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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • A person exercising their rights, breaking no law should not have a gun pointed at him. Care to explain how that is a strawman? The IRS is different?  How so?  A man following the law (the deputy) oh I can't be here with my gear?  okay i'll leave.  Rentacop procedes to point gun at a non threat.  And you think this is completely different?  Technically the rentacop was fired, arrested and charged.  Technically the deputy wasn't. So in your opinion anyone perceiving a threat is justified in taking lethal action against the perceived threat.   So when I see a bunch of guys in vests and black BDUs and cattying sidearms, i would be justified in pointing a gun at them?  Every Tuesday at lunch.  Funny how i am able to resist.  Man i dont even call the cops. Champion? No.  Support a person exercising their constituional protected rights absolutely. So your stance is  "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Unless I disagree or it might cause someone distress" My stance stops at the period.  
    • Strawman, again, really? Cant simplify it any further for you. I think you get the points made but it breaks your argument so here we go, strawman again.    You brought up the IRS guy. How about an actual response to my comments. Here they are again: But if you are referencing the guy that drew down on the local deputy at the IRS, guess what, he was actually correct that local LE does not have the authority to be armed on federal property. As I understand it that is the actual law. So now what? His judgement was poor but technically correct? Following your logic I would expect you to actually be siding with the security guard because the LAW says the deputy cannot be armed on the premises and the guard was following the law. BUT reasonable judgement would dictate no real threat existed. This is the exact flip side of wallmart. The deputy technically broke the law but was clearly not a threat. The "auditor" was within the law but one could easily articulate he looked like a threat given the totality of the circumstances and the timing of the Texas Wallmart shooting.  
    • Well isn't that great as long as you agree with the point of view all is wonderful.  If you don't agree its okay to shoot them.  
×
×
  • Create New...