PDA

View Full Version : Pinned my PRS Stock


Prc329
03-18-2007, 3:18 PM
O.K., I have been thinking about this for a while. Some people believe the PRS is to grey to use in a featureless build. I am one that believes it can not be considered a collapsible stock. I also think that all it would take for one cop to have a bad day for me to get a big headache, so I decided to do something about it without altering my $200 stock.

I have mine set to wide open so this made life a bit easier. All I had to do is keep it from being able to close. Your mileage may vary depending on the position you like. After installing watson take down pins on my rifles I have a couple of take down pins left over. They were a hair to long so I used my dremel to remove a little material off the pin and it fit perfect. Now I just need to run to the store and pick up some epoxy of some sort (Krazy glue may work) and I have a pinned yet fully reversible if I decide to sell it PRS stock. No way anyone could consider this a collapsible stock. All they would need to do is turn the knob and see that it will not move.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/IMG_0752.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/IMG_0753.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/naytwan/IMG_0754.jpg

bwiese
03-18-2007, 3:42 PM
Good advice.

There's really no degree/extent or purposefulness/intent expressed in regulation of changed-length stocks (folding or collapsible). There may be some commentary in the SB23 regulatory discussion, but this is still open-ended. I do believe this stock could be argued to be collapsible, even though the intent of the law was likely not to ban 'adjustment for comfort' but 'length-reducing stocks for easier supposed concealability'.

Unmodified PRS stocks, to me, are too grey for featureless builds (those with open magwells).

I believe such PRS stocks on featureless rifles should be adjusted with a bare receiver not assembled into a rifle. Once set, removal/defeat of user adjustment (i.e, blocked/pinned to the optimal length) should take place.

fun2none
03-18-2007, 4:03 PM
.....
I also think that all it would take for one cop to have a bad day for me to get a big headache,
......

At that point the cop is not going to care what features you have. The rear take down pin is likely to get "lost" in transit to the station -- not that it matters because the PRS is not an evil feature, IMHO.

The PRS stock is fixed to the buffer tube. It does NOT move, nor collapse, nor fold, nor telescope (like a CAR stock). On the PRS, the butt-plate, not the stock, is adjustable. The manufacturer states that the stock is "Adjustable for both height and length of pull." (http://www.magpul.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=70_88_90&products_id=193), not collapsible for storage. In the end, it's really what you level of risk you feel is tolerable.

thmpr
03-18-2007, 4:37 PM
By design and funtionality, the PRS stock is not a telescopic or a collapsible stock since the base is fixed.

bwiese
03-18-2007, 4:48 PM
By design and funtionality, the PRS stock is not a telescopic or a collapsible stock since the base is fixed.

Wrong. It could readily be argued that this stock collapses. There's nothing here in regulatory code describing what a folding or telescoping/collapsible stock is - and nothing there to restrict "collapsible stock" from being a stock with a part that collapses into it. It's also sold as a complete unit - when you order it and say "give me a PRS stock" you get the stock and baseplate, etc. - further helping the argument that it's all part of the stock.

There's simply no definition of what is or isn't a stock or part thereof in 11 CCR 5469. That means meaning must be extracted from statutes, and the handwaving about what is/isn't a collapsible or telescoping stock is left up to judge - and the fact that it can reduce length by a part sliding in/out may well be good enough to be assumed that.

Frankly, we're on far far far more clear ground with fixed mag vs. 'detachable magazine' stuff requiring a tool, etc. That definition has a lot more clarity and much less wiggle room because folks were concerned even then about such issues and got the 'tool' aspect introduced.

We do need a test case, and this could result in an appeal or some helpfulness to Hunt, so perhaps if you've got a spare $20+K and wanna fight it all the way, you could help us out.

Prc329
03-18-2007, 6:29 PM
At that point the cop is not going to care what features you have. The rear take down pin is likely to get "lost" in transit to the station -- not that it matters because the PRS is not an evil feature, IMHO.

The PRS stock is fixed to the buffer tube. It does NOT move, nor collapse, nor fold, nor telescope (like a CAR stock). On the PRS, the butt-plate, not the stock, is adjustable. The manufacturer states that the stock is "Adjustable for both height and length of pull." (http://www.magpul.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=70_88_90&products_id=193), not collapsible for storage. In the end, it's really what you level of risk you feel is tolerable.

I agree with you about in my opinion the PRS not being collapsible in the intent of the law, but I don't have $20,000 to prove I am right. If this mod keeps me legal in the letter of the law I will be fine.

Like I said, if a cop is having a bad day and looks at my rifle and turns that knob and it doesn't move, I should be good. Even if it does get lost I do have proof that it was properly configured before it was taken. Also I dought the cop is going to ask me what I did to pin the stock, he will just look at it, turn the knobs and set it down. Besides the color it does look like it is a part of the stock and should not be noticeable enough for said *****hole LEO to remove it. Especially if he is not familiar with the stock design.

bwiese
03-18-2007, 6:35 PM
Like I said, if a cop is having a bad day and looks at my rifle and turns that knob and it doesn't move, I should be good. Even if it does get lost I do have proof that it was properly configured before it was taken. Also I dought the cop is going to ask me what I did to pin the stock, he will just look at it, turn the knobs and set it down.

Yes, we're also getting into 'constructive possession' issues here - which do NOT apply to AW-related matters in CA.

The restoral of collapsing functionality by removal of Prc329's block device is a legal 'construction' and would be akin to a cop removing screwed-in mag release or adding another part to trigger an AW violation.

Minor changes can be made to many guns to bring them out of legal status. The law is that you can't do this, not that the possibility doesn't exist (i.e, by removing the block) - with the exception of mag-size restriction issues, there are no mentions of, or standards of, permanence or removal, etc. on AW characteristic features.

capitol
03-18-2007, 6:43 PM
I'm thinking most law enforcement officers couldn't care less about your pinned non-collapsible stock.
Many if not most officers will take one look at your gun, consider it an AR15 assault rifle, take it on the spot and deal with the legalities later.
Sad and true because the CADOJ refuses to do their job :mad:

thmpr
03-18-2007, 6:46 PM
Bill,
Based on the dictuionary definition of telescopic/collapshing:

tube sections that slid inside each other for easier storage when not being used. As a result, anything that can lengthen and shorten in this way is said to be telescopic (adjective) or telescoping (present participle used adjectivally), and the process of shortening in this way is called to telescope (verb infinitive) or telescoping (gerund). Good examples from everyday life include: the archetypical collapsing telescope itself; collapsing rabbit-ear TV antennae; and hydraulic cylinders.

The PRS is far from the definition. I don't want to sound arrogant or anything, but I am willing to fight it all the way in court if I had to. But all my builds all have the BB set up :D .

Thanks for looking out for us all.

xenophobe
03-18-2007, 6:47 PM
Bill, I'm surprised. The PRS is not a collapsable stock, but even if it were, the manner in which the adjustable buttpad were fixed would not take tool or time to alter. All you would need to do is grab the pin and pull. Crazy glue will not hold that pin in to the point you couldn't pull it out with your finger.

The PRS is similar to an Olympic Rifle Stock. It is neither collapsible or telescoping. The length of pull can be changed for length, and the cheekpiece can be changed for comb height, but the overall length of the stock is not significantly altered in any manner. It is no different in form or function than a benchrest rifle or trap shotgun, and a Benelli M4 shotgun and the adjustability built in for California legality would further show that adjustability is fine, not collapsibility or telescoping..

A bullet-button is more grey area than a PRS.

bwiese
03-18-2007, 7:31 PM
Bill, I'm surprised. The PRS is not a collapsable stock,

We can argue about what is or isn't the stock proper.

We're going by OUR knowledge as gunnies, and our perceptual differentiaton of what is a 'stock' from what is a 'buttplate'. Some might find them separate items, others might find one as part of the other in a complete assembly. Given that rifle stocks - esp AR stuff - often come with buttplates as part of a whole kit - that mitigates against a non-telescoping stance.

Without a variety of expert testimony, an argument could readily be made otherwise. The DA could cite legislative intent to avoid 'change of length' - which, barring regulatory activity, could be supported.

This is an area of law where a non-gunnie judge would make the interpretation in the case, and where there are no regulations defining what is/isn't a telescoping stock.




but even if it were, the manner in which the adjustable buttpad were fixed would not take tool or time to alter. All you would need to do is grab the pin and pull. Crazy glue will not hold that pin in to the point you couldn't pull it out with your finger.

Really, 'tools + time' is just the standard for avoiding detachable magazine status. It does not apply to other regulations.

Yes, I agree that it should not be manhandleable w/Krazy glue. That likely does mean a tool or full disassembly is required.

The threshold standard for others would likely fall into an area of "ready user change in normal course of activity with such a rifle". (By contrast, removing an A2 stock and replacing with an A1 - or a bare tube! - would not count.)

They could do a fair argument that the goal of this law - left unshaped by regulation - was to disallow readily shortened rifles. There's no codified degree or extent - frankly, just a smidgen is enough.

Having a PRS pinned where it takes more than 'customary use' effort to readjust appears to be a legally sane threshold.



The PRS is similar to an Olympic Rifle Stock. It is neither collapsible or telescoping. The length of pull can be changed for length, and the cheekpiece can be changed for comb height, but the overall length of the stock is not significantly altered in any manner.

While the statutes (12276.1) ban 'folding or telescopic' stocks I think an argument could well be made that part of the stock mechanism 'telescopes' into another part. Differentiation of what is/isn't part of the stock is part of our handwaving, and this law does not depend on a gunnie's interpretation.

Again an argument can be made over what is/isn't the stock:


Q. Did you order a MagPul PRS stock?
A. Yes.

Q. Did this plate come with it? (shows buttplate)
A. Yep.

Q. What is this? (Holds up an M16A2, points to the stock....)
A. It's a standard A2 stock.

Q. What is this? (points to rear)
A. It's the buttplate/trapdoor assembly.

Q. If you were to convert this rifle (holds up an M4) to an A2 stock, what would you order? I have a Bushmaster catalog here - could you point me to the item?
A. (defendant points to the A2 stock kit including various items beyond the actual stock proper).

Q. When you adjust this stock, does the length of the rifle change?
A. Yep.

Q. (Holding up an M4 or CAR15)... When you adjust this stock, does the rifle's length change?
A. Yes, but...

Q. Yes or no, Mr. Busted...
A. (sheepish) Yes.

Q. Is this M4 stock generally known as a telescoping or collapsible stock?
A. Yes.


He's likely shown to the judge that the whole gig on the back of your rifle, upon which you rest your cheek, and upon which rifle rests on your shoulder is the stock or "stock assembly".


It is no different in form or function than a benchrest rifle or trap shotgun, and a Benelli M4 shotgun

Those weapons don't transition into AW status with just this one part alone.


and the adjustability built in for California legality would further show that adjustability is fine, not collapsibility or telescoping..


The Magpul PRS was not built for CA legality. And I don't think it even has a DOJ approval letter (which helps but which isn't blanket immunity either).


[quote]A bullet-button is more grey area than a PRS.

Perceptually, yes - on first blush - *but* we have a clear regulatory definition that shapes statutory law and which must be taken into accoint. It's so good that the DOJ felt the need to try and change it :) If we had a DOJ FB regulation already defining such stocks (with some various criteria) then we could work around it, but we don't - and this offers exposure to judge-made law (judges do interpret definitions).

It perhaps is winnable on appeal and with a host of experts but it's just an additional area of unneeded exposure - esp as an A2 or fixed CAR stock is not questionable.

As for now, I think a PRS should be used on fixed-mag builds only, or on reg'd AWs.

xenophobe
03-18-2007, 8:00 PM
We can argue about what is or isn't the stock proper.

We're going by OUR knowledge as gunnies, and our perceptual differentiaton of what is a 'stock' from what is a 'buttplate'. Some might find them separate items, others might find one as part of the other in a complete assembly. Given that rifle stocks - esp AR stuff - often come with buttplates as part of a whole kit - that mitigates against a non-telescoping stance.

Without a variety of expert testimony, an argument could readily be made otherwise. The DA could cite legislative intent to avoid 'change of length' - which, barring regulatory activity, could be supported.

This is an area of law where a non-gunnie judge would make the interpretation in the case, and where there are no regulations defining what is/isn't a telescoping stock.

To play Devils' Advocate:

And is my exact point why the Bullet-Button is in more of a legal limbo. It is easy to demonstrate to a firearm illiterate group of people that it is a magazine release, and an AR is a rifle that uses detachable magazines. Unlike a Remington 700 fixed magazine, or a SKS fixed magazine, the use of a bullet dissassembles the functionality of the magazine itself. Once you use that bullet, a standard SKS magazine removed cannot hold ammunition. The same is true of a Remington 700. But an AR magazine is a self contained ammunition feeding device that was never designed, intended or implemented as a fixed magazine, ever, with exception to this new California device used to get around the legislative intent of the law.

I would simply have a LEO bring in a police AR. Take rifle equipped with a bullet button mag and open mag well. I would tell the officer to remove his magazine and throw it to me. I would then insert it into the off-list build. A pen hidden in my hand would be used to push the button and the mag would drop.

"Jury, no matter how you look at it, it just accepted a detachable magazine".

I think I would have a compelling case that would win at the Superior Court level.

Really, 'tools + time' is just the standard for avoiding detachable magazine status. It does not apply to other regulations.

Yes, I agree that it should not be manhandleable w/Krazy glue. That likely does mean a tool or full disassembly is required.

The threshold standard for others would likely fall into an area of "ready user change in normal course of activity with such a rifle". (By contrast, removing an A2 stock and replacing with an A1 - or a bare tube! - would not count.)

They could do a fair argument that the goal of this law - left unshaped by regulation - was to disallow readily shortened rifles. There's no codified degree or extent - frankly, just a smidgen is enough.

Having a PRS pinned where it takes more than 'customary use' effort to readjust appears to be a legally sane threshold.

Yes Bill, I'm aware of where 'tools and time' applies. With the Bullet-Button, any tool or twig, with no significant amount of time is required to release a magazine.


While the statutes (12276.1) ban 'folding or telescopic' stocks I think an argument could well be made that part of the stock mechanism 'telescopes' into another part. Differentiation of what is/isn't part of the stock is part of our handwaving, and this law does not depend on a gunnie's interpretation.

Again an argument can be made over what is/isn't the stock:


Q. Did you order a MagPul PRS stock?
A. Yes.

Q. Did this plate come with it? (shows buttplate)
A. Yep.

Q. What is this? (Holds up an M16A2, points to the stock....)
A. It's a standard A2 stock.

Q. What is this? (points to rear)
A. It's the buttplate/trapdoor assembly.

Q. If you were to convert this rifle (holds up an M4) to an A2 stock, what would you order? I have a Bushmaster catalog here - could you point me to the item?
A. (defendant points to the A2 stock kit including various items beyond the actual stock proper).

Q. When you adjust this stock, does the length of the rifle change?
A. Yep.

Q. (Holding up an M4 or CAR15)... When you adjust this stock, does the rifle's length change?
A. Yes, but...

Q. Yes or no, Mr. Busted...
A. (sheepish) Yes.

Q. Is this M4 stock generally known as a telescoping or collapsible stock?
A. Yes.


He's likely shown to the judge that the whole gig on the back of your rifle, upon which you rest your cheek, and upon which rifle rests on your shoulder is the stock or "stock assembly".

And that's all fine and dandy.


Q. What portion of the unit consists of the stock, the buttplate or the body of the stock?
A. The largest portion of the stock.

Q. Does the body of the stock collapse onto itself, or does the unit readily telescope and collapse into a compact size *pulls out a collapsing telescope and demonstrates*?
A. No.

Q. Is the stock designed to increase or decrease in length to make it more compact for carrying or storage?
A. No.

Q. Is the function of the PRS any different than any Olympic or Target rifle where the length of pull or comb is adjustable?
A. No.

Q. Is an Olympic or Target rifle intended to have an adjustable stock that is designed to make it compact for storage, or smaller so it may be easier concealed?
A. No

Q. Is this Calfornia Approved Benelli M4 with an adjustable stock a collapsable or telescoping stock?
A. No.

Q. Is the PRS any different in function from the adjustable stock found on a high end Trap Shotgun?
A. No.

Q. Is the PRS similar in function to a Colt AR-15 Collapsible or Telescoping Stock? Is it similar in function to a folding stock.
A. No.


I can play that game too.



Those weapons don't transition into AW status with just this one part alone.


and the adjustability built in for California legality would further show that adjustability is fine, not collapsibility or telescoping..


The Magpul PRS was not built for CA legality. And I don't think it even has a DOJ approval letter (which helps but which isn't blanket immunity either).

It does not need a DOJ approval letter. It is not a folding stock. It is not a collapsible stock. It is only an adjustable stock. BATF allowed importation of the SR-9T with a HK-PSG-1 stock because it was deemed to not be a folding or collapsible stock, and was indeed only adjustable, which made it suitable for sporting purposes.

Since the DOJ code is insufficient, and there is no DOJ letter, ATF approval of a similarly non-folding, non-telescoping, adjustable stock for sporting purposes was legal. A similar mechanism can be found on many high end Olympic rifles and trap shotguns. Not on assault weapons.


Perceptually, yes - on first blush - *but* we have a clear regulatory definition that shapes statutory law and which must be taken into accoint. It's so good that the DOJ felt the need to try and change it :) If we had a DOJ FB regulation already defining such stocks (with some various criteria) then we could work around it, but we don't - and this offers exposure to judge-made law (judges do interpret definitions).

It perhaps is winnable on appeal and with a host of experts but it's just an additional area of unneeded exposure - esp as an A2 or fixed CAR stock is not questionable.

As for now, I think a PRS should be used on fixed-mag builds only, or on reg'd AWs.

And I think the PRS is no more a folding or telescoping stock than the U-15 is a thumbhole stock. Certainly one argument can be made against it, but it is far weaker than the argument for it as there are many different examples of this type of stock, what manufacturers even refer to it as, and what the ATF has allowed prior importation of.

The PRS is not a push button full extension to fully retraction type stock, nor does it fold with the push of a button. Moving the length 1/2 an inch takes a number of complete turns on a wheel designed not to make the stock compact for storage or concealability, but to adjust the reach for any particular shooter. And, in it's shortest position is still as long as a full size M16A1 stock, and longer than an AK fixed stock.

bwiese
03-18-2007, 8:08 PM
Mike

I do accept that you have some good points. They might even eventually win a case. But there's more potential for downside with something that has no regulatory definition.

Understand that a jury sees none of this stuff, and that there are 'plain meaning' statutes that deal with interpretation of regulatory law - after all, the regulations are there to clarify.

But the whole fixed vs DM thing, while sounding incredible, has substantial basis in law with tons of DOJ documentation and approvals, the regulatory definition offering a clear standard, etc. The term 'detachable' - because of its formal regulatory definition - cannot mean detachable in an ordinary sense. That's readily arguable even in the face of a mag being detached, and I think the judge would be committing reversible error if he didn't accept the formal regulatory definition's coverage and made his own law. A judge could well do this for the PRS since there's no regulatory coverage at all.

BATF stuff DOES help as a talking-point reference, but it really is legally irrelevant for state law.

Prc329
03-18-2007, 8:09 PM
The fact that we are having this discussion is the reason I decided to do the mod. If two highly intelligent of CA Law individuals can see this small (yet expensive) item in two completely different views make me feel more comfortable making the change. I would be playing the luck of the draw on someone finding the PRS stock to be telescoping or not. Unlike a bullet button where the law is very clear on what needs to be done (tool+time) there is no mention in the laws what exactly is considered a collapsible stock.

JPN6336
03-18-2007, 8:12 PM
Xeno...you seem to me to be arguing the common sense point of view... which most of us agree with already. Common sense tells us that banning "assault weapons" has no effect on crime. Antis and non-gunner DAs, judges, and juries may or may not employ common sense. A total safety oriented point of view causes some to look at things from a worst case scenario. The intent of the folding/telescoping stock was likely to prevent weapons from being shortenable for storage and/or concealment. However, we all know that many would like to see someone convicted on AW charges and if a DA believes that using a dictionary definition to say that part of the PRS stock telescopes in and out of another will get a conviction, the PRS user will be in court. If an anti-OLL judge and a group of liberal anti-gun jurors see it the same way as the DA there is some exposure. For some it's a matter of piece of mind. I personally don't have a PRS (yet) and if/when I get one it's a decision I'll make as well. It's much like the decision to be made to go for a featureless build, a Prince50, a Bullet Button , or avoid OLLs all-together.

Prc329
03-18-2007, 8:12 PM
BTW, I was not planning on using Krazy glue. I was just brainstorming ways to make the mod more permanent and still be reversible without damaging or drilling the stock.

Any ideas?

xenophobe
03-18-2007, 8:13 PM
There are good points on either side of the argument, but I just cannot see how the PRS can be held as a collapsible stock, regardless of California law.

As for the BB mag lock, if I were fighting a case, I'm positive I could win it. If I were defending it, I would be just as sure that I could win. With the PRS stock, I'm not so sure I could win that case, but I know I sure could defend it.

With EITHER, you're pushing the knowledge of another LE or DA into territories they may not be familiar with and cost you a whole lot of trouble either way.

Since the California law is not clear on this, the BATF regulation and approval of this is key.

All of this is why I believe the PRS is fine. And of course, opinions... everyone has them. lol

fun2none
03-18-2007, 8:32 PM
Xeno makes an excellent point based on BATFE's precedent established by the importation of the HK PSG1 and MSG90.

Why don't we just ask Magpul Industries if they consider the PRS a telescoping stock ?

In the same manner that there are no regulations defining a muzzle brake, the only supporting documentation is the manufacturer's marketing & sales literature.

xenophobe
03-18-2007, 8:34 PM
Why don't we just ask Magpul Industries if they consider the PRS a telescoping stock ?

In the same manner that there are no regulations defining a muzzle brake, the only supporting documentation is the manufacturer's marketing & sales literature.

That's actually not a bad idea. If Magpul says it's not collapsable and then ATF were to opine on the PRS stock as not being collapsable, CADOJ would have a hard time of saying otherwise, and their lack of testing and clarification of flash hider / muzzle break status would probably bleed over into this arena as well.

Prc329
03-18-2007, 8:51 PM
I sent Magpul an email to see if they consider it telescoping or not. I'll post the reply here.

thmpr
03-18-2007, 9:00 PM
what about the A2 stock that has the adjustable base plate?

Prc329
03-18-2007, 9:11 PM
This is what I got back, that was quick.

We can not render a legal position on CA gun laws as we are not qualified to
do that.

That said the PRS is designed to be an adjustable fixed position stock.

I basically explain how I have a stock and enjoy it but may have to modify it due to our bass ackward gun laws.