 |
Posted: 6/27/2010 12:42:19 PM
[Last Edit: 6/27/2010 12:43:35 PM by Andrapos]
Originally Posted By Pain:
............. In addition to Gary who is class 3 Contact my NFA trust attorney Jeffrey Crown 860 257-4330 CTGunlawyer.com For $750 he can create your trust and bypass all the junk. Try for a signature first, then fill out one of the NFA Trust templates floating around on here and have your lawyer review it to make sure it is sound. $750 for an NFA trust in CT is highway robbery ($200-300 seems to be the average cost for an NFA Trust in other states, info from the armory section). $15 for fingerprints $12 for photos ––––––––- $27 total cost $750 / $27 = 27.77 times more expensive, or "break even" if you send in 30 separate forms. I will eventually go the trust route (when I kick the bucket the items are kept in the family) but not at that price! I will use a template or keep shopping around, thank you very much. |
|
|
|
Pain
Thugs don't like me
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005  CT, USA
 Posts: 113 Feedback: 100% (5) Link To This Post |
Posted: 6/27/2010 1:29:46 PM
[Last Edit: 6/27/2010 1:32:26 PM by Pain]
Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:
The federal ban is expired now so there is really nothing to defer to. A company, PWS, puts out a product called the FC556. This is a muzzle device that is deemed to be not a flash hider by the ATF. The letter from the ATF Technologies branch is on the website. In this letter it contains a description of the testing used to determine it not to be a flash hider. Now, using the same test on one of you silencers (that you don't have yet but still called my NFA ownership into question ) do you think they would be declared not flash supressing either? Just something to think about. If you get a chance, ask your lawyer or dealer if they think a postban AR15 SBR with a barrel <12" is ok in CT also. These are the two most disagreed on topics in the AWB. The laws on the web were dated 2007 I believe, so it's several years after the AWB expired. I could not find any other ATF law or revisions on the web associated with silencers. You have a typo, it's a FSC556, and yes, I run them. Also, you do have a good point. But, I think CT prosecutors would be reaching in modifying the current federal definition of a suppressor. Just a thought, it might be some dealers simply avoid going anywhere near this stupid CT assault weapon law. It could be for fear of liability reasons (I.E. you sold me that suppressor with the muzzle break adapter that you pinned) or they simply don't care. Laws suck, & I'm glad we are on the same side of all this madness. I'm done with this thread. See you at the range.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2010 3:33:46 AM
CTbuilder1 great thread! Also Pain, thanks for the clarification on silencers. I've started my process as well, because of the information here.
 |
|
|
|
Pain
Thugs don't like me
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 CT, USA
Posts: 182 Feedback: 100% (5) Link To This Post |
Posted: 7/18/2010 5:38:26 PM
Just a follow up, I did pedal around the state and It's true that some dealers won't sell you a suppressor for a post ban rifle. Some do and others won't. As CTbuilder1 mentioned, these dealers also recommend a pre ban gun.
It's that flash hider "thing" in the assault weapons law. Thanks CTbuilder1 for your insight and information. See you at the range.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2010 12:39:56 PM
Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:
Originally Posted By Pain:
Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:
I guess it is also worth mentioning that anyone who wants to put a silencer on an AR15 in CT would have to have a preban to do so. The simple answer why is that to attach a silencer you would need a threaded barrel, which you cannot have on a post ban. But it goes beyond that as well. Some may ask what if I have a quick attach suppressor mount permanently attached to the barrel? Well a silencer itself is also classified as a flash suppressor which would send you over the 2 "assault features" count and therefore make an illegal assault weapon. With a preban this is not a problem. Incorrect information. As long as you have a pinned muzzle break adapter, it is perfectly legal to have and shoot a suppressor in CT. Says you. The NFA dealers in the state are split on this as well. Some say it's GTG others say no way. I err on the side of no way in this case. CT has NO DEFINITION for a silencer. If taken to court what definition do you think may be used? The federal one considers it a flash hider. Various manufacturers even advertise their silencers as sound and flash suppressing devices. And, if a lab was to test a silencers flash suppressing properties–– I'm sure that they would find that any silencer significantly eliminates muzzle flash. |
|
|
|
rgaper
Member
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2001 CT, USA
Posts: 2591 Feedback: 100% (14) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/5/2010 1:05:00 PM
Originally Posted By JAD: Originally Posted By CTbuilder1: Originally Posted By Pain: Originally Posted By CTbuilder1: I guess it is also worth mentioning that anyone who wants to put a silencer on an AR15 in CT would have to have a preban to do so. The simple answer why is that to attach a silencer you would need a threaded barrel, which you cannot have on a post ban. But it goes beyond that as well. Some may ask what if I have a quick attach suppressor mount permanently attached to the barrel? Well a silencer itself is also classified as a flash suppressor which would send you over the 2 "assault features" count and therefore make an illegal assault weapon. With a preban this is not a problem. Incorrect information. As long as you have a pinned muzzle break adapter, it is perfectly legal to have and shoot a suppressor in CT. Says you. The NFA dealers in the state are split on this as well. Some say it's GTG others say no way. I err on the side of no way in this case. CT has NO DEFINITION for a silencer. If taken to court what definition do you think may be used? The federal one considers it a flash hider. Various manufacturers even advertise their silencers as sound and flash suppressing devices. And, if a lab was to test a silencers flash suppressing properties–– I'm sure that they would find that any silencer significantly eliminates muzzle flash. I agree 100% with this. JoJo's also agrees, and I think that most of us rightfully hold their opinion to a pretty high standard. A silencer is the best flash suppressing device on the market. The purpose of this thread was to build a consensus and operate as a resource, but all of this argument over the use of a silencer of a post-ban gun has taken away from that. I can appreciate the discussion, but in the scope of this thread, it's bad. There may be people getting away with it, but personally I've always felt that my rectum was a sacred place, not to be risked with a felony charge and nightly prison rape... YMMV |
|
|
Pain
Thugs don't like me
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 CT, USA
Posts: 246 Feedback: 100% (5) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/12/2010 5:01:12 AM
[Last Edit: 8/12/2010 5:54:42 AM by Pain]
Originally Posted By rgaper: JoJo's also agrees,
Correct, they don't like the idea. As they explained it to me, a police officer could bust you for anything, say breech of the peace. Take your pistol permit & weapons and set a court date. You could spend $10,000 to prove your innocence, with all charges dismissed. They said "why play with gray areas of the law. Avoid the issue and find a preban lower". I feel they are being overly cautious, but they are 100% correct in that a cop can pinch you for anything and then you have to go to court. Courts are wicked expensive. Laws are written so the courts / laywers make money! What a system. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2010 8:18:59 PM
Anyone know what this was about?
POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON TORRINGTON — John D. Petricone, 39, 2394 Torringford West St., Torrington, was arrested and charged with possession of an assault weapon after police took him into custody from 34 Migeon Ave. during an audit of Tactical Firearms on Aug. 5. Petricone, an off-duty employee, was in possession of an assault weapon, police said. The state police Firearms Trafficking Task Force was contacted and Petricone was held on a $5,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in Bantam Superior Court on Aug. 23. |
|
|
|
Pain
Thugs don't like me
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2005 CT, USA
Posts: 249 Feedback: 100% (5) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/13/2010 3:51:26 AM
No, and that don't sound good if true.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2010 6:03:46 PM
Okay, I pretty much get the gist. Which brings up another question.
I bought my Colt Match Target HBAR in the spring of '95, when I lived in another state. Plain muzzle, no bayo lug. I always assumed it was a post-ban (since it's ban-compliant), but now I wonder. I suppose it's possible that it was built before the ban date, and sold in anticipation of the new law. Is there a database that will allow me to check the serial number against manufacturing dates? Or do I have to pay Colt for research and a letter? I wouldn't mind paying for the letter, actually, but only if I can first be fairly sure that it's a pre-ban. |
|
|
|
CTbuilder1
R-CT
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2006 CT, USA
Posts: 11844 Feedback: 100% (29) Link To This Post |
Posted: 8/22/2010 6:10:31 PM
Originally Posted By tomrocks21212:
Okay, I pretty much get the gist. Which brings up another question. I bought my Colt Match Target HBAR in the spring of '95, when I lived in another state. Plain muzzle, no bayo lug. I always assumed it was a post-ban (since it's ban-compliant), but now I wonder. I suppose it's possible that it was built before the ban date, and sold in anticipation of the new law. Is there a database that will allow me to check the serial number against manufacturing dates? Or do I have to pay Colt for research and a letter? I wouldn't mind paying for the letter, actually, but only if I can first be fairly sure that it's a pre-ban. If it says "Match Target" on the side it is 100% post ban. there are no preban Colt MTs. |
|
|
|
BUCC_Guy
One shot, one miss.
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2003 CT, USA
Posts: 14099 Feedback: 100% (12) Link To This Post |
Posted: 11/16/2010 8:47:56 PM
Lets resurrect this conversation on a new topic:
Uzis banned by name, but not by type. Would a Norinco 320 or Vector "uzi style" carbine be good to go, provided that it had a naked barrel and wood stock? - BG |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2011 2:24:20 PM
So many questions in this thread its kinda hard to follow unless you ask youre own.
So Im in the market for a preban to turn into an SBR. Question is, with CTs laws am I allowed an SBR shorter than 12" on a preban lower? |
|
|
|
rgaper
Member
Team Member
Joined: Oct 2001 CT, USA
Posts: 2873 Feedback: 100% (14) Link To This Post |
Posted: 1/20/2011 2:30:42 PM
Originally Posted By Turbodreams:
So many questions in this thread its kinda hard to follow unless you ask youre own. So Im in the market for a preban to turn into an SBR. Question is, with CTs laws am I allowed an SBR shorter than 12" on a preban lower? Yes. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2011 2:38:00 PM
Originally Posted By rgaper:
Originally Posted By Turbodreams:
So many questions in this thread its kinda hard to follow unless you ask youre own. So Im in the market for a preban to turn into an SBR. Question is, with CTs laws am I allowed an SBR shorter than 12" on a preban lower? Yes. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Awesome, thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2011 2:51:06 PM
Need help fast!
I recently acquired a "preban" olympic arms lower. The serial number states it was manufactured before the AWB date. But it also has a stamp on it saying "M.F.R.97". I was forced to sell it last night as I needed the cash. But now there is concern that it wont be recognized as a preban in CT because the of the 97 stamp. Can someone please clear this up, because If its not I will be returning the buyers money and have to deal with the guy I bought it from which is a huge hassle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2011 3:05:04 PM
[Last Edit: 2/4/2011 3:12:38 PM by Durham68]
Originally Posted By Turbodreams:
Need help fast! I recently acquired a "preban" olympic arms lower. The serial number states it was manufactured before the AWB date. But it also has a stamp on it saying "M.F.R.97". I was forced to sell it last night as I needed the cash. But now there is concern that it wont be recognized as a preban in CT because the of the 97 stamp. Can someone please clear this up, because If its not I will be returning the buyers money and have to deal with the guy I bought it from which is a huge hassle. I think I owned one of those. The M.F.R. was discontinued when the ban was implemented. It was replaced with P.C.R. during the ban years. I think it stood for politically correct rifle. The serial number list from Olympic tells the manufacture date, which is what matters when it comes to prebans (some disagree). If it is stamped M.F.R then it must have been manufactured before 9/13/94. I'm pretty sure the 97 stamp was used to indicate that it was assembled into a complete rifle for sale in 1997 and not a preban under the Federal AWB. That is because the wording of the federal AWB required the rifle to have been assembled and complete before the ban date in order to be considered a preban. Again, some here disagree, but I'm pretty confident that the CT statute is only concerned with the manufature date. I'd keep a copy of the Olympic serial number list and their phone number with the rifle and call it good. BTW, is the 97 stamp a lighter strike than the rest of the serial number? Mine was. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2011 3:21:47 PM
Originally Posted By Durham68:
Originally Posted By Turbodreams:
Need help fast! I recently acquired a "preban" olympic arms lower. The serial number states it was manufactured before the AWB date. But it also has a stamp on it saying "M.F.R.97". I was forced to sell it last night as I needed the cash. But now there is concern that it wont be recognized as a preban in CT because the of the 97 stamp. Can someone please clear this up, because If its not I will be returning the buyers money and have to deal with the guy I bought it from which is a huge hassle. I think I owned one of those. The M.F.R. was discontinued when the ban was implemented. It was replaced with P.C.R. during the ban years. I think it stood for politically correct rifle. The serial number list from Olympic tells the manufacture date, which is what matters when it comes to prebans (some disagree). If it is stamped M.F.R then it must have been manufactured before 9/13/94. I'm pretty sure the 97 stamp was used to indicate that it was assembled into a complete rifle for sale in 1997 and not a preban under the Federal AWB. That is because the wording of the federal AWB required the rifle to have been assembled and complete before the ban date in order to be considered a preban. Again, some here disagree, but I'm pretty confident that the CT statute is only concerned with the manufature date. I'd keep a copy of the Olympic serial number list and their phone number with the rifle and call it good. BTW, is the 97 stamp a lighter strike than the rest of the serial number? Mine was. The "97" Is definitely different and nt stamped at the same time everything else was. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2011 4:12:22 PM
Originally Posted By Turbodreams:
Originally Posted By Durham68:
Originally Posted By Turbodreams:
Need help fast! I recently acquired a "preban" olympic arms lower. The serial number states it was manufactured before the AWB date. But it also has a stamp on it saying "M.F.R.97". I was forced to sell it last night as I needed the cash. But now there is concern that it wont be recognized as a preban in CT because the of the 97 stamp. Can someone please clear this up, because If its not I will be returning the buyers money and have to deal with the guy I bought it from which is a huge hassle. I think I owned one of those. The M.F.R. was discontinued when the ban was implemented. It was replaced with P.C.R. during the ban years. I think it stood for politically correct rifle. The serial number list from Olympic tells the manufacture date, which is what matters when it comes to prebans (some disagree). If it is stamped M.F.R then it must have been manufactured before 9/13/94. I'm pretty sure the 97 stamp was used to indicate that it was assembled into a complete rifle for sale in 1997 and not a preban under the Federal AWB. That is because the wording of the federal AWB required the rifle to have been assembled and complete before the ban date in order to be considered a preban. Again, some here disagree, but I'm pretty confident that the CT statute is only concerned with the manufature date. I'd keep a copy of the Olympic serial number list and their phone number with the rifle and call it good. BTW, is the 97 stamp a lighter strike than the rest of the serial number? Mine was. The "97" Is definitely different and nt stamped at the same time everything else was. If the buyer is not comfortable with the 97, I'm sure you could find a more knowledgable buyer willing to take it off your hands. The shop I sold mine to had no trouble with the 97. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2011 4:48:32 PM
Originally Posted By Durham68:
Originally Posted By Turbodreams:
Originally Posted By Durham68:
Originally Posted By Turbodreams:
Need help fast! I recently acquired a "preban" olympic arms lower. The serial number states it was manufactured before the AWB date. But it also has a stamp on it saying "M.F.R.97". I was forced to sell it last night as I needed the cash. But now there is concern that it wont be recognized as a preban in CT because the of the 97 stamp. Can someone please clear this up, because If its not I will be returning the buyers money and have to deal with the guy I bought it from which is a huge hassle. I think I owned one of those. The M.F.R. was discontinued when the ban was implemented. It was replaced with P.C.R. during the ban years. I think it stood for politically correct rifle. The serial number list from Olympic tells the manufacture date, which is what matters when it comes to prebans (some disagree). If it is stamped M.F.R then it must have been manufactured before 9/13/94. I'm pretty sure the 97 stamp was used to indicate that it was assembled into a complete rifle for sale in 1997 and not a preban under the Federal AWB. That is because the wording of the federal AWB required the rifle to have been assembled and complete before the ban date in order to be considered a preban. Again, some here disagree, but I'm pretty confident that the CT statute is only concerned with the manufature date. I'd keep a copy of the Olympic serial number list and their phone number with the rifle and call it good. BTW, is the 97 stamp a lighter strike than the rest of the serial number? Mine was. The "97" Is definitely different and nt stamped at the same time everything else was. If the buyer is not comfortable with the 97, I'm sure you could find a more knowledgable buyer willing to take it off your hands. The shop I sold mine to had no trouble with the 97. Yea the shop I transferred it through said theyd buy it from me. Im currently waiting for the guy to call me back so I can explain to him the whole ordeal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2011 8:20:55 AM
Has anyone been to Park City Tactical lately? I was thinking about going today or calling to see what Prebans that had in. I would really like to get my hands on either a Bushy or Colt Carbine. Any suggestions besides that place. I know that place has a pretty good history of it. I would also take it with just a complete lower instead of totally complete.
|
|
|
|
CTbuilder1
R-CT
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2006 CT, USA
Posts: 15031 Feedback: 100% (29) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/24/2011 10:25:51 AM
Originally Posted By 175BFD:
Has anyone been to Park City Tactical lately? I was thinking about going today or calling to see what Prebans that had in. I would really like to get my hands on either a Bushy or Colt Carbine. Any suggestions besides that place. I know that place has a pretty good history of it. I would also take it with just a complete lower instead of totally complete. What do you expect to pay for a Colt Carbine if you can find one? And chances are you will not just get a Colt Carbine lower. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2011 11:55:47 AM
Im expecting that its not going to be very cheap. Ya probably very slim chance on just the lower. However, im not sure what the going rate on it would be. Im starting to get serious about looking.
|
|
|
|
CTbuilder1
R-CT
Team Member
Joined: Sep 2006 CT, USA
Posts: 15032 Feedback: 100% (29) Link To This Post |
Posted: 2/24/2011 11:29:40 PM
Originally Posted By 175BFD:
Im expecting that its not going to be very cheap. Ya probably very slim chance on just the lower. However, im not sure what the going rate on it would be. Im starting to get serious about looking. There will be a Colt Carbine going up for sale pretty soon. It will not be cheap because the going rate on them is high. Expect to pay 2-3 times the cost of a regular preban for a Colt Carbine. This is the nicest one I have seen so far. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2011 8:10:59 AM
Thanks CT. I sent you an email.
|
|
|
