Stopped by the gunshop today and hefted the new DPMS A1 carbine.

The carbine sported a Canadian C7 upper and not the A1 configuration that was advertised.  It had a "fish gill" comp and a chromed bolt carrier.

However the stock caught my attention.  When I picked it up I noticed that latch moved just like a real collapsing stock.  Then I took a closer look at it and discovered that it was not a "look-a-like".  It was, in fact, a collapsable stock that had been blind pinned and epoxied.  The receiver extension was the short extension with the machined recess and holes for the sliding stock.

I was under the impression that this was illegal.  Am I right?

I am not 100% on this, but I think that as long as you don't have a flash hider, bayonet lug, folding stock, or high cap mags all at once, (I think you are allowed 2 accessories) it is legal.  I think you can have a high cap mag, and a folder, as long as you don't have a bayo lug or flash hider, or a flash hider and high cap mag, but no folder or lug.  Something like that.  Did you ask the store people?  They would probably know.  I saw a Para Ordinance at a local shop a few weeks ago that the whole stock snapped off.  It would leave you with a pistol gripped m4 type of thing.  I asked them and they said it rolled off the assembly line like that, that it was made to be like that, and that it was entirely legal.  I don't know how, unless it was registered as a pistol first, but then you wouldn't be able to attach a stock to it without trouble, so I don't quite get that one.  I think I am pretty much correct about the 2 accessory rule on your question though.

Nope, it is the capacity to take hicap mags, along with flash suppressor, pistol grip and bayo lug.  So it definately was illegal if the stock was collapsable.  With post ban rifles, if you welded the mag well closed, you could then get a bayo lug, FS or collapsable stock, but not until you tossed the mag option.

It also sounds like that "snap off stock" was illegal.  It should be a SBR or a pistol, but I don't think it can be both.  Was it LE only?

Now, now, remember the eeeeevil pistol grip. That counts as one of the items. I can't recall all of them, but there was about a dozen EVIL items the Kongress deemed as lethal, just by their mere presence. The other guys on this list can give you the run down, and I am certain someone will...

TARFU

(edited for SPELLING)

I think - Detachable mags, pistol grip, and a collapsable stock = illegal.  Pinning and epoxying the stock doesn't make it legal.  Troy would know, and will hopefully chime in here.

Yes it's legal. Many of the first postban non-collapsible were pinned collapsible stocks. There is nothing in the law about easily convertible collapsible stocks. Either it collapses or it doesn't. I wouldn't try something like duct tape to keep it from collapsing, but if it's pinned where it would take a little bit of effort to make it either extend or collapse then it should be legal.

You can't really call it a collapsible stock if it won't collapse.

AW Ban:

Federally, any semi-auto rifle can have no more than two of the infamous 'evil features' (Detatchable Mag,Flashider,Pistol Grip,Collapsable/Folding Stock,Grenade Launcher,Bayo lug). In the case of collapsable stocks, from what I've read the ATF defines a legal non-collapsable collapsable-style stock as one that cannot be made to collapse without wrecking the stock. So if the pinning/gluing was done in a way that un-pinning & trying to remove the glue would wreck the stock, that's ok. Otherwise, no (from what I've read).

As for pistol/rifle issues, if it was a pistol first (i.e. assembled stockless, met weight requirements, etc) the fixed-stock can be removable WITHOUT being a NFA item as long as the barrel is >= 18in, and when assembled with the stock, it's the minimum overall rifle length. 'Registered pistol recievers' aren't NFA items, they're just regular AR recievers which the manufacturer builds into a pistol before selling (so that it can be either a pistol or full-size rifle, without worrying about SBR issues).

AOW status, IIRC, is for pistol SHOTGUNS only, a 'rifle caliber pistol' (like the 'Carbon 15 pistol', Contender, lone eagle, etc) is just a pistol.

WTF? Firearms related questions on the GD board? Mods, you better lock this one ASAP!

The Federal Law (state and local laws may screw you in different ways):

US Code
TITLE 18
PART I
CHAPTER 44
Sec. 921.
Definitions
[url]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html[/url]

(28)
The term ''semiautomatic rifle'' means any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.


(30)
The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means -
(A)
any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i)
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii)
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii)
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv)
Colt AR-15;
(v)
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi)
SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii)
Steyr AUG;
(viii)
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix)
revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B)
a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i)
a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii)
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii)
a bayonet mount;
(iv)
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v)
a grenade launcher;

Being a semi-automatic rifle and having the abaility to accept hi-capacity mags are the two "qualifiers", then having two of the above items makes it an "assault weapon".

If you have just the pistol grip then you are legal (Postban AR15) or a flash hider (Springfield M1A).

Over on the legal section there is plenty of discusion about the legalities of a pinned and epoxied collapsable stock.
If the BATF man can make the stock collapse (meaning they drill the pin out and cut/file/grind/destroy the epoxy) then it is illegal on that firearm.

I think this has probably been asked before somewhere, but would it be legal to purchase collapsible stock and pin it at any length?  

I have a preban with a 6 position collapsible stock where I only use the third notch.  It also fits my son at that length.  (None of the other stocks seem to work for him.)  I have considered buying the short RRA stock, but that may be too short.  If this is legal, I would purchase one to pin at a mid length rather than fully opened.

Just curious.

For a semi-auto postban gun with a detachable mag (model you cited), you're allowed only one "evil feature".  Note that the detachable mag and semi-auto action are what bring on the "evil feature" bs...they are not "evil" in themselves.

Anyway, "evil features" include pistol grip, threaded muzzle, bayonet lug, and telescopic stock.  Since the gun you checked has a pistol grip, that's it as far as evilness goes for that rifle.  Having said that, if the stock has been made permanently immobile (blind pinning and epoxy should sure do that), it's no longer a telescoping stock, and you're OK.  Adding a preban CAR stock to a postban rifle is illegal until you make it permanently incapable of being moved.  Better to pin/epoxy first, and then install (separating pepper from fly sh1t).

Edited to add that it's OK to permanently pin/epoxy/whatever the stock in whatever length you want, as long as the finished rifle meets overall length requirement (federal = 26 inches, PRK = 30 inches, ymmv depending on state)

-hanko

I guess that the "internet legends" stick in peoples mind more than the real laws do.[rolleyes]

Most people will tell you that blind pinning a collapsable stock makes it non collapsable.  I had a 16" CAR kit from Model 1 like this.  Troy pointed out that just because Model 1 shipped it doesn't make it 100% legit.  I don't want to quote Troy incorrectly but basically your better off not having location detents or a short buffer tube.    

I think there are likely alot of stocks out there that were pinned from true collapsable stocks.  You might never have an issue with these, I decided to play it safe and not simply pin a pre-ban stock.

I will try to find a link to the thread that discusses this topic.

Edit:  Whoops, he got here already.

OK, here's my take on pinned collapsable stocks, for what it's worth. You can blind-pin/epoxy a stock and make it non-collapsable. But if you are a manufacturer and submit the design to the BATF for approval, they won't bless it. Is it non-collapsable? Yes. Will you get a statement from the BATF "approving" it and allowing you to advertise it as "BATF Approved"? No. It doesn't mean it's not technically non-collapsable. You'll just never get the BATF to admit is isn't.

That's just my opinion, I'm not a lawyer, I only married one.

Since the stock issue has been beat to death, let's talk about the upper.  

This gun has a Canadian! C7 upper?  Dimeco, the C7 manufacturer, is not permitted by its contract with Colt to sell in this country.  Add to this the abnormal Canadian obsessiveness about civilians and arms and you have a company that is fanatical about any parts getting to the US.  A few years ago I spoke to the president of the company.  He refused to send me a flyer (I collect them from around the world) on the grounds that it might somehow be construed as endorsing sales by Dimeco in the US.

You know, I'm sure, that the Canadians have a different system of numbers.  C7 is basically the US M16A2 with full auto (vice burst) and M16A1 sights.  (By the way, Colt wanted to charge extra for the simplier A1 sights.)  C7A1 is a flat-top C7.  

Dimeco has a different barrel manufacturing method that is supposed to offer better live and accuaracy.  That is part of the reason that the Dutch and British have bought Canadian instead of Colt (or Knights' or Bushmaster or . . . ).  

So, if this rifle really has Dimeco parts, I would LOVE to see it or pictures.  What's the gunshop?  Even if the stock is bad, I might pay a pretty penny for the upper (even with a "fish gill" muzzle brake) which would also get around the potential problem with the stock.