Ryt2own I didn't realize that AK47 letter came from you, I will edit my earlier post to give credit where credit is due.

Originally Posted By Ryt2own: FWIW, my mothers fiance, is a practicing attorney, a retired CSP lieutenant, and pro-gun. He was a lawyer for the state cops for 5 years too. He felt (after several re-reads) that the statute allowed for lower receivers to be included also.

My mothers brothers friends husbands sisters cousin knows a friend of a friend of a person that works near the SLFU and has talked to the secretary of the guy who answers letters from AR15 guys and he said............................

Did you coach him on the re-reads.

Good to know he is just Practicing..............

Guys and Girls, I may sound a little stubburn on this but I assure you I am only trying to keep all of you safe and away from legal problems.

It will be very very hard to prove that a stripped lower made before 9/13/1994 was not assembled into an assault weapon before the date but if you have proof or a paper that says it was then we will both sleep better at night. I have a preban that was sold as a stripped lower and I have a notarized letter from the previous owner that it was assembled into an assault weapon prior to 9/13/1994. I suggest you do the same.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and good shooting.

Kevin

Have fun with bubba! Hopefully, he is not well endowed.

I'll remember to pack some KY

I'm not too worried about it considering I'll be sitting there with numerous others as well a 1/4 of the states FFL dealers. Like I said before I am only trying to put this info out there, it is up to the individual to do what they are going to do. Apparently we all have some common ground on what qualifies as a legal "assault weapon" in this state. It's really a shame we even have to have this discussion. If our rights were not infringed on by one of the worst state attorney generals in the country this would not be a problem. I'm glad he does not take his salary, but he still pisses away state money like you would not believe. Not the time or place to get into it but those who know know. Add onto that a set of cryptic and ridiculously written statutes and a law enforcement body who can't be bothered with your questions/concerns and you end up...........well right here.

Send 10 letters with the same question to the SLFU and I believe you will get 10 different answers. Maybe I will talk to some of my CSP friends about arranging a face to face to hash out some of these questions. We'll see.


Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all, and of course good shooting

For what it's worth, I'll give you $200 no questions asked for any stripped lower that was manufactured prior to Sept-94, regardless of it's configuration at that time.

Originally Posted By audibk: Originally Posted By RealFastV6: For what it's worth, I'll give you $200 no questions asked for any stripped lower that was manufactured prior to Sept-94, regardless of it's configuration at that time. I have one but are you willing to post the serial number and your name and address here on the same listing?

First of all, this isn't a WTB, WTS, WTT thread or forum. That belongs on the EE (or IM each other). Second of all what would be the relevance to posting your name and address. I think I know what your getting at. Open yourself up to legal action from the CSP because you interpret the law as preban stripped lowers not being legal as assault weapons. This is a real dumb thing to say. Posting your name and address on an open forum (especially one dealing with this subject matter) just increases the risk of any onlooker burglarizing your house, real smart.

We all know your point of view on this subject, you have posted your opinion and posted warnings to those whose opinions differ. Lets try to keep this post constructive and keep the BS level down.

Also do you have any documented cases of the CSP taking one of these cases to court. If you do please share. The only one I know of is the case involving the AK variant, that wasn't even a preban issue. The CSP does not want to take any of these cases to court, they settle outside so the poorly written statute does not come under to much scrutiny. Do you have any idea how many people in this state have these stripped lowers assembled into "assault weapons?" Quite a few. I wonder if they will be getting their doors kicked in and thrown in jail? Once again please provide proof of any court cases involving preban lowers.

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1: Originally Posted By audibk: Originally Posted By RealFastV6: For what it's worth, I'll give you $200 no questions asked for any stripped lower that was manufactured prior to Sept-94, regardless of it's configuration at that time. I have one but are you willing to post the serial number and your name and address here on the same listing? First of all, this isn't a WTB, WTS, WTT thread or forum. That belongs on the EE (or IM each other). Second of all what would be the relevance to posting your name and address. I think I know what your getting at. Open yourself up to legal action from the CSP because you interpret the law as preban stripped lowers not being legal as assault weapons. This is a real dumb thing to say. Posting your name and address on an open forum (especially one dealing with this subject matter) just increases the risk of any onlooker burglarizing your house, real smart. We all know your point of view on this subject, you have posted your opinion and posted warnings to those whose opinions differ. Lets try to keep this post constructive and keep the BS level down. Also do you have any documented cases of the CSP taking one of these cases to court. If you do please share. The only one I know of is the case involving the AK variant, that wasn't even a preban issue. The CSP does not want to take any of these cases to court, they settle outside so the poorly written statute does not come under to much scrutiny. Do you have any idea how many people in this state have these stripped lowers assembled into "assault weapons?" Quite a few. I wonder if they will be getting their doors kicked in and thrown in jail? Once again please provide proof of any court cases involving preban lowers.

Not meaning to turn this into a WTB thread.

The point is, I'm certain enough regarding the legal status of lowers made prior to 94 that I'm more then willing to purchase them from those who aren't certain enough to hang onto them.

I'm really glad I found this thread here. I didn't realize that there was still such a strict ban in place here in CT. I guess I won't be buying a folding stock for my 10/22. I just don't understand how that suddenly makes it an assault weapon, but I guess that's what everyone's frustration is.

If I understand correctly, I have 2 options for getting an AR that is undoubtedly legal. I don't want to take any chances with gray area things. Basically, If I want one with all the stuff I need to find a complete rifle that was built pre-ban and came with all the evil items. If I buy one that was built after the ban, it has to have nothing but the pistol grip and isn't on the specific list. Is this correct? While not favorable, the latter is probably the most cost effective option. Can anyone recommend a particular model that is reasonably priced and CT legal?

One other thing, does the pre-ban model have to have been in CT and registered when the ban was put in place or can I bring one in from a state without the ban?

This stuff is so crazy. If I buy a folding pistol grip stock for my 10/22 it's an assault weapon, but if I buy a brand new post-ban Bushmaster, it isn't. If I had to pick which one I'd rather look down the barrel of, it would definitely be the Ruger!

I assume that even though my 10/22 was built in 93, it would fall in to the same gray area as a pre-ban lower that wasn't built in to an AW before the ban. I'm not taking any chances with getting a stock collapsible stock for it. Too bad, that's the last thing I wanted to get.

The wording is vague, and it does seem like they'd have quite a bit of trouble building a case. It seems as if the gun wasn't an AW before the ban and then becomes one after, it shouldn't be exempt. I believe this is the intended nature of the ban, but the wording prevents that from being enforceable.

Originally Posted By audibk: I sent a letter to the SLFU and asked if I could create an assault weapon from a very old pre-ban Remington 1100. They said NO This proves that even a preban stripped lower is NOT an assault weapon and if you build it into an assault weapon, regardless of wether it is a firearm by itself or not, you are breaking the law. A firearm/rifle/pistol is not an Assault Weapon as defined by the law unless it has certain features. A stripped lower can be assembled in a post ban configuration or a preban configuration. If it never had or shared it's bed with evil features it is POST BAN regardless of the date. Have fun with bubba! Hopefully, he is not well endowed.

Are you that kid who used to sit in the front of class on Friday afternoon when the bell rang and go "Teacher you forgot to give us homework, is there any?"

The SLFU has made it clear that they're more then willing to create legislation based on those questions, and you're going to go firing them off stupid letters? How about you do every gun owner in Connecticut a favor and put the pen down for a little while?

The LETTER OF THE LAW was very clear on the issue, and it was MORE then defensible in court for any gun owner who ended up there. Did you think they were going to be honest about their answer either way? Now, thanks to your stupid move, the SFLU has an opinion on something they previously didn't.

Hope you accomplished your goal.

Originally Posted By audibk: Originally Posted By RealFastV6: Did you think they were going to be honest about their answer either way? Now, thanks to your stupid move, the SFLU has an opinion on something they previously didn't. Hope you accomplished your goal. My initial thoughts were to respond to your ignorance but instead I will try to educate you. Repitition plays an important part in learning. Read the law. Their response is word for word from the law. The date of manufacture of the receiver is only one part of being exempt as an Assault Weapon. Read the law. The Law states that a gun "as stated in section 3 or 4 above that was Manufactured prior to the date is excempt". It doesn't say that any firearm manufactured prior to the date can be converted to an AW. Read the law.

Sure it does. The more I read it the more clear it becomes to me. Don't get me wrong, audibk, I am not here to bash you or make personal attacks, neither one of us are going to convince the other of out interpretation of the law. Thats just the way it is I guess. But here is goes one more time around.

Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.


subdivisions (3) and (4) of subsection (a) specify what an assault weapon is as far as feature count, or parts in the possession of a person.

Now, bear with me here, provided such firearm was leagally manufactured prior to 9.13.94 it can be used as a "host" weapon for those features. No where does it specifically state that the preban firearm had to be in assault weapon configuration prior to the ban. Please tell me where it states this? I read it over and over and over and it is nowhere to be found.

"....shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a,...."

so here it states that these weapons can be transfered and do not require registration. Wepons defined in the coresponding subsections.

"....provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994."

and here it states what makes the weapon qualify for exclusion. It does not get any simpiler then this. I am not taking anything out of context here as it is all spelled out in full in RED.

Once again it never states the weapon had to be assembled as an "assault weapon" prior to 9.13.94, it only states that the FIREARM had to be legally manufactured before 9.13.94.

A ruger 10/22 manufactured pre-9-13-94, being a semi auto with detachable magazine is a FIREARM legally manufactured before the ban date. Say today 1.21.08, I put a pistol grip and folding stock on it. It now becomes an assualt weapon according to subdivision (3) of subsection (a). Correct? Correct.

Now according to Sec. 53-202m of the CT general statute we have on our hands an assualt weapon that is transferable and does not have to be registered because the FIREARM was manufactured prior to 9.13.94.

This seems very clear to me and to others, I don't know how to break it down any further and once again I reiterate it is up to the discression of the individual to chose what they want to do as far as creating or purchasing an "assault weapon." I know what I am willing to buy, others know what they are willing to buy. My comfort zone is very high on this one, and will continue to be there because it is protected by the word of the law.

Originally Posted By audibk: Originally Posted By RealFastV6: Did you think they were going to be honest about their answer either way? Now, thanks to your stupid move, the SFLU has an opinion on something they previously didn't. Hope you accomplished your goal. My initial thoughts were to respond to your ignorance but instead I will try to educate you. Repitition plays an important part in learning. Read the law. Their response is word for word from the law. The date of manufacture of the receiver is only one part of being exempt as an Assault Weapon. Read the law. The Law states that a gun "as stated in section 3 or 4 above that was Manufactured prior to the date is excempt". It doesn't say that any firearm manufactured prior to the date can be converted to an AW. Read the law.

Remember 4 years ago when nobody on this forum knew their elbow from their asshole with regards to the CT Assault Weapons Ban, and I wrote the original FAQ to clarify it?

I've read it. I've read it a THOUSAND TIMES.

Maybe I'll write them a letter about that Colt Carbine too and ask if it's an AR15. That'd be a wonderful idea too huh?

Where in the law does it say that the Colt Carbine is legal?

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1: Originally Posted By RealFastV6: Originally Posted By audibk: Originally Posted By RealFastV6: Did you think they were going to be honest about their answer either way? Now, thanks to your stupid move, the SFLU has an opinion on something they previously didn't. Hope you accomplished your goal. My initial thoughts were to respond to your ignorance but instead I will try to educate you. Repitition plays an important part in learning. Read the law. Their response is word for word from the law. The date of manufacture of the receiver is only one part of being exempt as an Assault Weapon. Read the law. The Law states that a gun "as stated in section 3 or 4 above that was Manufactured prior to the date is excempt". It doesn't say that any firearm manufactured prior to the date can be converted to an AW. Read the law. Remember 4 years ago when nobody on this forum knew their elbow from their asshole with regards to the CT Assault Weapons Ban, and I wrote the original FAQ to clarify it? I've read it. I've read it a THOUSAND TIMES. Maybe I'll write them a letter about that Colt Carbine too and ask if it's an AR15. That'd be a wonderful idea too huh? That Colt Carbine is a very good example of a gun that you would want proper documentation for. Even though it is not marked AR15 or sporter it is still markded COLT and it has all "evil" features in tact. If any LEO saw that thing you would have some serious explaining to do. I would almost guarantee it would get seized just because they would assume it was an COLT AR15, banned by name. Make sure you get a letter from colt spelling out exactly what that gun is, make copies and make sure a copy of that letter is never more then 3 feet away from that gun in CT.

A basic letter from Colt stating the Make, Model, Serial Number, Manufacture Date, and confirmation of evil features before the ban? Sure.

Write a letter to the SFLU to ASK them if it's legal in the state of Connecticut? Not a chance in hell.

Simply put, Customer Service at Colt will not even tell you that the rifle meets CT Ban requirements. What makes anybody think the SFLU would tell you that it is legal in the state of Connecticut?