AR15 Remove pins in collapsible stock ?

[dcmdon]

Right. And in most cases we are taking a telescoping stock and modifying it so that it can no longer function as such. Remember it's an adjustable stock that you are claiming you have converted to fixed. It's a gray area I don't want to play with.

That is incorrect. You are converting a collapsible stock to an adjustable.

 

[dcmdon]

The problem with no interpretation is that when you get to court, you're going to be held to what a 'reasonable person' would agree is 'folding or telescoping'. There is plenty of case law which shows that statutory wording not specifically defined is subject to 'general meaning'. So, lets hope the jury you get likes gun owners, because otherwise I think most non-gun people would say that a telescoping stock that simply has an easily removable pin that temporarily stops it from telescoping is still a telescoping stock.

I'm comfortable. If you need to take out an allen wrench and remove the bolt to move the stock, I have not doubt that a reasonable person would consider the stock adjustable and not collapsable. If you really want to go nuts. Remove the spring so that the stock will not even hold position until the allen bolt is reinserted.

Or if you just don't want to screw around with semantics like this, do what I did. Buy a pre-ban receiver.

 

[jdubois]

I'm comfortable.

Sure. As long as one is informed, you can make your own reasonable risk assessment.

 

[Realtor MA]

That is incorrect. You are converting a collapsible stock to an adjustable.

No. I'm converting a collapsible/telescoping stock to a fixed. I am certainly no expert so if your claim that an adjustable stock is compliant is correct I apologize. My stock is fixed and I plan on keeping it that way.

 

[dcmdon]

Sure. As long as one is informed, you can make your own reasonable risk assessment.

I guess thats what its all about. Understanding the risk, making informed decisions, and living with the consequences of those decisions.

As I said earlier, the collapsible stock was not something I was interested in anyway. I wanted a threaded bbl so I could experiment with different comps as well as use sound suppressors. So I've got all pre-ban receivers. (with fixed stocks on them)

Don

 

[dcmdon]

No. I'm converting a collapsible/telescoping stock to a fixed. I am certainly no expert so if your claim that an adjustable stock is compliant is correct I apologize. My stock is fixed and I plan on keeping it that way.

I'm talking about the way you characterized what I said above.

An adjustable stock would be compliant since its not collapsible. Its all about the need for a tool. I do realize this is somewhat grey. But as I said above. If I didnt' have pre-ban receivers and I liked the way the standard collapsible stock felt (which I think is terrible) I'd be comfortable securing it with an allen bolt.

 

[jdubois]

An adjustable stock would be compliant since its not collapsible.

Well, let's get our words straight. The wording is "folding or telescoping". There is nothing about "adjustable" vs "collapsible". We're not talking about folding in this discussion, so the question is what does 'telescoping' mean? Random House dictionary says it means, "consisting of parts that fit and slide one within another." There's nothing in the common definition of 'telescoping' which makes it clear whether needing a tool to cause the telescoping action would cause it to no longer be considered 'telescoping'.

I do realize this is somewhat grey.

I'd call it very grey.

 

[drgrant]

I guess one thing to keep in mind is that back when the fed AWB was around, the industry standard was mind numbingly obnoxious. EG, the fake collapsible stocks are NOTHING like a real collapsible stock, outside of the appearance. You couldn't make them function by drilling a couple of things out, etc.

This is a point of contention on a "ban compliant" build that is easily avoided- just use a fixed stock. There are tons of them out there in a variety of LOPs, weights, price ranges, etc. Sell your collapsible to someone that can actually use it, instead of ruining it for the sake of compliance. (Then again, to say I have "issues" with fake collapsibles is an understatement.... lol... ) so take this for whatever it isn't worth....

-Mike

 

[dcmdon]

Well, let's get our words straight. The wording is "folding or telescoping". There is nothing about "adjustable" vs "collapsible". We're not talking about folding in this discussion, so the question is what does 'telescoping' mean? Random House dictionary says it means, "consisting of parts that fit and slide one within another." There's nothing in the common definition of 'telescoping' which makes it clear whether needing a tool to cause the telescoping action would cause it to no longer be considered 'telescoping'.
I'd call it very grey.

Defining telescoping doesn't get you much. I used the word telescoping to differentiate from a folding stock.

The crux of the issue is the meaning of collapsible vs adjustable. Either of these could be telescoping. For example, on a hi grade trap gun, the adjustment for length of pull is accomplished by turning an adjustment that telescopes a rod into and out of a tube. But I realize that a trap gun couldn't be affected by the AWB unless it was a semi-auto fitted with an extended mag.

Likewise, the magpul PRS telescopes in and out to adjust the length of pull. You don't even need a tool.

Are you saying that this stock is considered collapsible under the CT AWB? It lengthens and shortens without the use of tools.
To my eye its clearly adjustable. I think a standard CAR type stock locked in position with an allen head screw and with the spring removed to the screw needed to be reinserted to hold position is at least as "benign".

Pretty light grey to me.

Don

p.s. but then again, this is just an academic discussion to me. The only thing more useless in my mind than a CAR style collapsible is a fake collapsible CAR style stock.

 

[vellnueve]

Shouldn't you be asking this in the CT laws forum?

 

[drgrant]

Shouldn't you be asking this in the CT laws forum?

What difference does it make, really? The same problem/dilemma/discussion likely exists in every state with an AWB that "bans" this feature,

-Mike

 

[jdubois]

The crux of the issue is the meaning of collapsible vs adjustable.

Where are you getting that from? What law says you can have an adjustable but not collapsible stock??? The statutes do not use those words, so the difference between them is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Are you saying that [the PRS] stock is considered collapsible under the CT AWB?

Again, collapsible is meaningless. The question is whether it is telescoping. But no, I'm not saying that the PRS stock is telescoping. I'm not the authority who says what is and isn't acceptable. I'm just not ready to agree that it clearly isn't either.

but then again, this is just an academic discussion to me

I think we were well into 'academic discussion' many posts back

Shouldn't you be asking this in the CT laws forum?

What drgrant said. Unless one of the states has some AG opinions on the matter ((ike CA does for some of these issues), it's basically the same question no matter which state you're in.

 

[jasons]

[STRIKE]Considering the fact that the Feds at one point ruled that a folding stock was "telescoping," I'd say that all bets are off.[/STRIKE]

(Never mind, I was confused. The law did specify folding or telescoping. 40 lashes.)


That said, most collapsible stocks suck anyway IMHO. They give you a crappy cheek weld and most of the time they rattle like crazy. The ones that don't rattle cost an arm and a leg. The only thing that they have going for them is ease of adjustment, but since you have to pin it that's a moot point.... I really like the ACE stocks with the foam over the receiver extension. Comfy, light, and they look pretty cool too.

 

[dcmdon]

Where are you getting that from? What law says you can have an adjustable but not collapsible stock??? The statutes do not use those words, so the difference between them is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I've already quoted the law. The law bans "a folding or telescoping stock"
I apologize, I misspoke before. I was using the word collapsible when I meant to say telescoping".

But the law does not have to say you can have an adjustable stock. Our legal system works on the premise that if it is not explicitly prohibited then it is allowed. (I forget the legal term)

Again, collapsible is meaningless. The question is whether it is telescoping. But no, I'm not saying that the PRS stock is telescoping. I'm not the authority who says what is and isn't acceptable. I'm just not ready to agree that it clearly isn't either.

Agreed, I screwed up. see above.
Re the PRS, I think we would be getting into that whole "reasonable man" discussion. The "purpose" of banning telescoping or folding stocks is because it aids concealability. I'm old enough to remember the arguments back in the day when this stuff came into being in 1994. I doubt a reasonable man would find the PRS to be in violation of the ban because it telescopes in and out by a couple of inches by turning a wheel.

What drgrant said. Unless one of the states has some AG opinions on the matter ((ike CA does for some of these issues), it's basically the same question no matter which state you're in.

[/QUOTE]
Agreed, provided they all use the same language. I've quoted CT's language, what about MA and CA.

 

[ManBearPig]

I thought stocks had to be pinned and welded into place, unless you've got a fixed stock like the A2 stock. So if you had a telescoping stock, it'll be modified into a permanent fixed stock. Having a pin in a telescoping stock that can come out with a tool is treading on thin ice IMO. Lots of gray areas and it's really subjective, but if you want to be 100% worry free, get your stock fixed. Better yet, get a bullpup rifle

 

[vellnueve]

I thought stocks had to be pinned and welded into place, unless you've got a fixed stock like the A2 stock. So if you had a telescoping stock, it'll be modified into a permanent fixed stock. Having a pin in a telescoping stock that can come out with a tool is treading on thin ice IMO. Lots of gray areas and it's really subjective, but if you want to be 100% worry free, get your stock fixed. Better yet, get a bullpup rifle

You can't really weld an AR collapsible stock in place.

 

[Underwhere]

I thought stocks had to be pinned and welded into place, unless you've got a fixed stock like the A2 stock. So if you had a telescoping stock, it'll be modified into a permanent fixed stock. Having a pin in a telescoping stock that can come out with a tool is treading on thin ice IMO. Lots of gray areas and it's really subjective, but if you want to be 100% worry free, get your stock fixed. Better yet, get a bullpup rifle

I think you may be referring to muzzle brakes or flash hiders. And those don't need to be specifically pinned and welded...just permanently attached and there are many ways of doing this.

A buffer tube is generally aluminum. A stock is generally plastic. You can't weld the 2 together. Aluminum is also fairly difficult to weld and I have yet to see anyone weld anything to a buffer tube.

My Stag arms stock was attached with a screw that threaded into the buffer tube. You can just unscrew it with an allen key. That's how it came from the factory.

In my opinion if someone wants to "get you" with something it really doesn't matter what you have. If you recall the guy from Manchester by the Sea, the police said he had grenades (nope), silencers (nope), assault weapons (nope). None of it was true and yet he still remained incarcerated and I think he might even still be.

 

[dcmdon]

manbearpig,
not to pig pile on. But I agree with underwhere. You sound confused.
The CT law simply considers the following to be an AW:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescopic stock;

What is meant by telescoping and/or how quickly the stock needs to be able to change to differentiate between telescoping or folding and adjustable have never been clarified.

Truly adjustable competition stocks continue to be sold in CT.

So until it is clarified by a court, which requires someone to be arrested typically, we just operate under the law, as written with all its vagueness.

Even if one was to call the State Police, and get an opinion from them, it is just that, an opinion. It carries no weight of law. An interpretation from the AG office, while not carrying the weight of law, would at least serve as some protection if you were in compliance with their interpretation.

The practical aspect is that you want to comply with what a "reasonable man" would consider to be folding or telescoping. You makes your decisions and you live with the consequences.

I'd be comfortable with one allen bolt holding the stock in a set position as legal. But you make your own choices. Again, I have chosen to buy several pre-ban non-colt AR lowers, which allows me to (LEGALLY) put whatever I want on them as far as stocks, muzzle devices and/or bayonet lugs. I've actually got a registered SBR pre-ban lower that has a Zetta ZM300 upper. This upper has the mainspring over the bbl. So its an AR with a folding stock. Pretty cool. Very short.

Don

 

[ManBearPig]

Thanks for the clarification guys..you see what all those MGLs has done to me

 

[reflex439]

My take away from this is simple. If I don't want to argue if pinned, screwed, adjustable, telescopic, collapsable, etc, is MA legal at $300 an hour, I'll leave it as is. Then I can stand up in court and say "I bought it as a MA compliant rifle with stock from the manufacturer. I haven't modified it, so it must still be compliant, no?."

If I really wanted a telescopic stock, then I should just pony up and buy a pre-ban and avoid the whole mess. The uplift in cost for the pre-ban vs post-ban would be far cheaper than being the first test case to set precedent. And the loss of freedom would really hurt if what I though would pass argument in court, doesn't.

 

[dcmdon]

Brilliantly, practically simply right.

You should never become a test case unless you actually go into a situation INTENDING to be a test case.

Don