Collapsible stock vs Adjustable stock vs Folding stock in MA

Him

Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
259
Likes
20
Location
Boston
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Live in MA, as it says. I know a folding stocks, obviously, folds and is illegal in MA. I understand that it is certainly possible that a 'Collapsible' stock is also illegal. But what about an adjustable stock? There is a stock I want to buy (Specifically, the Tapco T6 Intrafuse) and it is adjustable, meaning that you can adjust the length to compensate for different sized shooters. Looking into it, though, Tapco call it a 'collapsible' stock on the packaging. Are those illegal in MA? It does NOT fold in half, it only has an adjustable length. Does this make it illegal?
 
The TAPCO T6 would be considered collapsible, and therefore illegal in MA to install on a post-ban semi-automatic rifle/shotgun unless pinned.
 
Last edited:
The TAPCO T6 would be considered collapsible, and therefore illegal in MA to install on a semi-automatic rifle/shotgun.
Not quite that simple. If it is a pre-ban gun, you can install a folding or collapsible stock on it. If it is post-ban but does not have a pistol grip, you can install a folding or collapsible stock.

If the gun is a post-ban semi-auto, and has a pistol grip, you can only install a folding or collapsible stock if you pin it.

It can be pinned at the preferred length and then be legal, no?
Yes. Of course, a fixed stock of that length would be cheaper, stronger, and more comfortable.
 
Not quite that simple. If it is a pre-ban gun, you can install a folding or collapsible stock on it. If it is post-ban but does not have a pistol grip, you can install a folding or collapsible stock.

If the gun is a post-ban semi-auto, and has a pistol grip, you can only install a folding or collapsible stock if you pin it.

You're right, of course. I should have been clearer. I have edited my OP. Thanks
 
The TAPCO T6 would be considered collapsible, and therefore illegal in MA to install on a post-ban semi-automatic rifle/shotgun unless pinned.

Illegal on a post-ban rifle. Telescoping stocks are perfectly legal on shotguns, even here in MA. (Assuming that the overall length of the shotgun is at least 26" long with the stock in the fully collapsed position.)

I am not a lawyer.


EDIT: As Glostaman and lupis42 both correctly pointed out - telescoping stocks with a pistol grip are in fact illegal on semi-auto shotguns. They are legal on pump action shotguns like the Mossberg 500 or Remington 870. (Thanks for the clarification!)
 
Last edited:
Illegal on a post-ban rifle. Telescoping stocks are perfectly legal on pump-action shotguns, even here in MA. (Assuming that the overall length of the shotgun is at least 26" long with the stock in the fully collapsed position.)


I am not a lawyer.

.[wink]
 
Illegal on a post-ban rifle. Telescoping stocks are perfectly legal on shotguns, even here in MA. (Assuming that the overall length of the shotgun is at least 26" long with the stock in the fully collapsed position.)


I am not a lawyer.

It would still count as an evil feature on SA shotguns, would it not?


ETA Glostamon beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
Re-resurecting the thread, I was wondering about the Choate stocks as well but on a Marlin camp 9. The gun is pre-ban so would the folding or collapsable be legal unpinned? (as Monty Python said: "My brain hurts!")
 
Re-resurecting the thread, I was wondering about the Choate stocks as well but on a Marlin camp 9. The gun is pre-ban so would the folding or collapsable be legal unpinned? (as Monty Python said: "My brain hurts!")

If we go by the same interpretation BATFE made during the Fed Ban (that is almost identical to the MA AWB), ONLY legal IF it had been assembled with the AW evil features before or on 9/13/1994. If not, DOB is meaningless and it would be an illegal AW you created by adding a folding/collapsible stock to it.
 
I am resurrecting this thread.

So, this wouldn't be legal? http://www.riflestock.com/catalog_p...oductCode=1&ProductSubCodeID=265&NewProduct=0

I am asking because I am planning a build, and thought that adjustable stocks were fine as long as they weren't folding stocks...till I found this thread.

I know this is an old post and the picture it is linking to may have changed, but I was under the impression that the stock in the photo wouldn't be considered a pistol grip because it is connected at the bottom - more of a thumb loop. And if it isn't a pistol grip, then you can have the collapsible stock (assuming you don't also have a bayonet lug).
 
To those saying it has to be 'pinned', where in the laws do you see that term? As long as its not a "folding" or "telescoping" stock you are in compliance, no? Any way you choose to prevent your stock from doing those things should put it in compliance.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it from the Mass Laws section, the term "pinned" is very much open to interpretation because it's not defined. Pinning a stock simply means making it so it doesn't telescope or fold - but what does that mean? If I have something that was designed as a collapsible stock at the factory and I have a simple nut and bolt preventing it from moving, is that good enough, or does it have to be welded on to prevent it from moving?

Is there any case law that actually helps determine this?
 
As I understand it from the Mass Laws section, the term "pinned" is very much open to interpretation because it's not defined. Pinning a stock simply means making it so it doesn't telescope or fold - but what does that mean? If I have something that was designed as a collapsible stock at the factory and I have a simple nut and bolt preventing it from moving, is that good enough, or does it have to be welded on to prevent it from moving?

Is there any case law that actually helps determine this?

Pinned means putting a pin or pins through the stock and into the buffer tube. I could glue a stock to the buffer tube (theoretically) and it would have the same effect of no longer being a telescoping stock. I don't believe there is any case law re: stocks in MA.
 
Is there any case law that actually helps determine this?

No. Not even on the Federal side. There might be letters from the ATF and thats about it.... and MA gov entities can chose to ignore any of those as they see fit, as they didn't issue them.

All of that crap aside, most people in MA just use a roll pin or a screw somewhere to stop it from moving, mostly based off some old fed letter which basically said that if it required tools to restore it to being collapsible, then any stock affixed in such a manner was OK. It's unclear how legally valid this is. Most people in MA don't care because they know its unlikely to ever be tested in a court of law.

-Mike
 
most people in MA just use a roll pin or a screw somewhere to stop it from moving
Most people in MA don't care because they know its unlikely to ever be tested in a court of law.

-Mike

Mike, which one is it? [smile] (i kid, I know what you mean)
 
I know this is an old post and the picture it is linking to may have changed, but I was under the impression that the stock in the photo wouldn't be considered a pistol grip because it is connected at the bottom - more of a thumb loop. And if it isn't a pistol grip, then you can have the collapsible stock (assuming you don't also have a bayonet lug).

This is a simple question with a complicated answer. I don't know of any MA specific guidance, but here is how it works out with other juristictional authorities.

1)the ATF does not consider the thumbhole stock to be a pistol grip with regards to the now expired AWB. They allowed manufacturers to replace pistol grips with thumbhole stocks.

2) The ATF DOES consider thumbhole stocks to be pistol grips with regards to the importation of semi-automatic shotguns.

3) CA considers a thumbhole stock to be a pistol grip. Thus the proliferation of ridiculous CA stocks that allow their residents to avoid the dreaded bullet button.

4) CT does NOT consider the thumbhole stock to be a pistol grip stock. I have an email (which I'm having trouble finding now) from Thomas Hatfield, Esq, the head of the CT DPS Legal affairs group, telling me that a thumbhole stock is not considered to be a pistol grip stock.

I had a customer who wanted me to convert a Saiga. He wanted to use a thumbhole stock as a way to have me put together an AK style Saiga, but still stay clear of the CT AWB.


Hope this helps. Ha. It will just add to the confusion.
 
I'm curious what the interpretation of this stock might be if someone got jacked up. Post ban, no flash hider, but it does have a pistol grip and a bloop tube.

d17815.jpg


B
 
No problem on an AWB compliant rifle, since its already got a pistol grip.

If your question has to do with whether it is considered to be telescoping or folding, the general consensus is NO.
If a tool is needed to make an adjustment to length of pull its not a problem.

To the best of my knowledge this has never been adjudicated, so its slightly grey. But most competitive shooters don't really worry.


On a semi-auto shotgun, if its got two or more of these, its an AW.

i. a folding or telescoping stock;

ii. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

iii. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

iv. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Don

p.s. Just a slight correction. A bloop tube is actually a barrel extension added to iron sighted rifles used to extend the sight radius while not extending the length of the barrel.
IMG_1790.JPG
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom