User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/16/2013 7:25:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2013 8:35:48 PM EDT
[#2]
You could be damn sure this coming session is going to be an absolute bloodbath. They know now that they can simply pass whatever they dream up and there is no process to possibly stop them.
At least we won't have to waste time giving testimony at hearings again....  It's clear nobody is listening. Although they were kind of amazing in their own way.
IMO, support CCDL with $$$, be active in local politics, take a liberal shooting every week, pray to the SCOTUS Gods, and have a free-state evacuation plan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2013 8:59:01 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could be damn sure this coming session is going to be an absolute bloodbath. They know now that they can simply pass whatever they dream up and there is no process to possibly stop them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2013 10:24:29 PM EDT
[#4]
that link does nothing for me. I get a blank page with no download
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 3:59:41 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that link does nothing for me. I get a blank page with no download Yup dead link |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 5:06:28 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year? My thinking on the matter is that they intentionally left that exemption in there because that's their way of getting around the "banning an entire class of weapons". I think the shitbirds knew they'd get their collective pee-pees slapped in court if they removed that exemption and the entire law would be thrown out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 5:14:53 AM EDT
[#7]
Link is a to their Facebook page which is a private group.
Can someone get a new link/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 5:48:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup dead link Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
that link does nothing for me. I get a blank page with no download Yup dead link same fore me |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 6:09:11 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Link is a to their Facebook page which is a private group. Can someone get a new link/ Where on their private group? Which discussion thread? Did a quick look earlier and didn't see this letter posted in their private group section. Edit: OK found it, if you belong to their private group in a post by Jack Cook, you can find it in this discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 6:27:48 AM EDT
[#10]
I found the link and downloaded the file for my records.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 6:42:16 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 7:19:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Prebans don't have to be registered only if they were registered in the 94 ban. That is what I was told by the DESPP yesterday when I called. So if you bought a preban like I did in 2005 you do have to register it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 7:31:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prebans don't have to be registered only if they were registered in the 94 ban. That is what I was told by the DESPP yesterday when I called. So if you bought a preban like I did in 2005 you do have to register it. Absolutely not true. The section of law that allows for firearms, aka "prebans", that were manufactured PRIOR to September 13, 1994 and which are NOT on the pre 4/4/13 banned by name list, is Section 53-202m. This issue has been discussed numerous times here. Anyone who reads 53-202m will understand this. The reason why the OP's post is news is because DESPP is actually admitting to the fact that prebans don't have to be registered and can be transfered. When PA 13-3 was initially passed many FFL's refused to transfer/sell prebans. Now they will but DESPP and FFL's are mandating, without any supporting law, that the buyer provide a letter from the manufacturer that attests to the preban's date of manufacture. Prebans may still be considered assault weapons and limited to where they can be used/carried, but they can be transferred and don't have to be registered. Section 53-202m: Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, as amended by this act, 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 of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 8:26:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prebans don't have to be registered only if they were registered in the 94 ban. That is what I was told by the DESPP yesterday when I called. So if you bought a preban like I did in 2005 you do have to register it. This is earth...what planet are you on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 8:32:54 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year? Ex post facto conundrum is a likely reason. To make pre-bans illegal now would mean they were always illegal, in the past, so if it can be proven you owned one before April, you could be charged for a crime...this is unconstitutional, and would kill the new statute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 9:09:54 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prebans don't have to be registered only if they were registered in the 94 ban. That is what I was told by the DESPP yesterday when I called. So if you bought a preban like I did in 2005 you do have to register it. That is incorrect sir. Commissioner Reuben Bradford of the DESPP has confirmed what has been said for months.Firearms made pre 9/1994 are indeed excluded from transfer restriction and registration requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 10:03:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ex post facto conundrum is a likely reason. To make pre-bans illegal now would mean they were always illegal, in the past, so if it can be proven you owned one before April, you could be charged for a crime...this is unconstitutional, and would kill the new statute. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year? Ex post facto conundrum is a likely reason. To make pre-bans illegal now would mean they were always illegal, in the past, so if it can be proven you owned one before April, you could be charged for a crime...this is unconstitutional, and would kill the new statute. Probably. In another thread here or elsewhere that I cannot quite remember or find someone explained in some detail why they couldn't just mandate registration and block the transfer of "prebans". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 10:20:39 AM EDT
[#18]
That was me...please don't ask me for that thread...my hair already hurts from all the mis-information I have seen here recently
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 12:16:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably. In another thread here or elsewhere that I cannot quite remember or find someone explained in some detail why they couldn't just mandate registration and block the transfer of "prebans". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year? Ex post facto conundrum is a likely reason. To make pre-bans illegal now would mean they were always illegal, in the past, so if it can be proven you owned one before April, you could be charged for a crime...this is unconstitutional, and would kill the new statute. Probably. In another thread here or elsewhere that I cannot quite remember or find someone explained in some detail why they couldn't just mandate registration and block the transfer of "prebans". Not at all. Making an item contraband does not make any statement or implication with regards to its prior status. It also would not create an ex post facto situation unless it were to penalize somebody for prior possession of the contraband article (prior to such action becoming criminal) [or enhance a penalty for violation of the law that occurred in the past]. Initially, when the relevant provisions took effect in April- the intention and effect was that the possession of so-called preban firearms would be proscribed unless the firearm was possessed prior to the effective date of the law and submitted to registration, or was an individual or entity exempt from the prohibition. In June, when the legislature made the decision again define certain firearms as assault weapons (among other things) they chose to do through in part by reenacting certain provisions of law that had been repealed in April; thus restoring the (preban) exemption from registration requirements and possession\/ transfer prohibitions and limitations imposed on assault weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 1:50:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
....... Initially, when the relevant provisions took effect in April- the intention and effect was that the possession of so-called preban firearms would be proscribed unless the firearm was possessed prior to the effective date of the law and submitted to registration, or was an individual or entity exempt from the prohibition. In June, when the legislature made the decision again define certain firearms as assault weapons (among other things) they chose to do through in part by reenacting certain provisions of law that had been repealed in April; thus restoring the (preban) exemption from registration requirements and possession\/ transfer prohibitions and limitations imposed on assault weapons. I am having difficulty understanding this. Were ARs etc not banned in 93 or 94, and those grandfathered then required to be registered? Also, why would they ban them in April 2013, but then allow pre-bans in June 2013? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 1:57:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Initially, when the relevant provisions took effect in April- the intention and effect was that the possession of so-called preban firearms would be proscribed unless the firearm was possessed prior to the effective date of the law and submitted to registration, or was an individual or entity exempt from the prohibition. In June, when the legislature made the decision again define certain firearms as assault weapons (among other things) they chose to do through in part 530by reenacting certain provisions of law that had been repealed in April; thus restoring the (preban) exemption from registration requirements and possession\/ transfer prohibitions and limitations imposed on assault weapons. Section 53-202m wasn't repealed with PA 13-3, rather what happened is that portions of the law that 53-202m referenced were rewritten, renumbered. As such 53-202m was an orphan section of law that didn't make sense. That had to either repeal it completely, or repeal and rewrite it. They chose to repeal and rewrite it so it continued to allow the transfer and non registration of prebans. The question is, when looking at this from a gun grabbers perspective, why did they not simply repeal 53-202m and mandate even preban's be registered when they wrote SB1094? Was there a legal reason why they couldn't? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 3:30:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Delta Arsenal is having an auction on Saturday.
They are listing at least 3 preban EA lowers and 2 Preban Colt sporters. They would not make any mistakes concerning this issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 4:47:50 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Delta Arsenal is having an auction on Saturday. They are listing at least 3 preban EA lowers and 2 Preban Colt sporters. They would not make any mistakes concerning this issue. I was there yesterday. The estate auction items are in excellent condition. There are indeed a couple old Colt's and a few lowers. If you are in need of or in desire of some nice firearms the items are all excellent. You can bid by phone if you can't make it to the store. Just call and register. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 5:35:18 PM EDT
[#24]
From the Woodbridge Trading Post Facebook page...
Just got a phone call from the State police NOT to act on the letter by the commissioner. I will be contacting the legal department at the state and try to clarify this. I dont want to go to jail and I dont want to see any of you there. As soon as I hear something I will post it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2013 5:57:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Well that escalated quickly!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 3:26:13 AM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 7:00:35 AM EDT
[#27]
Woodbridge Firearms Trading Post just posted this on Facebook.
Just got a phone call from the State police NOT to act on the letter by the commissioner. I will be contacting the legal department at the state and try to clarify this. I dont want to go to jail and I dont want to see any of you there. As soon as I hear something I will post it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 7:32:58 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Woodbridge Firearms Trading Post just posted this on Facebook. Yes we know, it was mentioned yesterday in this very same thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 7:51:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Woodbridge Firearms Trading Post just posted this on Facebook. Yes we know, it was mentioned yesterday in this very same thread.
Well then... Touche' Sir. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 11:06:43 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is earth...what planet are you on? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Prebans don't have to be registered only if they were registered in the 94 ban. That is what I was told by the DESPP yesterday when I called. So if you bought a preban like I did in 2005 you do have to register it. This is earth...what planet are you on? Same planet as you im just stating what I was told by the DESPP when I called. So not everyone there knows what the hell they are talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 11:20:10 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is incorrect sir. Commissioner Reuben Bradford of the DESPP has confirmed what has been said for months.Firearms made pre 9/1994 are indeed excluded from transfer restriction and registration requirements. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Prebans don't have to be registered only if they were registered in the 94 ban. That is what I was told by the DESPP yesterday when I called. So if you bought a preban like I did in 2005 you do have to register it. That is incorrect sir. Commissioner Reuben Bradford of the DESPP has confirmed what has been said for months.Firearms made pre 9/1994 are indeed excluded from transfer restriction and registration requirements. Ok so I have a Bushmaster made in 1992 and I purchased it in 2005. There is no registration required ? It is in a Trust and is an SBR does that change anything? Thanks Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 1:17:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My thinking on the matter is that they intentionally left that exemption in there because that's their way of getting around the "banning an entire class of weapons". I think the shitbirds knew they'd get their collective pee-pees slapped in court if they removed that exemption and the entire law would be thrown out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year? My thinking on the matter is that they intentionally left that exemption in there because that's their way of getting around the "banning an entire class of weapons". I think the shitbirds knew they'd get their collective pee-pees slapped in court if they removed that exemption and the entire law would be thrown out. No It's because they were in too much of a rush to cover all of the bases and ram this through, that they missed the details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 1:26:06 PM EDT
[#33]
"Don't let the details get in the way of a good storytrampling of the constitution"
New Progressive slogan |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 3:32:49 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No It's because they were in too much of a rush to cover all of the bases and ram this through, that they missed the details. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year? My thinking on the matter is that they intentionally left that exemption in there because that's their way of getting around the "banning an entire class of weapons". I think the shitbirds knew they'd get their collective pee-pees slapped in court if they removed that exemption and the entire law would be thrown out. No It's because they were in too much of a rush to cover all of the bases and ram this through, that they missed the details. They didn't miss the details, the specially went back in and updated 53-202m in SB 1094/PA 13-220 to deal with the renumbering/relettering of the subsections in the SB 1160/PA 13-3 repeal and rewrite of 52-202a and other statutes. Question is why? From the gun grabbers perspective they could have just repealed 53-202m in PA 13-220 but they didn't, they specific kept in on the books. If, as a person (possibly Scott Wilson) over on CTGT has indicated "DESPP is not happy about the prebans being legal, neither is Martin Looney or Don Williams". If so why didn't they remove it when they had the chance? Its not like transferring prebans something new. Its been on the books since 2001. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2013 7:44:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They didn't miss the details, the specially went back in and updated 53-202m in SB 1094/PA 13-220 to deal with the renumbering/relettering of the subsections in the SB 1160/PA 13-3 repeal and rewrite of 52-202a and other statutes. Question is why? From the gun grabbers perspective they could have just repealed 53-202m in PA 13-220 but they didn't, they specific kept in on the books. If, as a person (possibly Scott Wilson) over on CTGT has indicated "DESPP is not happy about the prebans being legal, neither is Martin Looney or Don Williams". If so why didn't they remove it when they had the chance? Its not like transferring prebans something new. Its been on the books since 2001. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year? My thinking on the matter is that they intentionally left that exemption in there because that's their way of getting around the "banning an entire class of weapons". I think the shitbirds knew they'd get their collective pee-pees slapped in court if they removed that exemption and the entire law would be thrown out. No It's because they were in too much of a rush to cover all of the bases and ram this through, that they missed the details. They didn't miss the details, the specially went back in and updated 53-202m in SB 1094/PA 13-220 to deal with the renumbering/relettering of the subsections in the SB 1160/PA 13-3 repeal and rewrite of 52-202a and other statutes. Question is why? From the gun grabbers perspective they could have just repealed 53-202m in PA 13-220 but they didn't, they specific kept in on the books. If, as a person (possibly Scott Wilson) over on CTGT has indicated "DESPP is not happy about the prebans being legal, neither is Martin Looney or Don Williams". If so why didn't they remove it when they had the chance? Its not like transferring prebans something new. Its been on the books since 2001. Meh, it looks like SOP in how the ORL and legislative aides collaborate on legal language. i.e. Back up to original language, and adjust to achieve desired result. But to your point, they could had just written a section that "all cows must now be blue", but they also have to work with previous challenges, potential court challenges, and also the ability of DPSS to understand and enforce it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2013 10:30:23 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They didn't miss the details, the specially went back in and updated 53-202m in SB 1094/PA 13-220 to deal with the renumbering/relettering of the subsections in the SB 1160/PA 13-3 repeal and rewrite of 52-202a and other statutes. Question is why? From the gun grabbers perspective they could have just repealed 53-202m in PA 13-220 but they didn't, they specific kept in on the books. If, as a person (possibly Scott Wilson) over on CTGT has indicated "DESPP is not happy about the prebans being legal, neither is Martin Looney or Don Williams". If so why didn't they remove it when they had the chance? Its not like transferring prebans something new. Its been on the books since 2001. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did we ever come up with a reason why they didn't ban prebans? Or that's just gonna happen next year? My thinking on the matter is that they intentionally left that exemption in there because that's their way of getting around the "banning an entire class of weapons". I think the shitbirds knew they'd get their collective pee-pees slapped in court if they removed that exemption and the entire law would be thrown out. No It's because they were in too much of a rush to cover all of the bases and ram this through, that they missed the details. They didn't miss the details, the specially went back in and updated 53-202m in SB 1094/PA 13-220 to deal with the renumbering/relettering of the subsections in the SB 1160/PA 13-3 repeal and rewrite of 52-202a and other statutes. Question is why? From the gun grabbers perspective they could have just repealed 53-202m in PA 13-220 but they didn't, they specific kept in on the books. If, as a person (possibly Scott Wilson) over on CTGT has indicated "DESPP is not happy about the prebans being legal, neither is Martin Looney or Don Williams". If so why didn't they remove it when they had the chance? Its not like transferring prebans something new. Its been on the books since 2001. Again, I say it's because I think they're smarter than we're giving them credit for. They know they can't outright ban an entire class of weapons. They even stated that and they also said that this new law will stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Well, if it's going to stand up to constitutional scrutiny, how would it do that if it bans the entire class of weapons? By NOT banning prebans, they haven't technically done that. That's WHY Looney/Williams/et al aren't happy about it. They're all conniving bastards up there in Hartford, but they're not stupid. They wanted to have the maximum impact on us law abiding gun owners by making our 99.9% of our rifles illegal. That way, they can justifiably say "we didn't ban an entire class of weapons." The point COULD be made that they made them unobtainable, but not entirely illegal. Take the federal regs on machine guns, for instance. They're not illegal, but they're prohibitively expensive to own. Same deal here. I think they knew that if they'd leave the preban exemption in there, it would create a HUGE demand for them with a relatively small supply, thus driving the cost up out of the reach of most people, and thereby causing a de facto ban. Then, they don't have to get their hands dirty and deal with that pesky 2nd Amendment issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2013 11:15:41 AM EDT
[#37]
They should just confiscate the damn things. Preban postban transban. Come get them
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2013 12:20:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, I say it's because I think they're smarter than we're giving them credit for. They know they can't outright ban an entire class of weapons. They even stated that and they also said that this new law will stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Well, if it's going to stand up to constitutional scrutiny, how would it do that if it bans the entire class of weapons? By NOT banning prebans, they haven't technically done that. That's WHY Looney/Williams/et al aren't happy about it. They're all conniving bastards up there in Hartford, but they're not stupid. They wanted to have the maximum impact on us law abiding gun owners by making our 99.9% of our rifles illegal. That way, they can justifiably say "we didn't ban an entire class of weapons." The point COULD be made that they made them unobtainable, but not entirely illegal. Take the federal regs on machine guns, for instance. They're not illegal, but they're prohibitively expensive to own. Same deal here. I think they knew that if they'd leave the preban exemption in there, it would create a HUGE demand for them with a relatively small supply, thus driving the cost up out of the reach of most people, and thereby causing a de facto ban. Then, they don't have to get their hands dirty and deal with that pesky 2nd Amendment issue. Depending on how one views the current situation one could argue (as I would) that the legislature has effectively banned AR's because they've forced the price of the remaining few prebans that are legal way above the price of a basic entry level AR prior to the new laws on 4/4/13. The legislature has artificially interfered and limited an entire class of firearms to a fixed limited number of firearms produced prior to 9/13/94. They further reduced that limited number by banning certain firearms by name and preventing those manufactured prior to 9/13/94 from being transferred within this state. On the flip side. It could also be argued, from the gun grabbers point of view, that repealing 53-202m, doesn't ban an entire class since the legislature is still allowing them to be sold in CT, its just they're limited to being sold to a select group of people, that happened to mostly be members of government organizations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 4:29:26 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok so I have a Bushmaster made in 1992 and I purchased it in 2005. There is no registration required ? It is in a Trust and is an SBR does that change anything? Thanks Mike Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Prebans don't have to be registered only if they were registered in the 94 ban. That is what I was told by the DESPP yesterday when I called. So if you bought a preban like I did in 2005 you do have to register it. That is incorrect sir. Commissioner Reuben Bradford of the DESPP has confirmed what has been said for months.Firearms made pre 9/1994 are indeed excluded from transfer restriction and registration requirements. Ok so I have a Bushmaster made in 1992 and I purchased it in 2005. There is no registration required ? It is in a Trust and is an SBR does that change anything? Thanks Mike I have basically the same set up as you. A PWA made in 1990 I purchased in 2007. I SBR'd it and it is part of my trust. A Pre ban is a Preban regardless if a trust or a individual owns it. Bewtween what my attorney has told me and now the Commissioner Reuben Bradford of the DESPP confirming it,I will not be registering my prebans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 12:16:23 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Delta Arsenal is having an auction on Saturday. They are listing at least 3 preban EA lowers and 2 Preban Colt sporters. They would not make any mistakes concerning this issue. How was the turn out? I have 2 pre bans over there and I don't know if they sold or not. They are complete rifles with optics and are over 2 bills each, plus their commission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 12:22:56 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:it.
Bewtween what my attorney has told me and now the Commissioner Reuben Bradford of the DESPP confirming it,I will not be registering my prebans. Even if you did register them, like I did , you can still sell them to someone else down the road so the assault weapon paper work really amounts to nothing. Just legal harassment...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 3:16:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How was the turn out? I have 2 pre bans over there and I don't know if they sold or not. They are complete rifles with optics and are over 2 bills each, plus their commission. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Delta Arsenal is having an auction on Saturday. They are listing at least 3 preban EA lowers and 2 Preban Colt sporters. They would not make any mistakes concerning this issue. How was the turn out? I have 2 pre bans over there and I don't know if they sold or not. They are complete rifles with optics and are over 2 bills each, plus their commission. Didn't make it. Spent most of the day burning brush, moving my wood pile, and eating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 7:15:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Double
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 7:15:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Eating is good. My prebans sold. To all the gun grabbers, you failed to stop honest citizens from buying and selling black rifles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 7:56:12 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eating is good. My prebans sold. To all the gun grabbers, you failed to stop honest citizens from buying and selling black rifles. What did they go for if y don't mind my asking? I have a couple up for sale right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2013 8:38:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eating is good. My prebans sold. To all the gun grabbers, you failed to stop honest citizens from buying and selling black rifles. I may have seen yours get sold Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2013 3:37:30 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have 3 other former pre ban rifles that got trapped because they are now 'named" weapons. if they weren't named in the original ban they are still transferable.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2013 3:42:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if they weren't named in the original ban they are still transferable.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have 3 other former pre ban rifles that got trapped because they are now 'named" weapons. if they weren't named in the original ban they are still transferable.... Now you done it... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2013 5:08:57 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have 3 other former pre ban rifles that got trapped because they are now 'named" weapons. I can't sell these in state and we all know we will loose our shirts if we tried. So what if they are banned by PA 13-3's expanded banned by name list. Section 53-202m excludes the various updates to the law post 4/4/13 from transfer and registration requirements of prebans. The ONLY banned by name list that matters (as of now) is the one from the OLD law. Not on that list and manufactured prior to 9/13/94, then nothing in the new law affects transfer and it doesn't have to be registered. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
