Does anyone know if flash suppressors are nj legal?

The rifle in question is a mini 14.

N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.2 Definitions

 

Assault firearms" means:

 

1. Any of the following firearms:

Algimec AGM1 type

Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12" Armalite AR-180 type

Australian Automatic Arms SAR

Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms

Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic firearms

Bushmaster Assault Rifle

Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900

CETME G3

 

 

 

Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88 type

Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series

Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2, AR 100 types Demro TAC-1 carbine type

Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types

FAMAS MAS223 types

FN-FAL, FN-LAR, or FN-FNC type semi-automatic firearms Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 shotguns

G3SA type

Galil type

Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1

Intratec TEC 9 and 22 semi-automatic firearms

M1 carbine type

M14S type

MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-9 mm carbine type firearms

PJK M-68 carbine type

Plainfield Machine Company Carbine

Ruger K-Mini-14/5 F and Mini-14/5 RF

SIG AMT, SIG 550SP, SIG 551SP, SIG PE-57 types

SKS with detachable magazine type

Spectre Auto carbine type

Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48 type

Sterling MK-6, MK-7 and SAR types

Steyr A.U.G. semi-automatic firearms

USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun

Uzi type semi-automatic firearms

Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic firearms Weaver Arm Nighthawk;

 

2. Any firearm manufactured under any designation, which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed in paragraph 1 above. As used in this definition, the term "substantial" means pertaining to the substance, matter, material or essence of a thing and the term "identical" means exactly the same. Hence, a firearm is substantially identical to another only if it is identical in all material, essential respects. A firearm is not substantially identical to a listed assault firearm unless it is identical except for differences that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm.

 

 

 

The following are examples of manufacturer changes that do not alter the essential nature of the firearm: the name or designation of the firearm; the color of the firearm; the material used to make the barrel or stock of the firearm; the material used to make a pistol grip; and a modification of a pistol grip. This is not an exclusive list. A semi-automatic firearm should be considered to be "substantially identical," that is, identical in all material respects, to a named assault weapon if it meets the below listed criteria:

 

i. A semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(1) A folding or telescoping stock;

(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(3) A bayonet mount;

(4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(5) A grenade launcher;

 

So if I'm reading this correctly you can have a detachable box magazine and one of the evil 5, and still be ok. Detachable box magazine and 2 of the evil 5 then its a no go.

It most likely is legal.

So medic2264 what exactly are you saying?

So medic2264 what exactly are you saying?

 

He said a lot, but very little. LOL.

So medic2264 what exactly are you saying?

 

I was saying he has a firearm that could be viewed as "substantially identical" to one of the assault firearms listed in the statute. Since he has a firearm could be viewed as "substantially identical" it would fall under section 2, paragraph (i) of the statute. Since the Ruger Mini 14 has a detachable box magazine, if you follow paragraph (i), he should be able to have a flash suppressor, as long as he doesn't have anything else on the list.

You should be fine. It doesn't surpass the number of evil features. The Ruger Mini on the list has a collapsible stock I think.

The listed Mini's have folding stocks. A full-stock, non-pistol gripped Mini with a flash hider should be fine.

Remember that substantially identical was too vague and they clarified it to be '100% completely identical in all facets', so that substantially identical s~ doesn't really matter anymore... (hence all the AR15s, WASRs, etc)

Remember that substantially identical was too vague and they clarified it to be '100% completely identical in all facets', so that substantially identical s~ doesn't really matter anymore... (hence all the AR15s, WASRs, etc)

 

You still can't have a lower receiver if it is marked "M4" or "AR15". So no Bravo Company lower receivers. The same goes for an M1A, it cannot be marked "M14" (smith enterprises, Fulton armory)

Who dreamt up all those bizarre laws about "evil features"??? Are they really concerned about all the bayonetings going on? And I totally do no get what the problem is with being able to adjust a stock to make it more comfortable.

You still can't have a lower receiver if it is marked "M4" or "AR15". So no Bravo Company lower receivers. The same goes for an M1A, it cannot be marked "M14" (smith enterprises, Fulton armory)

 

Bravo Co. lowers are marked BCM4, not M4. so they are not banned by their markings.

Thanks for all of the input!

Bravo Co. lowers are marked BCM4, not M4. so they are not banned by their markings.

 

Can't have "M4" or "AR15" anywhere on the receiver. Regardless if its marked BCM4, ABCM4, TAR15, 123AR15 etc. You can have the same receiver, from the same manufacture, milled to the same dimensions, but if it has "m4" or "AR15" anywhere in the receiver marking it gets labeled as an "assault weapon" It's a rather stupid law. If you need further clarification call NJSP firearms unit.

Can't have "M4" or "AR15" anywhere on the receiver. Regardless if its marked BCM4, ABCM4, TAR15, 123AR15 etc. You can have the same receiver, from the same manufacture, milled to the same dimensions, but if it has "m4" or "AR15" anywhere in the receiver marking it gets labeled as an "assault weapon" It's a rather stupid law. If you need further clarification call NJSP firearms unit.

 

 

Cite please?

Cite please?

 

Yes please cite this statute, as many on this board would be in a world of sh!t if this was actually the case.

Who dreamt up all those bizarre laws about "evil features"??? Are they really concerned about all the bayonetings going on? And I totally do no get what the problem is with being able to adjust a stock to make it more comfortable.

 

For various reasons in my professional life it's felt like I've fallen into the Twilight Zone. Now, this thread...

 

The law as stated above is basically unenforceable due to a well known court case whereby the court found that it's beyond the ability of an average personto know if one firearm is substantially identical to another. Therefore, the evil features list was created.

 

There is nothing illegal about a flash suppressor itself. You get one evil feature. Since that evil feature is usually the pistol grip, some people assume a folding stock or flash surpressor is illegal. They are just as legal as a pistol grip.

The KB Mini-14s are a problem, originally in '90 people were told they did not have to register them because they were not folding stock Minis then in '96 the state adopted the evil restrictions of the federal ban and the KBs became substantially identical to the folders over night.