Jump to content
PK90

AK/Shotgun non-NFA

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, JT Custom Guns said:

KALASHNIKOV is on the Banned list by name.

Now I know it is listed under the Rifle section; and I know it's not a rifle or shotgun but I would not want to be the one who tests that stipulation - just sayin'

There is no "rifle' section" 

"Assault firearms" means: 1. Any of the following firearms:

"Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms"

 

The gun is made by Kalashnikov USA... soo i guess that could get sticky.

i would guess dropping the A in AK and adding a US could suffice... 

By definition it is NOT a Avtomat Kalashnikov.. its a Kalashnikov USA

Colt dropped the ar-15 and car-15 nomenclature and people own those..?

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms" are banned, ie Saigas, WASRs, VEPRs, etc.. YET, dealers sell them and there are thousands in NJ circulation. The NJAG Directive addressed "substantially identical" pointing out rifles, shotguns, and handguns. This KOMRAD is neither of those.

Share this post


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

There is no "rifle' section" 

"Assault firearms" means: 1. Any of the following firearms:

"Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms"    (A)

 

The gun is made by Kalashnikov USA... soo i guess that could get sticky.

i would guess dropping the A in AK and adding a US could suffice... 

By definition it is NOT a Avtomat Kalashnikov.. its a Kalashnikov USA

Colt dropped the ar-15 and car-15 nomenclature and people own those..? (B)

 

A) the first section ("By Name" is predominantly rifles, or at least Long Guns. in that section it states "Kalashnikov Type"

B) according to NJSP - They do not consider any sporting rifle (AK) as that TYPE unless it actually says "Kalashnikov".

Agree or not, I personally would not want to be the test case - jmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost this thread's placement, or I would have saved everyone a lot of back and forth. 

 

As per ATF, if a part of a firearm is not required for the function of the firearm, or something to that effect, that part is considered an accessory and will not be counted towards the OAL of the firearm. 

Since the firearm is piston driven and does not utilize the buffer tube of the brace, the brace/buffer tube does not count towards the OAL. If the firearm is under 26" without the tube/brace, then it is an AOW and good luck with that in NJ. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 11:06 PM, PK90 said:

One opinion issued regarding pistols. Not relevant to this. That is why Remington still sells their TAC-14 with a brace.

that's the biggest concern I have with the whole brace opinion thing.. there used to be this thing called a bump stock.. and the original opinion is they were fine.. then one day.. they magically weren't.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 11:06 PM, PK90 said:

One opinion issued regarding pistols. Not relevant to this. That is why Remington still sells their TAC-14 with a brace.

I'm not sure exactly what the reasoning is, but while that ATF letter had in bold "PISTOL".... it routinely says that "firearms" are measured by eliminated anything that does not attribute to an essential element in the statutory definition. The letter paints a pretty broad stroke and only references pistols when comparing essential elements of rifles and shotguns... 

To make it worse, the letter explicitly states that the purpose of such non-essential elements is to avoid an AOW classification by artificially lengthening the firearm for that sole purpose. 

Keep in mind this letter was a response to measuring non-nfa firearms OAL with stabilizing braces....

Perhaps they will be receiving a response from the ATF in regards to clarification.

12 hours ago, vladtepes said:

that's the biggest concern I have with the whole brace opinion thing.. there used to be this thing called a bump stock.. and the original opinion is they were fine.. then one day.. they magically weren't.. 

I think many items are well on their way in meeting the fate of bumpstocks..

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...



×
×
  • Create New...