My Anvil Arms Pinned M4 stock has become non pinned. Uh oh!

[Rockrivr1]

When I received my NES lower from Anvil Arms the M4 style collapsable stock was pinned so it was all the way out. I actually seen the pin that was put into the stock. After shooting it a number of times I decided to clean it. At one point I picked it up by the stock and squeezed the plunger on the stock and it moved. It would seem that it was pinned on the #5 position, not #6 as I requested. Upon further investigation I discovered that the pin somehow has fallen out and I now have a fully functional collapsable M4 stock. Not good.

Basically, through no fault of my own, I now have a lower that has an "evil" illegal feature. I'm going to re-pin it myself so I'm back to being compliant. My issue though is that if I didn't find it by accident, the rifle would of been out of complaince for as long as I didn't notice it. While most people will argue that nobody ever checks this, I don't think a "I didn't know" argument would hold up in court. I'd end up losing my license at the minimimum in this state and probably end up a felon.

Well, maybe I'm doing a mini rant, because AA must of done a real piss poor job of pinning the thing for it to fall out like that.

Just a warning. Check you pinned M4 collapsable stocks!

 

[Admin]

My pin is gone too!!!!!!!!

Wait a minute, umm never mind.

 

[jcr]

My issue though is that if I didn't find it by accident, the rifle would of been out of complaince for as long as I didn't notice it.​

Perhaps no one worries about this is that when they "get something on you", they will take your utility-rifle just "to check that it is not full auto". By the time you see it again (court?) there will be no pin in sight, and several witneses for the prosecution who will swear they never saw any pin.

And your defense will be?

 

[P-14]

My pin is gone too!!!!!!!!

Wait a minute, umm never mind.

Freestater showoff!

 

[Rockrivr1]

My pin is gone too!!!!!!!!

Wait a minute, umm never mind.

Wise @ss!

 

[Fooped]

My issue though is that if I didn't find it by accident, the rifle would of been out of complaince for as long as I didn't notice it.​

Perhaps no one worries about this is that when they "get something on you", they will take your utility-rifle just "to check that it is not full auto". By the time you see it again (court?) there will be no pin in sight, and several witneses for the prosecution who will swear they never saw any pin.

And your defense will be?

Interesting point.

 

[Rockrivr1]

My issue though is that if I didn't find it by accident, the rifle would of been out of complaince for as long as I didn't notice it.​

Perhaps no one worries about this is that when they "get something on you", they will take your utility-rifle just "to check that it is not full auto". By the time you see it again (court?) there will be no pin in sight, and several witneses for the prosecution who will swear they never saw any pin.

And your defense will be?

Very true. Grim, but true.

 

[Bob P]

Take photos. Not a bad idea to do anyway for insurance purposes. Burden of proof is on them. Showing a photo of a pinned stock helps support your argument that it was pinned when it left your possession.

 

[FunYun]

Eh, if they want you, they will get you.

Look at it this way, if I can remove you pinned flash hider/muzzle brake, then is it really permanently attached?

What if your silver solder melts ats 1000F instead of 1100F?

What if the pin in your stock breaks?

Its shit like this that they will bring up, cause there is no real defence. You can say it was legel, but they have the gun and its in an illegal config. How it got that way is for you to prove. All they have to say is it was like that when they got it.

 

[drgrant]

Or just take the POS off there and put an A2 or sully on it and be done with
it. I hate pinned collapsibles. It's like having a fake windshield wiper on a headlight.

-Mike

 

[LoginName]

Eh, if they want you, they will get you.

Look at it this way, if I can remove you pinned flash hider/muzzle brake, then is it really permanently attached?

What if your silver solder melts ats 1000F instead of 1100F?

What if the pin in your stock breaks?

Its shit like this that they will bring up, cause there is no real defence. You can say it was legel, but they have the gun and its in an illegal config. How it got that way is for you to prove. All they have to say is it was like that when they got it.

My issue though is that if I didn't find it by accident, the rifle would of been out of complaince for as long as I didn't notice it.​

Perhaps no one worries about this is that when they "get something on you", they will take your utility-rifle just "to check that it is not full auto". By the time you see it again (court?) there will be no pin in sight, and several witneses for the prosecution who will swear they never saw any pin.

And your defense will be?

I haven't read or seen any definitive ATF ruling on pinned stocks (I'm referring to any previous ruling that was issued during the 94 ban).

The rule of thumb has been that if the stock (or muzzle device), can be restored to a pre-ban configuration without the use of tools and/or permanently damaging (or rendering useless), the stock or muzzle device, then the modification would be unacceptable.

 

[drgrant]

Of course the "Happy Fun Ball' WRT the MA AWB is any ATF tech branch rulings might be worth a ball of horse manure in an MA court WRT the MA AWB. There's just no way to tell because there's no real MA case law on the issue. This makes it harder to read into "interpretation", because ATF interpretations may or may not really be applicable.

-Mike

 

[Arioch]

The reason I went with a pinned stock is to get a shorter length of pull for one of my girls.

 

[center442]

When I received my NES lower from Anvil Arms the M4 style collapsable stock was pinned so it was all the way out. I actually seen the pin that was put into the stock. After shooting it a number of times I decided to clean it. At one point I picked it up by the stock and squeezed the plunger on the stock and it moved. It would seem that it was pinned on the #5 position, not #6 as I requested. Upon further investigation I discovered that the pin somehow has fallen out and I now have a fully functional collapsable M4 stock. Not good.

Basically, through no fault of my own, I now have a lower that has an "evil" illegal feature. I'm going to re-pin it myself so I'm back to being compliant. My issue though is that if I didn't find it by accident, the rifle would of been out of complaince for as long as I didn't notice it. While most people will argue that nobody ever checks this, I don't think a "I didn't know" argument would hold up in court. I'd end up losing my license at the minimimum in this state and probably end up a felon.

Well, maybe I'm doing a mini rant, because AA must of done a real piss poor job of pinning the thing for it to fall out like that.

Just a warning. Check you pinned M4 collapsable stocks!

Mine came through pinned in the #4 position, which was too short. I unpinned it, "adjusted" it, and repinned it. I'll do it again if I need to change it in the future. Notice, I'm adjusting it not collapsing it, because collapsible stocks are EVIL, and BAD, and I would never own a collapsible stock in the People's Republic.

Adjustable stocks are NICE and GOOD.

It's all in how you look at it. I love playing word games with stupid laws.

 

[jdubois]

I haven't read or seen any definitive ATF ruling on pinned stocks (I'm referring to any previous ruling that was issued during the 94 ban).

The only one even closely related that I remember seeing is the one that said fixing a folding stock with a screw wasn't good enough. But, of course, Mike is right, even if there was an ATF ruling about it doesn't mean that MA courts would have to abide by it.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I'm in the process of getting an Ace Skeleton Stock for the lower anyway, so I'm not going to worry about it to much. Just wanted to let others that have this setup to watch out because the pins seem to come loose on their own.

Would LOVE to keep the "adjustable" feature but I'm all about being law abidding.

 

[The Village Idiot]

My pin is gone too!!!!!!!!

Wait a minute, umm never mind.

+1,000,000

 

[OnTheRoad]

Mine came through pinned in the #4 position, which was too short. I unpinned it, "adjusted" it, and repinned it. I'll do it again if I need to change it in the future. Notice, I'm adjusting it not collapsing it, because collapsible stocks are EVIL, and BAD, and I would never own a collapsible stock in the People's Republic.

Adjustable stocks are NICE and GOOD.

It's all in how you look at it. I love playing word games with stupid laws.

You made it longer. That's an "expandable" stock. Not scary.

 

[MichaelJ]

#1 I would move this to the "Members Area" for safe keeping...we are the ones who have the AA lowers anyway.

#2 ... just be glad you GOT your stock. I ordered a complete lower sans the stock. I ordered my upper and stock from Jon separate and have yet to hear back from him on it. The good news is that he hasn't charged my card yet...the bad news is he has my cc# and my NES-068 upper receiver.

 

[LoginName]

Of course the "Happy Fun Ball' WRT the MA AWB is any ATF tech branch rulings might be worth a ball of horse manure in an MA court WRT the MA AWB. There's just no way to tell because there's no real MA case law on the issue. This makes it harder to read into "interpretation", because ATF interpretations may or may not really be applicable.

-Mike

The only one even closely related that I remember seeing is the one that said fixing a folding stock with a screw wasn't good enough. But, of course, Mike is right, even if there was an ATF ruling about it doesn't mean that MA courts would have to abide by it.

Oh... I agree there (somewhat). This same theme comes up time and time again with regard to "assault weapons", "hi-capacity" mags and whatnot where either the AG, State Police or Legislature has not made or issued any clear definition or decision.

However... I think precedent/past practice is on our side.

The above named entities have had plenty of opportunity to go against the grain of ATF determinations.

They could have done it in 94, 98 or 04, but they didn't.

Adding to the equation; during that time period thousands of ATF seal of approval firearms were shipped and sold in this state and no "cease and desist" orders or charges were ever filed.

They also have themselves in a bit of a legal snare in that the MA AWB mirrors the old federal AWB (by definition).

If the acceptable standard/definition of an "assault weapon" is the old 94 ban, and the definition of an "assault weapon" was left to the ATF to decide (an AR15 with a properly pinned stock is not an "assault rifle"), then how could the states argument be justified?

I suppose if any prosecutor really wanted to press the issue they could, but the case would be on shaky grounds.

I could just see the following court case unfold...

Prosecutor: So, Chief Glidden, in your professional opinion, does the defendants firearm satisfy and/or meet the requirements of the Commonwealths "assault weapons" ban?

Chief Glidden: No sir, it does not.

Defense: Chief Glidden, you are recognized and trained as a leading firearms legal authority in this state, are you not?

Chief Glidden: Yes sir, I am.

Defense: Chief Glidden from where did you receive your expertise and training?

Chief Glidden: From the ATF.

Judge: Case dismissed.

And no... I'm not volunteering to be the test case.

 

[doobie]

So you advertise your violation of the ban on an open forum

Hey, if a shoe lace could be considered a machine gun....

 

[Urj]

Dibs on the guns when Rock is thrown in the slammah!

 

[drgrant]

Adding to the equation; during that time period thousands of ATF seal of approval firearms were shipped and sold in this state and no "cease and desist" orders or charges were ever filed.

They also have themselves in a bit of a legal snare in that the MA AWB mirrors the old federal AWB (by definition).

Not completely. They adopted the definitions and that's about it. There are/were other parts of the US code which were clearly ignored by MA, such as the part of the law that discusses magazine provenance, among other things.

I generally agree that precedent probably would be on our side, though, since the "spirit and intent" of the law was to duplicate the "form and function" of federal ban that had existed at the time.

-Mike

 

[amb]

...because collapsible stocks are EVIL, and BAD, and I would never own a collapsible stock in the People's Republic.

I see people talking about "collapsible" a lot, but the law just says "telescoping or folding". Seems like you should be good to go with a non-telescoping collapsible rig, though I'd want to get a lawyer to sign off on it before I started selling them like that.

Note that recent proposed AWB replacement legislation has expanded the definition to "anything that changes length in any way", though. If that ever passes... what a mess.

 

[MassMark]

Get a Sully Stock - you'll be glad you did. Better cheek-weld and adjustable for LOP. Best stock I've used on a carbine - yes, including collapsable and Ace stocks...

 

[vellnueve]

I see people talking about "collapsible" a lot, but the law just says "telescoping or folding". Seems like you should be good to go with a non-telescoping collapsible rig, though I'd want to get a lawyer to sign off on it before I started selling them like that.

Note that recent proposed AWB replacement legislation has expanded the definition to "anything that changes length in any way", though. If that ever passes... what a mess.

Collapsible and telescoping are the same thing.

 

[Rockrivr1]

So you advertise your violation of the ban on an open forum

Hey, if a shoe lace could be considered a machine gun....

Yep, it's part of my defense if I ever need it. I purchased a pinned stock and through no fault of my own it became unpinned. Factory defect. I have since re-pinned it, but I may be suckier then AA in properly installing a pin.



As to putting this in the members area, I think this is a good reminder to anyone who has a pinned stock. Not just for the NES buy I would think.

 

[jdubois]

I generally agree that precedent probably would be on our side, though, since the "spirit and intent" of the law was to duplicate the "form and function" of federal ban that had existed at the time.

Yes, that makes three of us. And showing that you actively tried to stay within the law, and the ATF rulings were the best you had, would no doubt go a very long way with a jury. But we still cannot forget that the state and federal bans are not the same.