4 hours ago, Redipski said:

I'd like for someone to explain with some level of rationality that a stock on a rifle has to be pinned to prevent "concealment" or it's illegal, but if it's pinned in the shortest position, it's ok.

You are new here, maybe a new gun owner too, so you may not know.

There is no point trying to apply logic to anti-gun laws. None was used in writing them. If you try, you will only give yourself a headache and still have crappy gun laws.

Someone sent me a different video from this attorney earlier covering “constructive intent” that I linked to in another thread under the “National Gun Law Discussion” heading. Following that video, I found this one by the same individual. It’s pretty good and gives some good info:

He is based out of Wisconsin, so it doesn’t really touch on NJ, but covers the federal stuff pretty well. 

On 1/18/2023 at 11:19 PM, Mr.Stu said:

You are new here, maybe a new gun owner too, so you may not know.

There is no point trying to apply logic to anti-gun laws. None was used in writing them. If you try, you will only give yourself a headache and still have crappy gun laws.

especially those here in nj.

 

 also, he needs to remember. laws are much like locks...they're just for honest people.

Obviously, it's stupid and makes no sense - was more directed to the brainiacs that come up with this nonsense, should have clarified better. Also totally aware that 99% of firearm restrictions have zero impact on criminals gun possession. There should be stiff mandatory minimums for illegal firearm possession - excluded person with a gun - 10 years, felon in possession during the commission of a crime 25 no parole one the gun charge alone. It would be a step in the right direction, except the liberal judges & and bail reform BS would just let them out anyway.

29 minutes ago, Redipski said:

Obviously, it's stupid and makes no sense - was more directed to the brainiacs that come up with this nonsense, should have clarified better. Also totally aware that 99% of firearm restrictions have zero impact on criminals gun possession. There should be stiff mandatory minimums for illegal firearm possession - excluded person with a gun - 10 years, felon in possession during the commission of a crime 25 no parole one the gun charge alone. It would be a step in the right direction, except the liberal judges & and bail reform BS would just let them out anyway.

we don't need to make any more laws. there's too many on the books now. we need to just keep the bad guys in jail.

On 1/21/2023 at 11:20 AM, 1LtCAP said:

we don't need to make any more laws. there's too many on the books now. we need to just keep the bad guys in jail.

The goal is to make the law abiding gun people into the ‘bad guys’…

Armed Scholar, who as many of you know, has a Youtube channel and has posted several videos related to the brace rule; also has a PODCAST by the same name.  I just listened to his new podcast which focuses on the brace rule and runs over one hour.  Very informative and worth listening to.  In particular, he gives his insights into the topic of buffer tubes and surface area.  (around 38:00 - 45:00)

One implication is that even if we could just remove the brace and be good to go, the fact that our ""rifle" style buffer tube has adjustable notches (as opposed to a completely round "pistol" buffer tube) COULD still be problematic.  Just an additional thing to keep in mind as things develop and evolve over the coming several months. 

p.s. I use the "Overcast" app on my iPhone to listen to podcasts.

For those of you with Troy A4 Other firearms, recommend you follow the Facebook page of Techops International, the distributor of the Troy A4 Other here in NJ.  A link to their Facebook page is below.  I spoke with one of their representatives this afternoon regarding the implications of the ATF Brace rule.  I don't think the ATF Rule has been posted into the Federal Register yet.  So things are still subject to change and are in a state of flux.   

However, with that said, Techops and Troy themselves are in close collaboration concerning the brace rule and its various potential impacts.   I came away feeling quite reassured that they will be offering us various modification options/kits that will enable us to retain our Others and remain legal.   I don't want to elaborate and speak for them.  Let's see what they officially communicate over the coming  days and weeks. 

https://www.facebook.com/techopsintl

With all the BS going on with this it sure doesn't help that one of the criminals in a recent police shooting had a AR pistol with a drum mag on it.

9 hours ago, Porthole said:

With all the BS going on with this it sure doesn't help that one of the criminals in a recent police shooting had a AR pistol with a drum mag on it.

No drum mags are illegal and all the laws we passed prevented the disenfranchised person from having one. 

When the end game has nothing to do with public safety, what they do makes perfect sense.

Watching this now

For you Troy A4 owners, I just posted an update in the "ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces" thread in the National Gun Law Discussion section with updated information from TechOps International, the distributor.

FPC has already filed suit.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock

It's confusing and the ATF is already being required to clarify!  I thought this was interesting and copied it from the article in the link below if you want to read the whole thing.  It's unbelievable how they just want to INFRINGE on every aspect of firearms! 

The fact that ATF already needs to “clarify” aspects of the rule before it has been officially published in the federal register further underscores the arbitrary and confusing nature of the rule.

Fortunately for law-abiding gun owners, federal courts have recently proven more willing to invalidate agency actions that go beyond congressionally enacted statutes. Earlier this month, one of ATF’s most recent major rules was struck down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The agency’s stabilizing brace rule should meet the same end for the same reasons.

NRA-ILA is already working on litigation to challenge this arbitrary and capricious attack on law-abiding gun owners by the Biden Administration. Please check back to www.nraila.org for more updates.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230130/updates-to-atf-final-rule-on-stabilizing-braces

 

On 2/2/2023 at 1:56 PM, oldguysrule649 said:

For you Troy A4 owners, I just posted an update in the "ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces" thread in the National Gun Law Discussion section with updated information from TechOps International, the distributor.

Hello, I just posted a reply on this thread with an article as well...it might be the same one.  Hopefully it goes in our favor!

All, for your information, moments ago I just made a long post including pics of my assessment of the Pistol Storage Device.

Refer to the "ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces" thread in the National Gun Law Discussion section.

10 hours ago, oldguysrule649 said:

All, for your information, moments ago I just made a long post including pics of my assessment of the Pistol Storage Device.

Refer to the "ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces" thread in the National Gun Law Discussion section.

 

Update from TechOpsInternational on the Troy A4 Other and what you can do to remain legal. 

https://fb.watch/iKeQMmKb6u/

 

1 hour ago, ESB said:

Update from TechOpsInternational on the Troy A4 Other and what you can do to remain legal. 

https://fb.watch/iKeQMmKb6u/

 

That's fine. But he still omitted that fact that having a pistol brace and the firearm it came from in proximity to each other and in your possession makes you liable for a charge of constructive intent.

I leave it to you to determine what 'proximity' means. (I chose that word. It's not ATF speak.)

Not saying we should do this (because these lawsuits are gonna stick) but has anyone looked into the Buffer Tube Covers?  With Cheek Rests?

https://www.tacdom.com/tacdom/thordsen-customs-ar-ak-black-enhanced-pistol-cheek-rest-kit-w-caa-saddle/

Comes with ATF Letter saying it's not a SBR...

https://www.thordsencustoms.com/media/wysiwyg/ATF_responce_letter.PDF

34 minutes ago, Krdshrk said:

Not saying we should do this (because these lawsuits are gonna stick) but has anyone looked into the Buffer Tube Covers?  With Cheek Rests?

Hmmm that letter is from 2013? IIRC the ATF's presentation at shot show said that the new decision supersedes any previous decision.

6 hours ago, 45Doll said:

That's fine. But he still omitted that fact that having a pistol brace and the firearm it came from in proximity to each other and in your possession makes you liable for a charge of constructive intent.

I leave it to you to determine what 'proximity' means. (I chose that word. It's not ATF speak.)

he did keep reiterating that once it's changed, you can't change it back either

 

10 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

he did keep reiterating that once it's changed, you can't change it back either

 

Once it's change to a rifle it cannot be changed back to an Other.  So realize that if you have a pistol brace on it when that brace is considered a stock, it could be technically a rifle.  So if anyone asks, you removed the brace before the rule went into effect (1/31/2023) and did not put anything back on until this mess is over.   

11 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

he did keep reiterating that once it's changed, you can't change it back either

As @ESB noted above, he was referring to the transition (arf!) from Other to Rifle, and not specifically and exclusively to the pistol brace. I also think he was describing doing a lot more to the Other than removing the brace to convert it to a rifle.

My point was that removing the pistol brace and retaining it, while the pistol is in your possession, leaves you open to be charged with constructive intent.