not stocks by the ATF.  In it's 2017 letter, the ATF specifically states that if the brace is altered or used as a stock, it's a stock.

If they use it solely in its original design and for primarily an arm brace it is still a brace.  So it depends on how it is used and installed.  If it's length lends it to be used primarily as a stock, it's a stock.  I copied and pasted the relevant part of the letter.

With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not "make" a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by FATD, it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder. If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock -- for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace - and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person has objectively "redesigned" the firearm for purposes of the NFA.

[capt14k 2,052]

Actually, arm braces are not absolutely defined as not stocks by the ATF.  In it's 2017 letter, the ATF specifically states that if the brace is altered or used as a stock, it's a stock.
If they use it solely in its original design and for primarily an arm brace it is still a brace.  So it depends on how it is used and installed.  If it's length lends it to be used primarily as a stock, it's a stock.  I copied and pasted the relevant part of the letter.
With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not "make" a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by FATD, it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder. If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock -- for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace - and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person has objectively "redesigned" the firearm for purposes of the NFA.

Ok so not being permanently attached to buffer tube and having strap on are necessary for it to not be a stock.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[pasu0115 200]

3 hours ago, GunsnFreedom said:

So when is a duck not a duck?

A duck is not a duck when you get arrested for possession of said duck, and your attorney successfully argues in court that it's legal to possess that particular type of duck.

[raz-0 1,259]

22 hours ago, capt14k said:

Of course it wouldn't be but the defense is NJ makes adjustable and folding STOCKS and evil feature. NJ doesn't clearly define stock but ATF clearly defines a brace as not being a stock. Being ATF is the top law enforcement agency in regards to Firearms I would consider their opinion to be correct. I all other dimensions apply. If AK has stock removed and shovel is mounted or shovel is used to make stock or there is no stock as long as minimum dimensions are met its legal

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

If that were the case, then binary triggers would be legal here. They are not. Because NJ defines a machine gun differently than the BATFE. 

 

[RedBowTies88 41]

3 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

If that were the case, then binary triggers would be legal here. They are not. Because NJ defines a machine gun differently than the BATFE. 

 

But how does NJ law describe “stock”? 

[PK90 3,570]

9 minutes ago, RedBowTies88 said:

But how does NJ law describe “stock”? 

Dude, you asked this question 5 times in this thread.  ANSWER: They don't.

[capt14k 2,052]

If that were the case, then binary triggers would be legal here. They are not. Because NJ defines a machine gun differently than the BATFE. 

 

Incorrect because NJ defines machine gun as not requiring the pull of the trigger for each round. Since a binary trigger fires on the release it is not legal in NJ. Federal Law doesn't come into play because NJ Law clearly defines a machine gun. Not that I agree with the definition. However there is no clear definition of a stock, but since Federal Law says it is not a stock unless permanently mounted or strap removed, so it would be a defense.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Zeke 5,504]