Is a Zulu 2.0 stock NJ legal?

[PK90 3,570]

Gotta luv the interwebs.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

23 hours ago, PK90 said:

Gotta luv the interwebs.

Check and mate

[10X 3,296]

On 5/29/2019 at 1:42 PM, remixer said:

Njsp replied

”I have had similar stocks sent to me for opinion.  This would fall in the legal category.  The intent of banning a folding or telescoping stock was to limit concealability, this stock is obviously not designed for that purpose.”

That response makes no sense.  The intent is to limit concealabity? A telescoping stock legally pinned in the shortest position is exactly as concealable as the same telescoping stock illegally left unpinned and adjusted to the shortest position.

The unpinned stock can be made LESS concealable than the pinned stock, but never more concealable.

[Regular Guy 264]

15 minutes ago, 10X said:

That response makes no sense.  The intent is to limit concealabity? A telescoping stock legally pinned in the shortest position is exactly as concealable as the same telescoping stock illegally left unpinned and adjusted to the shortest position.

The unpinned stock can be made LESS concealable than the pinned stock, but never more concealable.

Brought to you by the same morons who feel safer when you are prohibited from attaching a bayonet to a rifle capable of firing accurately at 300+ meters.

[remixer 1,645]

10 hours ago, 10X said:

That response makes no sense.  The intent is to limit concealabity? A telescoping stock legally pinned in the shortest position is exactly as concealable as the same telescoping stock illegally left unpinned and adjusted to the shortest position.

The unpinned stock can be made LESS concealable than the pinned stock, but never more concealable.

Just because somethings written into law does not mean it has to make sense...

 

9 hours ago, Regular Guy said:

Brought to you by the same morons who feel safer when you are prohibited from attaching a bayonet to a rifle capable of firing accurately at 300+ meters.

bayonets are very dangerous

[JackDaWack 2,895]

On 5/29/2019 at 1:26 PM, PK90 said:

Slight side track.

If the NJ AWB pertains to collapsible and folding stocks, can the stock be replaced with an arm brace, then be adjustable, ie SB Tactical SBA3?

I thought a rifle had to have a "stock"

[PK90 3,570]

13 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

I thought a rifle had to have a "stock"

Negative, although rare. It is like replacing a stock on a shotgun with a pistol grip.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

3 hours ago, PK90 said:

Negative, although rare. It is like replacing a stock on a shotgun with a pistol grip.

In NJ a rifle as defined is designed to be fired from the shoulder, no?

Would it qualify as a "firearm"?

[PK90 3,570]

37 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

In NJ a rifle as defined is designed to be fired from the shoulder, no?

Would it qualify as a "firearm"?

If originally built as a rifle, it can't become a pistol-grip firearm.

I was referencing building a "rifle type" firearm, but installing a collapsible arm brace on a virgin receiver to make a pistol-grip firearm, which is outside the scope of the NJAWB. IMHO