detachable mag requirement in NJ law - repercussion and compliance

[ymg200 1]

Hi all,

The are restrictions of what firearms we can have in NJ based on whether the firearm has a detachable magazine.

Most of AW law is based on *detachable* mag - whether it is a rifle, pistol, or shotgun (see below).

 

 

It looks to me that if the mag is made non-detachable, then no Evil features apply to a gun.

So the following becomes legal: collapsible stock on AK variant with a pistol grip, more than 5rd mag for Saiga shotgun, Draco pistol (which is AK-based), and many more.

Is there anybody in this forum who can comment on the legal aspect of my suggestion?

 

 

In PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia) they have even stricter restrictions on detach mags, so people who were pushed over the edge by draconian laws came up with devices that make the a mag non-detachable. They say if it requires a tool to remove a mag, then the mag is NOT detachable. It came down to modifying a mag release latch so that it can be pressed with a tool, but not a finger. Here are few designs:

Battett with non-detach mag:

AK with non-detach mag: http://www.riflegear.com/t-howto-raddlock-ak.aspx

AK with non-detach mag: http://www.solartactical.com/SOLAR-TACTICAL-GEN-2-AK-MAGAZINE-LOCK-124.htm

 

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/assltf.htm

1. a semi-auto rifle that has the ability to accept a *detachable* magazine and has at least 2 of the following:

- a folding or telescoping stock;

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

- a bayonet mount;

- a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

- a grenade launcher;

2. a semi-auto shotgun that has at least 2 of the following:

- a folding or telescoping stock;

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

- a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

- an ability to accept a *detachable* magazine

3. a semi-auto pistol with *detachable* mag is an AW in NJ if it has at least 2 of the following:

- an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

- a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

- a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

- manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

- a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm;

[robot_hell 72]

You are probably correct-- I think Californians call it a Bullet Button. But I'd rather shave off the bayo lug and attach a fixed stock than remove the ability to drop a mag quickly. Just my preference

[ymg200 1]

robot_hell,

I agree about losing a bayo lug. But when it comes to Draco pistol, it has all evil features that are listed in AWB with exception of a threaded barrel. There is no chance that it can lose weight to go under required 50 oz. I was wondering if that mag release trick makes it legal in NJ.

 

 

 

<quote>

B. a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a *detachable* magazine and has at least 2 of the following:

1) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

2) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

3) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

4) manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

5) a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm;

</quote>

[vjf915 456]

I'm not entirely confident that this is a good idea. Unlike California, NJ's laws do not define "detachable magazine" to the best of my knowledge. Therefore I think that any magazine that can be quickly removed from the gun will be legally viewed as "detachable", regardless of whether you need to use a tool or not.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

The answer is in your own post. NJ's law says "ability to accept a detachable mag - says nothing about form of release, or the use of a tool. Even with a bullet button, an AR can still accept a detachable mag. The mag is not an integral part of the gun. I think this is a big no-no in NJ.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[halbautomatisch 60]

The answer is in your own post. NJ's law says "ability to accept a detachable mag - says nothing about form of release, or the use of a tool. Even with a bullet button, an AR can still accept a detachable mag. The mag is not an integral part of the gun. I think this is a big no-no in NJ.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

I would have to agree, Bob is spot on, how the mag detaches is immaterial.

[vjf915 456]

Bob nailed it.

[mipafox 438]

...more than 5rd mag for Saiga shotgun...

 

That's federal law, 922®. To have large mags on an imported firearm of this type one must convert it to a lot of US parts so that it is no longer considered an imported firearm but more of a parts kit. Never been through it so I probably missed a detail or two.

[vladtepes 1,060]

That's federal law, 922®. To have large mags on an imported firearm of this type one must convert it to a lot of US parts so that it is no longer considered an imported firearm but more of a parts kit. Never been through it so I probably missed a detail or two.

 

no.. in regards to 922 you hit it dead on.. a saiga is imported with 14 countable parts (maybe more or less on the shotgun) and if you want to do the good stuff you have to get it down to 10.. so not a ton of parts really.. but I agree with everything else you said.. a lot of imported guns have strong US parts availability... so it is really not all that hard..

 

I respectfully disagree with the detachable magazine thing.. I think that the CA awb is pretty similar to ours.. and the argument that they use is as the gun is functional.. it can NOT accept a detachable magazine.. why? because the magazine that is already in there can not be removed without a tool.. thus eliminating the detachable magazine.. you pin your stock... is your stock still adjustable? well if you just pinned it.. then yeah it is totally still adjustable.. you may need a tool.. and down time to adjust it.. but the adjustment still functions.. while there are no "test cases" that I am aware of.. this MIGHT be a legitimate way to skirt the restrictions to get something like that..

 

a telescoping stock is a telescoping stock as long as it is a stock that can move in the manor a telescope moves.. pinning it temporarily makes it non adjustable..

 

taking a gun with a removable magazine.. and making the gun no longer able to accept removable magazines, is the same... look at a gun like the SKS.. it CAN accept detachable mags (if you put the right kit on it..) but you can have all the evil features in the world providing on YOUR sks the magazine is NOT detachable..

[Guest schutzen-jager]

if it's semi auto nj law limits mag capacity to 15 rds. regardless if it is detachable or not -

[vladtepes 1,060]

if it's semi auto nj law limits mag capacity to 15 rds. regardless if it is detachable or not -

 

 

that is a valid point.. the stuff we are talking about would have NO effect on the ability to run a high cap mag.. it would ONLY (hypothetically) allow one to utilize "evil parts"...

[Dan 177]

If you need a tool to remove or insert a detachable magazine, the gun will no longer be able to "accept" a detachable magazines. You would need a tool to have the gun accept the magazine. This would arguably be just like a fixed magazine gun, in which you need to use a tool to remove it, like the example above with the SKS.

 

The problem as others have stated is that NJ does not define what "detachable" or "fixed" are. Would that be detachable without the use of tools... or would the need to use a tool make it a "fixed" magazine. Not defined anywhere that I know of.

 

As usual, the laws are vague enough in the sense that they could go after anything they like. Just like they can argue that modified magazines or adjustable stocks are in fact still high cap mags or "telescoping stocks" because they feel the modification is not "permanent" enough. There are no guidelines as to what permanent is, etc , so they can argue to a jury that a pin does not constitute permanent. I find it hilarious, as it should be easy to defend in court since the state offers no guidelines on the topic. Comes down to who wants to be the test case....

[vladtepes 1,060]

Comes down to who wants to be the test case....

 

and that is the bottom line.. at the end of the day one has to wonder if the lack of prosecution based SOLELY on AWB violations shows a pretty solid lack of interest on the state side to push such a case.. a case in which the ONLY violation is a single questionable part (maybe a flash hider instead of a brake on an AR or something)

 

when I answer these questions.. I am answering from a hypothetical interpretation of the law.. I find a Draco with a fixed magazine to be pretty useless, but answering the question within the confines of the law as it is described..

 

you know it.. you have read it a million times over.. BUT..

 

B. a semi-automatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following:

 

1. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

2. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

3. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

4. manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

5. a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm; and,

 

 

now I can take the stock off of my Saiga with a simple allen key.. turning it into an illegal something (too short) not sure if it would be aow or sbr.. or whatever.. but at any rate it is a hair too short with the stock off.. but yet it is unreasonable to charge me based on the fact that I might remove the stock with a simple tool I could stick in my pocket.. this is in the same regard to bullet button... the magazine can be removed.. but once a magazine is inserted.. and the gun is ready to shoot.. you have altered the gun in such a way that it can no longer accept a detachable magazine until you stop shooting.. take out your tool.. and reload the firearm.. while the magazine itself may still be a detachable magazine.. one would have to assume that if you render it unable to be removed without tools.. you have changed it in the same way NJ allows for other changes to address other features (threaded barrel, telescoping stock, etc..)

 

I totally agree that it is just a grasping at straws technicality type thing.. and technically while the mag well is empty you CAN take a "detachable magazine" and put it in the gun.. they have been getting away with that in CA for years based on the fact that it can not be changed without a "tool"..

[KpdPipes 388]

no.. in regards to 922 you hit it dead on.. a saiga is imported with 14 countable parts (maybe more or less on the shotgun) and if you want to do the good stuff you have to get it down to 10.. so not a ton of parts really.. but I agree with everything else you said.. a lot of imported guns have strong US parts availability... so it is really not all that hard..

 

I respectfully disagree with the detachable magazine thing.. I think that the CA awb is pretty similar to ours.. and the argument that they use is as the gun is functional.. it can NOT accept a detachable magazine.. why? because the magazine that is already in there can not be removed without a tool.. thus eliminating the detachable magazine.. you pin your stock... is your stock still adjustable? well if you just pinned it.. then yeah it is totally still adjustable.. you may need a tool.. and down time to adjust it.. but the adjustment still functions.. while there are no "test cases" that I am aware of.. this MIGHT be a legitimate way to skirt the restrictions to get something like that..

 

a telescoping stock is a telescoping stock as long as it is a stock that can move in the manor a telescope moves.. pinning it temporarily makes it non adjustable..

 

taking a gun with a removable magazine.. and making the gun no longer able to accept removable magazines, is the same... look at a gun like the SKS.. it CAN accept detachable mags (if you put the right kit on it..) but you can have all the evil features in the world providing on YOUR sks the magazine is NOT detachable..

California's Law specifically states that if it takes a tool to remove the magazine, it's no longer "Detachable" NJ's AWB HAS NO SUCH LANGUAGE..therefore the "Bullet Button" which works for Ca, makes ZERO difference here.

[vladtepes 1,060]

California's Law specifically states that if it takes a tool to remove the magazine, it's no longer "Detachable" NJ's AWB HAS NO SUCH LANGUAGE..therefore the "Bullet Button" which works for Ca, makes ZERO difference here.

 

please post the CA law that states that.. as I am unaware of it.. not calling you out.. simply looking to expand my knowledge..

 

my only useful source was some searching on calguns.. but there is no question that you know more on the subject than I.. in fact when I found the snippets there it looked surprisingly familiar.. but I am interested to read the language that talks about the tool!.. thanks!

 

 

RIFLES:

 

 

 

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:

 

▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action

 

▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;

 

▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;

 

▪ a forward pistol grip.

 

 

 

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches;

 

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds.

 

 

 

PISTOLS:

 

 

 

A semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of the following:

 

▪ a threaded barrel;

 

▪ a second handgrip;

 

▪ capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip;

 

 

▪ a shroud attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing

bearer to fire weapon without burning his/her hand, except for a slide enclosing

the barrel;

 

 

 

A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine having capacity to accept over 10 rounds.

 

 

 

SHOTGUNS:

 

 

 

A semiautomatic shotgun having both of the following:

 

▪ a folding or telescoping stock;

 

▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

 

a thumbhole stock, or a vertical handgrip.

 

 

 

A semiautomatic shotgun with the ability to accept detachable magazines;

 

Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

[Soju 153]

I agree with Bob. All you have to do is press the release (with something small enough). What if I had stick fingers and could hit it? No 'real' tool is required, you can use anything small enough to release the magazine, or in other words, detach it from the rifle. A stick, a tack, a bullet, a pen, a splinter from your wooden target, etc. That magazine is always detachable. And when detached, the rifle can accept a magazine. In order for it to even be close to being nondetachable, you would have to never remove the magazine. Not to load it, not to clean it, nothing. The second you remove it, the rifle has the ability to accept a magazine that is not connected to it, also called a detachable magazine.

 

The difference with a pinned stock, is that it is suppose to be pinned in a way that that stock can no longer be collapsed, tool or no tool. I still have a pinned MOE stock on a buffer tube with stripped threads. I have tried everything to remove the pin, and it is still in there. No tools I tried worked. The only way I can foresee myself removing the pin would be to break either the buffer tube or the stock. That is quite permanent if you ask me.

 

With that said, NJ laws are ridiculous and the interpretations of the laws by those with power are often senseless, so take my view with a grain of salt.

[Dan 177]

I agree with Bob. All you have to do is press the release (with something small enough). What if I had stick fingers and could hit it? No 'real' tool is required, you can use anything small enough to release the magazine, or in other words, detach it from the rifle. A stick, a tack, a bullet, a pen, a splinter from your wooden target, etc. That magazine is always detachable. And when detached, the rifle can accept a magazine. In order for it to even be close to being nondetachable, you would have to never remove the magazine. Not to load it, not to clean it, nothing. The second you remove it, the rifle has the ability to accept a magazine that is not connected to it, also called a detachable magazine.

 

The difference with a pinned stock, is that it is suppose to be pinned in a way that that stock can no longer be collapsed, tool or no tool. I still have a pinned MOE stock on a buffer tube with stripped threads. I have tried everything to remove the pin, and it is still in there. No tools I tried worked. The only way I can foresee myself removing the pin would be to break either the buffer tube or the stock. That is quite permanent if you ask me.

 

With that said, NJ laws are ridiculous and the interpretations of the laws by those with power are often senseless, so take my view with a grain of salt.

 

So with an SKS, all you need is something small to press in a button to release the trigger group, then the mag easily slips out. Then the rifle can now take detachable magazines (for which they do sell). Would that rifle be considered being able to accept detachable magazines? Where is the line drawn? How much effort and what kind of tools do you need to remove a magazine in order for it to be considered a "fixed" magazine rifle.

 

Easy to prove, hand the rifle with the tool actuated magazine release to the prosecutor with a magazine, ask him/her to now insert the magazine. They will ask you for the tool because it is impossible to do without it. I would promptly say I do not have a tool. Jury, does this rifle accept detachable magazines?

 

Same goes for altered magazines, pinned stocks, muzzle brakes. If they need some kind of tool , torch, grinder, etc to turn the rifle into a banned version isn't that going to extremes? Imagine the state trying to prove that your car's exhaust system exceeds the maximum noise limits by removing the muffler to demonstrate.

 

All that being said, no doubt that NJ's laws are written in such an ambiguous way that it comes down to which side can convince the jury of what the intent of the laws are. Downright unconstitutional IMO, but they are there for now until we can get them re-written. Personally I would not take a chance on being the test case on something like this.

[KpdPipes 388]

please post the CA law that states that.. as I am unaware of it.. not calling you out.. simply looking to expand my knowledge..

 

my only useful source was some searching on calguns.. but there is no question that you know more on the subject than I.. in fact when I found the snippets there it looked surprisingly familiar.. but I am interested to read the language that talks about the tool!.. thanks!

 

 

IIRC it's in their definitions. I couldnt direct you to the exact spot, probably someone in the Cali HTF on Arfcom could confirm or show where i was mistaken. At the time the Bullet Buttons first came out, i saw some discussion about WHY they were legal and someone stated that there was a line in the Cal laws that said of a "Tool" was needed, it was no longer detachable. As I said, NJ makes no such distinctions if it comes loose, it's detachable.

[Soju 153]

 

 

Easy to prove, hand the rifle with the tool actuated magazine release to the prosecutor with a magazine, ask him/her to now insert the magazine. They will ask you for the tool because it is impossible to do without it. I would promptly say I do not have a tool. Jury, does this rifle accept detachable magazines?

 

 

 

Actually, you hand them the rifle, and the magazine, and it latches right in just fine. It is when removing it you need the tool. So they wouldn't need a tool, it would accept it, and you would have just proved it accepts a detachable magazine. Kind of counter intuitive to your argument. Watch the video again.

 

 

As for an SKS, you are actually replacing parts. Of course I could replace my stock with a collapsible one, or my 15 round magazine with a 30 round one, or my barrel with a threaded one, or my front sight post with one that has a bayonet lug, or any number of modifications. I'm simply saying, it my view, this modification does not alleviate the detachable magazine portion of the statues.

[vladtepes 1,060]

IIRC it's in their definitions. I couldnt direct you to the exact spot, probably someone in the Cali HTF on Arfcom could confirm or show where i was mistaken. At the time the Bullet Buttons first came out, i saw some discussion about WHY they were legal and someone stated that there was a line in the Cal laws that said of a "Tool" was needed, it was no longer detachable. As I said, NJ makes no such distinctions if it comes loose, it's detachable.

 

 

well I looked up and down for said definition and could not find it..

 

at the end of the day the wording in CA is irrelevant for our discussion.. I think that it is a crap shoot like all the other hypotheticals... but I don't believe in theory it is THAT far fetched... NJ allows us to take features and render them inoperable.. they have forever.. so like I was saying.. put a pin in your stock and think it is different.. but the only thing different about the mag thing is it has not been done in a mainstream manor..

[vladtepes 1,060]

to play devil's advocate just a step further..

 

what if you hypothetically did NOT even use a traditional bullet button type setup.. what if you used a different setup that required a tool to both insert AND remove the mag.. now that gun definitely does NOT accept detachable mags... you are thinking too "in the box" of what is already out there.. a few simple modifications could likely net a gun that requires a tool for magazine going in OR out.. does that skirt the law? and if not why..

[ymg200 1]

Still in hopes of getting my hands on a little Draco....

 

 

Here is the explanation given by The California Department of Justice, which made BB-type mag release latches legal:

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(a)

"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.

 

source: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Non_detachable_magazines

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In other words, in CA law (or The California Department of Justice guideline that effectively became the law), the key word detachable is replaced by "that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required".

 

There is also an explanation why the guideline issued by The California Department of Justice is as good as a law.

According to a previous court ruling: "[R]egulations adopted by an agency to which the Legislature has confided the power to 'make law,' and which, if authorized by the enabling legislation, bind this and other courts as firmly as statutes themselves . . . ." Thus, the definition of "detachable magazine" in the CCR is as binding as the Penal Code itself.

 

Unfortunately, we do not have such a guideline here in NJ.

 

 

However, I also came across BATF guideline. I cannot comment on authenticity of BATF letter, but if this is true, then BB should be legal in NJ:

 

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=383250

<quote>The Firearms Technology Branch has historically followed the commonly-accepted definition of a “detachable” magazine as being one that can be removed without a tool.</quote>

 

This BATF letter makes a good point, especially for NJ:

Note that NJ AWB has "SKS with detachable magazine" in the banned list.

Now, unless the definition of detachable includes "requiring a tool", any SKS has detachable magazine, and there are plenty of them in private hands in NJ.

 

Is that BATF letter binding for NJ? It's a federal agency, so I would assume it is. I am looking for an official letter, not just an internet post....

[Dan 177]

to play devil's advocate just a step further..

 

what if you hypothetically did NOT even use a traditional bullet button type setup.. what if you used a different setup that required a tool to both insert AND remove the mag.. now that gun definitely does NOT accept detachable mags... you are thinking too "in the box" of what is already out there.. a few simple modifications could likely net a gun that requires a tool for magazine going in OR out.. does that skirt the law? and if not why..

 

This was what I was thinking. I was mistaken that a tool was needed to both insert and remove the magazine in this example. If a tool is not needed to insert a magazine, then the NJ definition of "accepting a detachable magazine" would have more teeth. If a tool was needed to insert and remove, then I think it is defensible.

[Dan 177]

Actually, you hand them the rifle, and the magazine, and it latches right in just fine. It is when removing it you need the tool. So they wouldn't need a tool, it would accept it, and you would have just proved it accepts a detachable magazine. Kind of counter intuitive to your argument. Watch the video again.

 

 

As for an SKS, you are actually replacing parts. Of course I could replace my stock with a collapsible one, or my 15 round magazine with a 30 round one, or my barrel with a threaded one, or my front sight post with one that has a bayonet lug, or any number of modifications. I'm simply saying, it my view, this modification does not alleviate the detachable magazine portion of the statues.

 

I misunderstood the product, I thought a tool was also needed to insert the mag as well. Interesting hypothesis if the tool can be made that it needs to be used to insert the mag as well.

 

So on an SKS you can replace the OEM mag with another "fixed" magazine that can hold more rounds. Lets say I replaced the 10 round stock "fixed" magazine with a 15 round "fixed" magazine. The act of changing the "fixed" magazine by using a tool to push a button. Do you still consider it "fixed" under the statutes?

[Soju 153]

No worries.

 

If you mean replace the original, with the same thing but of larger capacity, then of course it is still fixed. You are thinking into it too much. The original magazine, is loaded through the breach, if you want to take it off, requires you remove the trigger assembly, or in other words, start to dissemble the rifle. It would be more time consuming to do this every time you want to load. It is certainly not a "detachable magazine". It is part of the rifle. Can you even load it properly when not attached to the rifle? What about attach it back to the rifle already loaded? Any person reasonable would understand the statue, and "SKS with detachable magazine" to mean an SKS with the fixed magazine removed that uses something like this.

 

http://www.parts4sks.com/sks_accessories/product/MAG6620B.html

 

I don't see much more to it then that. Again though, this is NJ, which already means things are whack.

[vjf915 456]

If it needed a tool to also insert the magazine, then I'm not sure. I still think it would be too easy for a prosecuting attorney to land you in prison.

[ymg200 1]

vjf915,

I am not following your logic. How does insert a mag using a tool make it worse? Could you explain. Thank you.

[vjf915 456]

vjf915,

I am not following your logic. How does insert a mag using a tool make it worse? Could you explain. Thank you.

I'm not saying that it's worse, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily think it's legal. Would it be an easier case than if you had no "bullet button" at all? Of course. But I don't think that you could easily win the case....I think it would be quite a battle.

[Dan 177]

No worries.

 

If you mean replace the original, with the same thing but of larger capacity, then of course it is still fixed. You are thinking into it too much. The original magazine, is loaded through the breach, if you want to take it off, requires you remove the trigger assembly, or in other words, start to dissemble the rifle. It would be more time consuming to do this every time you want to load. It is certainly not a "detachable magazine". It is part of the rifle. Can you even load it properly when not attached to the rifle? What about attach it back to the rifle already loaded? Any person reasonable would understand the statue, and "SKS with detachable magazine" to mean an SKS with the fixed magazine removed that uses something like this.

 

http://www.parts4sks...t/MAG6620B.html

 

I don't see much more to it then that. Again though, this is NJ, which already means things are whack.

 

That is a good definition of what is a fixed magazine in my book, no arguments there. I wish NJ's statutes had something similar.

 

You are right, I am thinking in to it too much.. for a reason. I am demonstrating that NJ's laws are vague and ambiguous when it comes to such things, and how laws on cosmetics and simple features are unconstitutional. The terms used in NJ's gun laws can be twisted and argued both ways in court, leaving each gun owning individual to assume high levels of risk that they will not get prosecuted. For example, pinning stocks, altering mags to only hold 15 rnds, pinning a muzzle brake (which some could be argued to also be flash hiders). All of these activities bring on risk to the gun owner. The same goes for anyone trying to use this hypothetical tool in order to have more evil features. We are forced to stop and think, "how is this law interpreted". Not a good situation when you are trying to follow the laws, and have to take educated guesses on whether or not a prosecutor would pursue charges.

 

Just look at that example awhile back of the gunshop on Long Island. Where the prosecutor made a video demonstrating how they can unpin the stock and drill out/remove the pin for the muzzle brake, thus making a banned "AW". Without definitions of what is considered permanent, what is considered fixed or detachable, what is considered a muzzle brake, what is considered telescoping versus adjustable, etc... anyone who owns an EBR with these things in NJ is in the quantum state of being legal and illegal at the same time.

[Soju 153]

Why didn't you just say you were playing the devils advocate!