Posted: 2/15/2012 4:00:19 PM EDT
|
Hey guys,
Are small stocks legal in NJ. for example take a collapsible stock and pin it at its closed position? The Rifle has a 16" barrel is that helps. What does the overall length of an AR in jersey have to be? |
|
Quoted:
I have a serious issue with this, can someone please help me understand why I can't have a collapsible stock as long as the rifle meets minimum overall length requirements when the stock is completely collapsed? It makes no damn sense! 
Actually you can. You just have to remove the pistol grip and have no bayonet lug or flashider. Since your allowed only one evil feature due to the detachable magazine your good to go. 
Ain't this State grand!! 
|
|
Of course. Everyone knows that the more evil features that a firearm has, the more irresistible its compulsiveness will be, and it will be more likely to cause people to go on murderous rampages. By limiting it to one evil feature, they ensure that even the weak-minded Piney will be safe from the effects.
I for one an glad to have such progressive leaders watching out for my safety and the safety of others . |
|
Quoted:
I have a serious issue with this, can someone please help me understand why I can't have a collapsible stock as long as the rifle meets minimum overall length requirements when the stock is completely collapsed? It makes no damn sense!
Simple really..because the law was written by people who based it ENTIRELY on how something Looked as opposed to how it FUNCTIONED. the "Flash Hider" is a perfect example of the idiocy. The Function of a flash hider is to lessen the impact on the SHOOTER at night to preserve night vision..yet the IDIOTS who wrote the legislation ASSUMED that it was designed to "Hide" the flash from others. The majority of the "Evil Features' are just more examples of the same..Legislation by Appearance. Ask yourself a question.. Is there any FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE (accuracy jokes aside please) between an AR and a standard, Wood-stocked Mini-14 with 15 round magazines?? yet one is considered "Non-threatening' while the other is a nun-killing harbinger of the Apocalypse. You are trying to rationalize something that by it's nature is irrational. the entire CHAPTER of Title 2C (Criminal code) that deals with firearms is wrotten like something out of Alice in Wonderland...paraphrasing it says "All guns/weapons are illegal for anyone to possess under any circumstances..Period" THEN it goes on to say,....."well, Ok you can own this if you do that, under These circumstances" then you get NJSP, who are supposed to be the experts, who can't even seem to figure out what is or is not GTG..or even set a standard for everyone to follow. |
|
Quoted: I have a serious issue with this, can someone please help me understand why I can't have a collapsible stock as long as the rifle meets minimum overall length requirements when the stock is completely collapsed? It makes no damn sense! It really doesn't make any sense. You can have 6 different rifles, each with a 6 position collapsible stock pinned in a different position, but you cannot have 1 rifle with a stock that changes between them.  |
|
I head somewhere not sure who said it, i think it was gun store chatter.
There was a person prosecuted for having a collapsible stock in NJ and the jury found the person innocent.. Basically his lawyers brought in a bunch of the exact same ar with the stock permanently fixed in all position and said these are all legal and this one with movable stock is not. Can anyone verify if this story has any truth. IMO if it were true the laws would have been changed since the precedence was set. |
|
Quoted:
Can anyone verify if this story has any truth. IMO if it were true the laws would have been changed since the precedence was set. Never heard of that. However, even if it did happen, it would not set a precedent... superior courts are not bound by the decisions of other superior courts. Example: back in 1996, Monmouth County superior court dismissed an assault firearm possession charge against a defendant, concluding that the "substantially identical" part of the law was unconstitutionally vague. That didn't do away with the law... any other court is free to conclude that the law IS valid. If a case is taken up to the appellate level, THEN such a decision would set precedent for the lower courts to follow. |