Sbhaven was right!

You guys better take down those pics of the maadis and norincos you bought!

Definition of Type:

And were right because the DESPP is in agreeance with us



How can two parties be right with different interpretations?


I'll put this out there


OLR doesn't enforece what they interpret , the DESPP does however. And we all know what the DESPP has said.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

The DESPP interpretation is not new and has been posted previously to at least one thread here.

Not sure how we never looked at like that.

Semis and autos are obviously not the same type of weapon. So how could anAKM ever be construed to be  type of an  Avtomat Kalashnikov AK47 d

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

No one is right as of now. Its just the Office of Legal Research's opinion. Just as DESPP/SLFU has their own opinion. This opens up the possibility of a court challenge because the agency tasked with enforcing the law has a differing opinion than another state office that issues legal opinions. This will also probably lead to the legislators coming down on the side of OLR and possibly rewriting 53-202m to either repeal it or clarify it in some fashion. Lawlor has publicly stated his dissatisfaction with the whole "preban" thing anyhow.

Post updated

Yup

Buy your prebans now

A court dealt with the "Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type" by coming up with a three pronged test (appearance, functionality, and parts interchangeability) in this opinion. And DPS at the time issued a document outlining that three prong test. Edit: There is also this DPS document that deals with AK's chambered in calibers other than 7.62x39.

While we know that already, we never thought of differentiating a true ak47 type, which is in the law by name, and the AKM type which  is not

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

OLR does not issue legal opinions, they provide information (to legislators).

Right, fixed my initial post to reflect that. But the problem remains, we now have two different state agencies/groups issuing different opinions on the law. Opinion's, like that of DESPP,  which could possibly involve substantial jail time if the opinion is wrong. Its going to probably take either a court challenge, or someone getting arrested for having a legally obtained preban banned by name firearm but was arrested because the officer thought it was illegal to clear this up. I'll be surprised if either side reverses themselves on their opinion of the preban issue.

Yup this one is going to take an arrest

But it might be just what we need

So, I wonder who the sucker will be. Poor guy.  Arrested, stripped of rights, plastered on TV and newspapers.  All because this asinine state can't come to some resolution over a description?  OTOH that John Doe might have a hell of case with the right lawyer and the state stands to lose big time in the courts if it can be shown that even the state, itself, can't understand the regs.  They could use some financial punishment that will mean something.

Doesn't this bother any body else as it does me?    This is the big leagues yet the players all perform like they're still in high-school. This isn't some stupid club we belong to.  To many it might have a life-altering affect on them just because overpaid and underworked Connecticut employees can't settle this properly, one way or the other.

Asshats.

Rome

We are already all felons in there eye's

Open carry guys love doing this type of stuff.

As confident as I am the DESPP is right on this one, I'm actually thinking about just consigning the thing that is probably waiting for me right now.

Been thinking about this all day. I have made up my mind as of now.  And King Tut says I should enjoy some of his  Egyptian goodness.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

you got a link you can hook a brudda up wit?

Just sent you an email. Check your box

Are you confident because you want DESPP to be right or are you confident because the language of the law backs up DESPP's interpretation of the law?

When you compare the DESPP opinion to the OLR opinion side by side you see that the DESPP "Ipso Facto" conclusion completely leaves out the text; "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,". Instead they replace that line with ". . ." and come to the conclusion that all banned by name prebans manufactured prior to 9/13/93 are legal to transfer and don't have to be registered.

Guess it will be up to a court to figure out if the ". . ." in DESPP's interpretation is a valid understanding of the law as written, edit: if someone gets arrested for having a banned by name preban.

Does the VZ58 fit under the AK-47 banned list?
Im pretty sure it works differently than an AK, but it looks like one.....so does this slip by the banned AK's?
Or if it's a preban does it get by?

See my post above, it links to several documents, one from a court and two from DESPP, that deal with the AK-47 issue and the three prong test that the court used to determine if a firearm falls into the AK-47 type.

If its preban but viewed as an AK-47 type then it will depend on who's interpretation of 53-202m you want to believe as to its legality.

There are no preban VZ58's

There are a few title II transferables and post samples. You can actually see them standing in for AK-47's
In red dawn and a few other movies.  But there are no semi autos out there from that time.

The more and more I read the actual text of the new and improved version of 53-202m, the more and more I am convinced that I am suffering from a case of


I believe that the biggest red herring in the room is literally the red highlighting that DESPP used in their presentation of the exemption. Let me copy in the entire text:



The text that was added to the verbiage of 53-202m in the PA13-220 repeal and revision is underlined.

In their selective highlighting, the unidentified individual within DESPP who drafted the basis for preban transferability document, interpreted the  
to apply to pre 13 September 1994 firearms, in a broad term. However as you read more closely, you begin to realize that the "as amended" reference refers to registration and transfer restrictions relating to firearms defined as assault weapons pursuant to the 53-202a(a)(3) and 53-202(a)(4), as those sections were written on 1 January 2013- sections which were effectively deleted upon PA13-3 taking effect. Thus there is not a new, more broad, expanse of transferable, no registration required preban firearms. Rather, we are (at best) limited to what would have been allowed before the passage of the new laws. 53-202a(a)(3)and53-202(a)(4) of the CGS/ 1958 Revision in effect on 1 January 2013 were "the old feature ban." 53-202a(1) was the named model and type ban, which included AK-47 type firearms.

It's going to be sucktacular that I won't be able to get a MAK, but I guess it's good that I stopped in here to get my blood pressure up before I went out to bring anything home.

Dang!!
Thanks for the info though, I didn't realize that.
Whenever I look at an AK I always say they look they'd only be fun full auto.  There's nothing about them that seems precision/semi auto, just my opinion though.

I actually rented a full auto AK (Norinco with a standard fixed wood butt) a few years ago at a MG shoot. The lack of ergonomics made it the most (physically) uncomfortable shooting experience that I ever had. It doesn't change the fact that I would really like a (legal) AK- mostly for the lure and mystique.

Try a full auto HK G3 or M-14!

It still is a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazine.

Freedom Shoppe in Milford DOES sell VZ-58's, but the magazine is internally locked. It's not welded either, but removing it would obviously be illegal.

They aren't cheap though. I think $1300 is what they are selling them for. Hard to justify when AIM Surplus has VZ-58's for $500

Those are cheap centuries.  I'm assuming that FS uses the real CZ/dtechnic guns.  (Which were $859 shipped and FFL fee paid just a year ago)

There is no way Lawlor and Co. are going to let this go on much longer.

I want to believe too, but every time my non lawyer I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night mind reads both 53-202m and the old 53-202a I just don't see how DESPP and others are coming to their conclusion. Keep in mind that PA 13-3 did not modify or change 53-202m in any way. As the OLR document explains when PA 13-3 repealed and replaced section 53-202a it reordered the subsection numbering and subdivision numbering within 53-202a. As such 53-202m was an orphan statute in a sense since it referenced subsections and subdivisions of 53-202a that no longer existed. When PA 13-220 repealed and replaced 53-202m it changed the reference to subdivision (3) and (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a so it referred to the law as it existed on January 1, 2013. The only way the DESPP opinion makes sense to me is if they ignore the text "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," in the revised 53-202m. Once that section is ignored then the specific language of subdivision (3) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a of the old law that states "any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection" no longer applies. Subdivision (1) of "that subsection", ie. the old 54-202a (a), is the initial banned by name list. The other possible way to get around the old law's "not listed in subdivision (1)" language is to apply the new 53-202m language; "notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, as amended by this act," to the repealed law as it was on January 1, 2013. If that was the case, why bother including the "as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a" in the revised 63-202m to define the assault weapons to be exempted since everything in 53-202a, both old and new, would have been excluded?

This stuff is exceeding confusing because we're looking at both the new law and the old law and trying to divine what the idiot writers intended or stated and as we see we are coming to a multitude of different opinions. In another thread here we had a lengthy discussion where one person's opinion was no prebans could be transferred because of the wording of the revised 53-202a and 53-202m.

If the DESPP opinion is valid, great. If not it has the potential to put some FFL's and gun owners into potentially hot water legally because, if the law was followed DESPP will get a DPS-3-C form indicated a banned by name preban was transferred/sold to a CT resident. If the DESPP opinion is wrong then people may possibly have obtained, per the wording of the law, illegal assault weapons and because of the DPS-3-C form the state will know exactly who bought them.

I better keep the dags inside...

Good call

PARTS INTERCHANGEABILITY !!!

WTF is a dag

Likely no choice...ex post facto drove 53-202M to stay, on the court challenge scale it registered an 11 out of 10, would even likely have been overturned down by the liberal state court on challenge. Here is the way to look at this. If 202M was deleted (I resist using the word repealed), all pre-bans owned prior to 4/13 would have been illegal in the past and they could have arrested you if they knew you had one in the past...that in itself is an illegal law. If they left 53-202M as it was after PA 13-3 without fixing the language, then the 53-202M statute would still apply, however the qualification would not apply since it would be invalid due the changed reference numbers (they say ambiguity, yeah, ok…it really means those words would be ignored by a judge)  ...so in that case ALL prebans made prior to Sept. 1994 would have become legal. Below would be how to read the words and you have to ignore the now “bad” references (strikethrough area):

     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.

Well they didn’t want that, so the best they could do was get 53-202M to circle back to the old ban by name and feature list, taking it back to pre-April 2013 law by (very carefully) changing a few choice words in the new (PA 13-220) to accomodate the new references and yet still impose the "old law" so to speak. There is no conspiracy here…they way they changed 53-202M to flow right into the new law but still use language from the old law was carefully thought out and likely the only thing they could do....

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.

So…what that means, is if all of those people who think the old ban by name list is no longer intended to apply to pre-bans are correct, then they would have had no reason to re-write 53-202M in PA 13-220 and could have left it as is with the “ambiguous” references and take their chance with a judge down the road..

53-202M was and is a clearly written grandfather clause, generally once in, they are almost impossible to get rid of due to ex post facto issues.

Don’t hurt yourselves ..

Dog

It's like a doge

I see, must be the new common core engrish

 

http://youtu.be/zH64dlgyydM

Yep. Next year they will take care of this little oversight. Let's not forget no matter how many complain in Hartford or write letters, the children of Sandy Hook will be avenged.

"No. and its not a loophole, stop using that term, it is a clearly written statute"

THIS!!!!!