Jump to content
GramGun79

Anyone heard about this?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Dark Storm said:

Per ATF, a stripped or assembled lower is logged in and out as a "receiver".  If it is a complete rifle than it is a "rifle".  In order to be a "firearm non-NFA" which is the legal term used by the ATF, it must arrive to the FFL manufactured in that format.  There is nothing special engraved on ours, it is the manufactured configuration and the transfer paperwork which classify what it is.    Hope that helps.

 

Federally speaking a person can construct and manufacture their own "firearm non-nfa". They can also make their own pistols and rifles. Whether it's from bare steel or an 80% receiver, or just standard 100% receiver. There are stipulations on modifying manufactured firearms, but completing receivers and assembling them into something that is legal to own is not against the law federally. 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

second page shows the box checked for "other Firearm"

 

Question 16. Type of Firearm(s): "Other" refers to frames, receivers and other firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms, including silencers. If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun.

 Do you guys sell receiver not check off as that on 4473? 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

 

Federally speaking a person can construct and manufacture their own "firearm non-nfa". They can also make their own pistols and rifles. Whether it's from bare steel or an 80% receiver, or just standard 100% receiver. There are stipulations on modifying manufactured firearms, but completing receivers and assembling them into something that is legal to own is not against the law federally. 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

second page shows the box checked for "other Firearm"

 

Question 16. Type of Firearm(s): "Other" refers to frames, receivers and other firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms, including silencers. If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun.

 Do you guys sell receiver not check off as that on 4473? 

And it’s not illegal on the state level either. There is literally ZERO law that anyone is breaking when doing so. I whole heartedly disagree with whoever at NJSP provided the interpretation, that they must be transferred as a complete other firearm. In that case, making any other legal class of firearms (rifles and pistols) out of a receiver would be illegal as well. Either way, someone said Stockholm syndrome before, couldn’t agree more... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, e92m3allday said:

And it’s not illegal on the state level either. There is literally ZERO law that anyone is breaking when doing so. I whole heartedly disagree with whoever at NJSP provided the interpretation, that they must be transferred as a complete other firearm. In that case, making any other legal class of firearms (rifles and pistols) out of a receiver would be illegal as well. Either way, someone said Stockholm syndrome before, couldn’t agree more... 

Thanks you.

We’re searching for a law that specifically says it’s okay. Last I checked that’s not how law works. Everything is legal till it’s not. So if there is no law than it’s legal until they create laws that say it isn’t. 

Only thing is technically while building one you will be in possession of parts needed to assemble a “assault weapon” , but building a NJ complaint AR you run the same risk, hasn’t stop many from doing so. 

I also understand the paranoia. Idk how rich all you guys are, but I don’t have tens of thousands to fight the states unlimited funds. Especially with our leaders right now Murphy and our AG are clearly not gun friendly. I bet they’d love to set an example of someone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple points of information.  But first, please don't read any of this as us offering legal advise nor encouraging or discouraging someone to buy a completed firearm or build your own.  Obviously anything any of us do in this realm is at our own peril.

1. 4473's forms only have 3 classifications for guns... handgun, long gun and other.  The later requires detailing what it is (i.e. receiver, etc.).  This matches up with the NICS (Federal background check system) where there are only 3 options as well.  Keep in mind while the form is ATF, the NICS is run by the FBI and they only keep records based on the 3 classifications.  This is a frustration when the industry has tried to litigate "assault weapon bans" because we don't have a accurate break down on semi-auto's vs bolt action vs shotgun, etc.

2. FFL (gun dealers and manufacturers) have to keep log books.  These have to have more information and the "type" entry need to be exact to what the item is.  Rifle, Shotgun, Pistol, Derringer, Revolver, Firearm non-NFA, AOW (any other weapon).  etc. only a manufacturer.  "Other" is not a valid entry on here.

If a lower is transferred as a "receiver" is there somewhere in NJ where it is documented as something other than that for NJ purposes?  That seems to be where the confusion lies.  In Connecticut, for example, there is a prohibition on the transfer of a new stripped lower so firearm non-NFA's much be sold as a complete manufactured item there.  Federal law would allow you to build a receiver into a pistol, rifle, etc. that is why you must be 21 to purchase a receiver, because it could be built into a pistol.

If NJ chooses to implement their own restriction on individuals assembling a firearm non-NFA it would be up to an individual in NJ who wishes to do so to litigate it.  We as a manufacturer can't do it because we would not have "standing".  In legalese we can't sue over it because it does not impact us as we can assemble them.  A local dealer might be able to based on their losing sales of lowers and parts, but that would be up to them to prove that burden.  The other option would be to lobby the Government to change that restriction, but based on the current political climate, that would be a challenge.  That is assuming the restriction on building your own actually exists.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, shooter28 said:

Interesting. So assembling it yourself is out. Having the parts shipped to a dealer in NJ and put together in he shop before being transferred would be out as well. But....if I had a gun builder or FFL in another state put together a gun in “firearm non-NFA” setup and had it sent to a FFL in NJ as exactly that, that would satisfy ATF regulations right? It would be checked in and checked out of the NJ FFL as a “firearm non-NFA”

Back on the Federal side... There are a few types of FFL (Federal Firearms Licenses), the most common of which is a "01 - Dealer".  A dealer cannot assemble a gun for you and then NICS it to you.  They can assemble it after the receiver is NICSed to you but from what I am reading above that does not solve the problem.  Another type is "07 - Manufacturer".  This is what we are, Modern Materiel as well.  07's can assemble parts into a new classification BUT they can only do that on their receivers, they (we) can't for example build a complete gun on an Anderson lower and then transfer it to you as a rifle instead of a receiver.  There are some ways around this, but they are complicated and effectively expensive involving marking (engraving) and taxes.  Those are Federal laws.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An FFL01 can "occasionally" build a firearm from a receiver and sell it. There is an Open Letter on this. They need to be an FFL07 to do this if regularly. The FFL01 should 4473 the receiver, then build it.

Pistols can be built into Rifles by non-licensees. Receivers can be built into non-NFA non-AWB Firearms. Pistols can be built into non-NFA non-AWB Firearms. No difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dark Storm said:

Back on the Federal side... There are a few types of FFL (Federal Firearms Licenses), the most common of which is a "01 - Dealer".  A dealer cannot assemble a gun for you and then NICS it to you.  They can assemble it after the receiver is NICSed to you but from what I am reading above that does not solve the problem.  Another type is "07 - Manufacturer".  This is what we are, Modern Materiel as well.  07's can assemble parts into a new classification BUT they can only do that on their receivers, they (we) can't for example build a complete gun on an Anderson lower and then transfer it to you as a rifle instead of a receiver.  There are some ways around this, but they are complicated and effectively expensive involving marking (engraving) and taxes.  Those are Federal laws.

Yea I actually thought of that part after I posted. Luckily, I do know some 07 Manufactures. I spoke to one last night and he said he would have no problem building me a firearm non-NFA from the ground up on his receiver. Dont get me wrong, what I think you guys are doing is great and I hope these sell like hotcakes, I just like certain features and parts on my guns so it would save me a lot of money building one the way I like it rather than buying a stock gun and spending addtional money for the parts (Im also an engineer so I love tinkering and spec'ing shit out haha)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PK90 said:

An FFL01 can "occasionally" build a firearm from a receiver and sell it. There is an Open Letter on this. They need to be an FFL07 to do this if regularly. The FFL01 should 4473 the receiver, then build it.

Pistols can be built into Rifles by non-licensees. Receivers can be built into non-NFA non-AWB Firearms. Pistols can be built into non-NFA non-AWB Firearms. No difference. 

I think you may be referring to the 49 rifle exemption for FET.  You need an FFL 07 to manufacturer even 1 rifle.  It also needs to be engraved with your FFL information.  That said, if the receiver is NICS'ed to the individual and then received back in for gunsmithing to be assembled with the other parts that is gunsmithing not manufacturing.  It seems like minutia, but the difference is all about what it is on the books as and when it is NICS'ed.  if you have a letter to the contrary, I would love to see it.

1 minute ago, shooter28 said:

Yea I actually thought of that part after I posted. Luckily, I do know some 07 Manufactures. I spoke to one last night and he said he would have no problem building me a firearm non-NFA from the ground up on his receiver. Dont get me wrong, what I think you guys are doing is great and I hope these sell like hotcakes, I just like certain features and parts on my guns so it would save me a lot of money building one the way I like it rather than buying a stock gun and spending addtional money for the parts (Im also an engineer so I love tinkering and spec'ing shit out haha)

No worries.  We are going to sell plenty and we totally understand the frustration with taking parts off a brand new gun to change them out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sorry, but I'm still not buying it and haven't seen a single law referenced that says I can't take a legally defined receiver and make an non nfa out of it. 

The log books that manufacturers and ffls need does not have a standard "type" of firearm to be entered. Just that it's description needs to be accurate.***** AFAIK, a stripped reciever goes into the books as such.. and is NICS as a reciever...and the ATF has guidlines that they should be referred to as recievers and NOT complete firearms under ANY condition. 

Everything your describing is counter to what the ATF has said about a reciever being classified and not as an example: a pistol or rifle.. and would apply to any other weapon that could be constructed from them... Since there is no law outlining a difference. 

If it's booked into and out of an FFL as a reciever... Show me a single law or ATF guidlines that says it can only be used to build a rifle or pistol, and not a legal non nfa weapon?

As pointed out, everyone buys recievers to make pistols and rifles, if we have a law outlining that non nfa are off limits... Then Lets see it.. otherwise I'm at a point where this is pure propaganda... A whole lotta statements from people with no legal basis in their opinion. 

I pointed out before and will say it again. The ATF allows you to construct your own weapons. So long as they are not rifles made into pistols, or NFA or AOW.... or in this case a pistol or rifle made into a non-nfa... otherwise..It's all legal. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, e92m3allday said:

And it’s not illegal on the state level either. There is literally ZERO law that anyone is breaking when doing so. I whole heartedly disagree with whoever at NJSP provided the interpretation, that they must be transferred as a complete other firearm. In that case, making any other legal class of firearms (rifles and pistols) out of a receiver would be illegal as well. Either way, someone said Stockholm syndrome before, couldn’t agree more... 

I'm sure I could send one in and have it approved, but I don't have a manufacturer's license. My guess is whoever is telling these FFLs that it has to be a "complete firearm" is doing so to prevent firearm owners from assembling their own for 2 reasons:

1. It allows the NJSP to track who owns them through the FFLs' books should there be a reversal of opinion and they need to be "returned".

2. If we start building our own we can claim they're in common use in a lawsuit.

It's all about NJ having control over us law abiding firearm owners and FFLs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, e92m3allday said:

And it’s not illegal on the state level either. There is literally ZERO law that anyone is breaking when doing so. I whole heartedly disagree with whoever at NJSP provided the interpretation, that they must be transferred as a complete other firearm. In that case, making any other legal class of firearms (rifles and pistols) out of a receiver would be illegal as well. Either way, someone said Stockholm syndrome before, couldn’t agree more... 

Im still not clear here, is all of this coming from the NJSP? or is this now being referenced as an ATF statement...? 

MM said his NJSP contact gave him the info.. 

Dark Storm said "per the ATF"

 

The fact is people have been constructing pistols and rifles from receivers since their inception, and the ATF never batted an eye at it. Now, a Non-NFA firearm which has absolutely no extra regulations or stipulations than either of the former is somehow off limits if it starts life as a receiver? 

So lets recap

receiver ---> Non NFA pistol OK

receiver ---> Non NFA Rifle OK

receiver ---> Non NFA "firearm"  NOT OK.. by reason of insanity

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

So lets recap

receiver ---> Non NFA pistol OK

receiver ---> Non NFA Rifle OK

receiver ---> Non NFA "firearm"  NOT OK.. by reason of insanity

this is what i was getting at earlier. receivers transform into whatever we want and then have to follow any applicable rules associated with that. ive seen nothing that suddenly prevent a receiver from being turned into a firearm.

Assuming the NJSP just didnt have a brain fart and spoke out of place, I think what @ChrisJM981 said just above is the real answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our question over it was based on NJSP email which contained the following statement...

"Firearm must be manufactured and sold as a complete Firearm in New Jersey (similar to the Mossberg 590 Shockwave)."

Maybe Modern Materiel can comment if they are referring to the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dark Storm said:

Our question over it was based on NJSP email which contained the following statement...

"Firearm must be manufactured and sold as a complete Firearm in New Jersey (similar to the Mossberg 590 Shockwave)."

Maybe Modern Materiel can comment if they are referring to the same?

I believe MM stated his info came from the NJSP, i think you guys got the same exact statement. 

If it's not coming from the ATF, then we can focus this to a state level issue... 

 

The other thing, they maybe referring to you guys manufacturing and marketing the gun as a "firearm". This was a big deal for manufactures to make clear the manufactured purpose of the gun was to be a "firearm" and not a rifle, pistol or shotgun. THAT is a very important aspect to this process for people selling them. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JackDaWack said:

I believe MM stated his info came from the NJSP, i think you guys got the same exact statement. 

If it's not coming from the ATF, then we can focus this to a state level issue... 

 

The other thing, they maybe referring to you guys manufacturing and marketing the gun as a "firearm". This was a big deal for manufactures to make clear the manufactured purpose of the gun was to be a "firearm" and not a rifle, pistol or shotgun. THAT is a very important aspect to this process for people selling them. 

 

 

Yes, we may all be misinterpreting their statement.  I did reach out to them for clarification, I am not sure if they will respond or advise dealers or do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Dark Storm said:

Yes, we may all be misinterpreting their statement.  I did reach out to them for clarification, I am not sure if they will respond or advise dealers or do nothing.

My hope would be their statement was to clarify to manufactures they needed to market the firearm a specific way and to also discourage people from selling uppers that could be used to make an SBR, or a complete lower that could be used as a pistol. Hence their use of the statement "complete firearm". Aside from the federal issue of the manufactured purpose.. the constructive intent wording for NJ AWB is probably another main concern here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see how buying a receiver to make a rifle is OK in NJ yet buying a receiver to make this “firearm” would legally be a problem. The state police letter specifically states that, these specification alterations could lead to being a different category of weapon. So if we copy the Troy MM DS, currently there would appear to be no legal challenges. The Conundrum here is that weapons like the shockwave can not come from mossberg as a receiver without being a shotgun, whereas the receiver of an ar comes in as an ar. So how is this any different than building one. Especially when the configuration of the home built and or manufacturer built, is identical. 

 

If the problem is that they are worried we could make an sbr, then owning a sawzall could do just that and is pure nonsense.

the fact is these are legal because of a brace, proper overall length of >26” and have a VFG installed. 

 

What NJSP should have said is that, bringing a receiver to a smith to finalize the build, as a firearm is completely acceptable as per law. The Smith could verify length, p/w, put the brace on, and you would never need to possess the barrel at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, nondisclosure said:

 

 

What NJSP should have said is that, bringing a receiver to a smith to finalize the build, as a firearm is completely acceptable as per law. The Smith could verify length, p/w, put the brace on, and you would never need to possess the barrel at all.

I think the issue here is the context... 

The NJSP is telling the manufacture they must sell a complete product marketed as a non-nfa firearm. Since a receiver was never part of the equation in their opinion, i don't think they are taking it into consideration when advising a company how to sell them in order to make them legal. So it's clear they cannot take a rifle model and modify it to meet the definition of a Non-nfa firearm, that is definitely a no go... and in that context the NJSP is 100% correct. 

 

We will see what they answer when directly asked about receivers.. But my guess is it will be a muddy answer.. the problem with guns like the shockwave.... or their shotgun counterparts... is the receivers made for say a 590 or 870 was specifically manufactured for a shotgun... where as the ar-15 receiver is extreme versatile in what it can become. Now, it's a game of what does the manufacturer identify it as?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does all this really matter?  Even if you build one who would know it was built?  Build one, buy one, do whatever you want because this is all moot.  Once the zombies come the laws will be meaningless.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

I think the issue here is the context... 

The NJSP is telling the manufacture they must sell a complete product marketed as a non-nfa firearm. Since a receiver was never part of the equation in their opinion, i don't think they are taking it into consideration when advising a company how to sell them in order to make them legal. So it's clear they cannot take a rifle model and modify it to meet the definition of a Non-nfa firearm, that is definitely a no go... and in that context the NJSP is 100% correct. 

 

We will see what they answer when directly asked about receivers.. But my guess is it will be a muddy answer.. the problem with guns like the shockwave.... or their shotgun counterparts... is the receivers made for say a 590 or 870 was specifically manufactured for a shotgun... where as the ar-15 receiver is extreme versatile in what it can become. Now, it's a game of what does the manufacturer identify it as?

 

 

Well the receiver can literally go 3 ways. It doesn’t matter what the manufacturer identifies it as because it’s still a receiver which will be made into a firearm, rifle or pistol. Pistol obviously out of the equation here in NJ because of weight.

The issue here is that the manufacturers in the prospect of being profitable, obviously decided to specifically use their own model for non-NFA firearm and that was the only thing asked. They should’ve included receivers to be made “firearm” because legally, physically, it is identical in every way with the exception of the receiver.

mind you, let’s say I bought this DS MM FA,  and I dislike magpul VFG, because they used a magpul, now I can’t even swap the vfg because that one recipe, is the only one two or three models approved. No, they’re all achieving the same goal with different components so I can’t see how this is nothing but fear and fear mongering so guys won’t build their own legal firearms. 

At the end of the day, the FFL should just do the third option and if NJSP ok’s it (because it’s literally the same thing) just build it...

I personally feel that the manufacturers don’t want you going out and building your own because they want that niche market that everyone in America already has access to, forcing us to use their specific ar-firearm recipe. I want my own trigger, vfg, brace, tube and in the colors I like. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

Not to throw another wrench into the equation, but how will the whole NJ "Constructive Intent" issue be considered when you have other ARs in the house? If you have another AR, a rifle with a stock, in your possession?

Not a lawyer so here is my non-lawyer advice.

I thought the law is actually "constructive possession" not intent. Constructive possession is parts able to be assembled in an ILLEGAL configuration WITHOUT the ability to assemble them in a LEGAL configuration. So if you have a couple ARs and a spare 11.5" upper laying around, you just broke the law because it can be assembled into a SBR. You have no legal way of putting that 11.5" upper on anything and making a legal rifle. To get around that, buy a new receiver and put a brace on it 1st before you buy the upper receiver. A receiver with a brace is completely legal buy itself. Then when the short upper comes it, it has a legal way of becoming a firearm. It doesnt matter if you can swap upper between 2 rifles. You have a legal way of possessing both so you should be fine. I have a collapsable stock on a bolt action gun that can fit onto one of my ARs but there is no contructive possesion there. 

Or just keep your mouth shut and give the police no reason to be searching your house/apt

Edit: It also seems to be an add on charge. So unless you are doing something else to warrant police attention, its HIGHLY unlikely anything would ever happen. I can guarentee you there are people on this board with unfinished, unwelded 14.5 uppers laying aorund

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constructive possession says specifically, "parts" that can be made into an Assault weapon. While we don't have much case law to go on here you have to use the language in the law. If I have anything in question that could be considered a part used to make an AW, i make sure it's used to complete firearm that is legal. 

Just having any threaded barrel for an ar-15 could fall under constructive... but it must be a "part" per the law... 

Intent is just part of it, so if you have a lower and upper that could make a "firearm" it still needs to be assembled to satisfy the readily assembled part if you have any other lowers with stocks or complete rifles. 

4. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person

Ya gotta just take it for what it says...I have a hard time believing they would get you on something that involved deconstructing a legal firearm. Just make sure you don't have any "parts" laying around that can make an AW. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Constructive possession says specifically, "parts" that can be made into an Assault weapon. While we don't have much case law to go on here you have to use the language in the law. If I have anything in question that could be considered a part used to make an AW, i make sure it's used to complete firearm that is legal. 

Just having any threaded barrel for an ar-15 could fall under constructive... but it must be a "part" per the law... 

Intent is just part of it, so if you have a lower and upper that could make a "firearm" it still needs to be assembled to satisfy the readily assembled part if you have any other lowers with stocks or complete rifles. 

4. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts from which an assault firearm may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person

Ya gotta just take it for what it says...I have a hard time believing they would get you on something that involved deconstructing a legal firearm. Just make sure you don't have any "parts" laying around that can make an AW. 

 

So then sending all the parts to an FFL/Smith to build such a firearm should then be legal. You never possessed the barrel, fh etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is, the firearm law is very specific and so is the atf’s non-NFA.

NJSP just said those configurations are legal.  

Not sure why these specific manufacturers are stating that they can only be bought through them because then building an ar rifle or firearm would not be legal.

 

Stockholm syndrome?? 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shooter28 said:

Not a lawyer so here is my non-lawyer advice.

I thought the law is actually "constructive possession" not intent. Constructive possession is parts able to be assembled in an ILLEGAL configuration WITHOUT the ability to assemble them in a LEGAL configuration. So if you have a couple ARs and a spare 11.5" upper laying around, you just broke the law because it can be assembled into a SBR. You have no legal way of putting that 11.5" upper on anything and making a legal rifle. To get around that, buy a new receiver and put a brace on it 1st before you buy the upper receiver. A receiver with a brace is completely legal buy itself. Then when the short upper comes it, it has a legal way of becoming a firearm. It doesnt matter if you can swap upper between 2 rifles. You have a legal way of possessing both so you should be fine. I have a collapsable stock on a bolt action gun that can fit onto one of my ARs but there is no contructive possesion there. 

Or just keep your mouth shut and give the police no reason to be searching your house/apt

Edit: It also seems to be an add on charge. So unless you are doing something else to warrant police attention, its HIGHLY unlikely anything would ever happen. I can guarentee you there are people on this board with unfinished, unwelded 14.5 uppers laying aorund

If you build the lower, attach a brace because it is not a stock, do not have a P2P, meaning it’s not a pistol, how could anyone legally say you are building an ASsault weapon when the brace is specifically designated for the firearm, therefore no possibility of Constructive possession. Constructive possession has also never been the first charge either.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I'm new to the forum - but not to gun laws.

In terms of the Shockwave and the new AR "other firearm" models,  the secret sauce is the specific configuration. The OAL, the specific; non-typical barrel length,  the lack of a "stock" and the mandatory front vertical grip assembled on a properly designated lower create the legal firearm.

Those who want to cost cut, or feel they can build a better gun - enjoy. 

The Troy A4 NJ "other firearm" will be available after this weekend. Call TechOps International at 908-454-6030 with questions or to pre-order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BenC said:

Any more thoughts on this?

What do you want to know? Multiple versions are for sale at dealers in NJ. These are becoming big hits in other states with laws similar to ours as well. SOLGW has had their version out since May

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I very seriously doubt this has anything to do with terrorism.    1) Harbor pilots are VERY seriously vetted, and highly trained. Not to mention extremely well paid. My experience knowing a few of them, and knowing how they are recruited and screened tells me that there is a slim to highly unlikely chance that a harbor pilot would have participated in anything like that.    2) Maintenance of foreign flag ships is well known to be dubious. Especially these days. These were NOT US flag, Jones act sailors. It was (to my understanding) a largely Indian crew on that ship, with a Ukrainian Captain. Indian crews are not exactly known for being stellar.    3) The bunkers (fuel) these ships use is ‘Bunker C’, which is a heavy, dirty fuel oil that can, and usually is, pretty contaminated. This stuff ain’t your car grade gasoline or diesel fuel. It’s nasty.   It requires nearly constant filter changes and maintenance to the engine/generators. The ship took on fuel prior to departing port, which would stir up all kinds of shit in the fuel tanks, which would contribute to particulates in the fuel lines/filters.    4) I’d say the posting of the chief engineer for Maserek above was pretty spot on as far as chain of events.    This was a shitty accident, with horrible timing and outcome. Not a terror attack. 
    • I saw Lara's interview on Bannon's War Room, and that gave me pause for thought. Her conjecture depends primarily on the veracity of her sources. Regardless, if it's not applicable in any way to this ship disaster, the methods described seem valid to me. And worthy of consideration for the future. As I said before, IMO something is coming. Death by a thousand cuts? Lara Logan Provides Comprehensive Baltimore Update: Experts in Behavioral Analytics, Counter-Terrorism, and National Security Analyze Recent Incident | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
    • Another big windfall for governments'. The 'winner'? Not so much. Mega Millions $1.13 billion winner is facing mega tax bill. The amount is staggering. - nj.com
×
×
  • Create New...