vladtepes 1,060 Posted May 27, 2019 So.. I was answering another questions about a stock and it set off a lightbulb.. The fact that NJ AWB is written by people that have no idea about guns.. "folding or telescoping stock" folding is obvious.. but telescoping means something really specific.. Quote tel·e·scope /ˈteləˌskōp/ verb gerund or present participle: telescoping (with reference to an object made of concentric tubular parts) slide or cause to slide into itself, so that it becomes smaller. does this mean that something like this would technically be legal since it does not fold OR telescope? it adjusts based on sliding rails.. NOT on the ability of a tube to slide within itself.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,570 Posted May 27, 2019 ETA: Let me clarify. The State has their own dictionary. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted May 27, 2019 13 minutes ago, PK90 said: ETA: Let me clarify. The State has their own dictionary. I am not saying it would go well.. I am not saying it would not be a fight.. but correct me if I am wrong.. legal verbiage has two important distinctions.. * Terms that are specifically defined within the law.. for example.. "substantially identical".. this term is defined.. so we know what it means according to the state.. * Terms that are not defined default to the common definition of a word.. using that mindset.. telescoping would be defined.. or it would not be.. it is not so that means the technical definition within the context of the law.. means exactly what the word means.. so following further.. for a stock to be considered "evil".. it would either need to fold.. or possess the characteristic of collapsing tube within tube.. if the stock does not.. it is neither folding or telescoping and therefore not considered an "evil feature"... the Evo stock is a really good example of this.. This stock does NOT fold or telescope.. obviously it would need to be on a 16in barrel gun.. but you get the idea.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,570 Posted May 27, 2019 I see a short tube and long tube. Now define tube. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted May 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, PK90 said: I see a short tube and long tube. Now define tube. the Evo could not be considered telescoping in any way.. and I don't need to define tube.. there is a common English definition of the word tube.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,877 Posted May 27, 2019 Telescoping would mean it would have to be like this: or This 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted May 27, 2019 OK, who wants to be the test case??? Raise your hand............just as I thought. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted May 27, 2019 16 minutes ago, Pizza Bob said: OK, who wants to be the test case??? Raise your hand............just as I thought. I have been a test case since this I bought my first handgun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,895 Posted May 27, 2019 32 minutes ago, Pizza Bob said: OK, who wants to be the test case??? Raise your hand............just as I thought. I'm sure there are plenty of test cases already in this state.. they just don't go looking to prove a point. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fishnut 2,358 Posted May 27, 2019 1 hour ago, JackDaWack said: I'm sure there are plenty of test cases already in this state.. they just don't go looking to prove a point. This Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted May 28, 2019 8 hours ago, vladtepes said: I am not saying it would go well.. I am not saying it would not be a fight.. but correct me if I am wrong.. legal verbiage has two important distinctions.. * Terms that are specifically defined within the law.. for example.. "substantially identical".. this term is defined.. so we know what it means according to the state.. * Terms that are not defined default to the common definition of a word.. using that mindset.. telescoping would be defined.. or it would not be.. it is not so that means the technical definition within the context of the law.. means exactly what the word means.. so following further.. for a stock to be considered "evil".. it would either need to fold.. or possess the characteristic of collapsing tube within tube.. if the stock does not.. it is neither folding or telescoping and therefore not considered an "evil feature"... the Evo stock is a really good example of this.. This stock does NOT fold or telescope.. obviously it would need to be on a 16in barrel gun.. but you get the idea.. To dive deeper into pedantic rabbit hole: By that definition most adjustable stocks are not telescoping in that they do not collapse into themselves. They ride on the buffer tube which is not a part of the stock. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emortal 6 Posted May 28, 2019 "slide or cause to slide into itself, so that it becomes smaller." Not a lawyer, but I think the "OR" is important here. The example in the first post could easily be concentric tubular parts that slide to become smaller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted May 28, 2019 28 minutes ago, Emortal said: "slide or cause to slide into itself, so that it becomes smaller." Not a lawyer, but I think the "OR" is important here. The example in the first post could easily be concentric tubular parts that slide to become smaller. in the first example the whole butt pad slides out not the tube portion.. it was just an example.. the eve stock is a better example.. there are no tubular parts involved.. so it does not telescope.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nondisclosure 55 Posted June 4, 2019 when is there going to be a lawsuit against semi auto comfort features? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites