Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 4/8/2014 6:28:56 AM EDT
From the ATF themselves:
"When ATF tested the 7N6 samples provided by CBP, they were found to contain a steel core. ATF’s analysis also concluded that the ammunition could be used in a commercially available handgun, the Fabryka Bronie Radom, Model Onyks 89S, 5.45x39 caliber semi-automatic pistol, which was approved for importation into the United States in November 2011. Accordingly, the ammunition is “armor piercing” under the section 921(a)(17)(B)(i) and is therefore not importable. ATF’s determination applies only to the Russian-made 7N6 ammunition analyzed, not to all 5.45x39 ammunition. Ammunition of that caliber using projectiles without a steel core would have to be independently examined to determine their importability."

Information was posted by the AK Operators Union.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2014/04/040714-special-advisory-test-examination-and-classification-7n6-545x39-ammunition.html
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 6:48:05 AM EDT
[#1]
There was previous talk of a 5.45 ban both here in CTHTF and in GD because someone made a commercially produced handgun capable of firing the ammo.

5.45 Surplus Ammo Import Ban
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 8:19:09 AM EDT
[#2]
Just by chance, I bought an AK-74 (sorry my CT brethren ) and another create of 7n6 only 2 days before this nonsense came down from on high.  I sat there thinking, "do I really need another crate of 7n6?" as I looked over at my stack of crates.  Something inside me screamed "yes!"
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 9:21:58 AM EDT
[#3]
why not just ban that one handgun instead of the ammo? so did the ATF approve the importation of a pistol so that it can be used to justify a ban on ammo??
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 9:36:06 AM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
why not just ban that one handgun instead of the ammo? so did the ATF approve the importation of a pistol so that it can be used to justify a ban on ammo??
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
why not just ban that one handgun instead of the ammo? so did the ATF approve the importation of a pistol so that it can be used to justify a ban on ammo??


Because there is no statute banning the firearm but there is a statute banning the ammo.  18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(7) makes it unlawful to import "armor piercing ammunition" with certain exceptions.  The term "armor piercing ammunition" is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B) as:

Stupid law:
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.


Link Posted: 4/8/2014 3:30:16 PM EDT
[#5]
This pistol laws giveth (Sig Brace), and the pistol laws taketh away
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 3:46:46 PM EDT
[#6]
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Sec. 53-202l. Armor piercing and incendiary .50 caliber ammunition: Definition. Sale or transfer prohibited. Class D felony. (a) For the purposes of this section:
(1) “Armor piercing bullet” means (A) any .50 caliber bullet that (i) is designed for the purpose of, (ii) is held out by the manufacturer or distributor as, or (iii) is generally recognized as having a specialized capability to penetrate armor or bulletproof glass, including, but not limited to, such bullets commonly designated as “M2 Armor-Piercing” or “AP”, “M8 Armor-Piercing Incendiary” or “API”, “M20 Armor-Piercing Incendiary Tracer” or “APIT”, “M903 Caliber .50 Saboted Light Armor Penetrator” or “SLAP”, or “M962 Saboted Light Armor Penetrator Tracer” or “SLAPT”, or (B) any bullet that can be fired from a pistol or revolver that (i) has projectiles or projectile cores constructed entirely, excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium, or (ii) is fully jacketed with a jacket weight of more than twenty-five per cent of the total weight of the projectile, is larger than .22 caliber and is designed and intended for use in a firearm, and (iii) does not have projectiles whose cores are composed of soft materials such as lead or lead alloys, zinc or zinc alloys, frangible projectiles designed primarily for sporting purposes, or any other projectiles or projectile cores that the Attorney General of the United States finds to be primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes or industrial purposes or that otherwise does not constitute “armor piercing ammunition” as defined in federal law. “Armor piercing bullet” does not include a shotgun shell.
(2) “Incendiary .50 caliber bullet” means any .50 caliber bullet that (A) is designed for the purpose of, (B) is held out by the manufacturer or distributor as, or (C) is generally recognized as having a specialized capability to ignite upon impact, including, but not limited to, such bullets commonly designated as “M1 Incendiary”, “M23 Incendiary”, “M8 Armor-Piercing Incendiary” or “API”, or “M20 Armor-Piercing Incendiary Tracer” or “APIT”.
(b) Any person who knowingly distributes, transports or imports into the state, keeps for sale or offers or exposes for sale or gives to any person any ammunition that is an armor piercing bullet or an incendiary .50 caliber bullet shall be guilty of a class D felony, except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who knowingly transports or carries a firearm with an armor piercing bullet or incendiary .50 caliber bullet loaded shall be guilty of a class D felony.
(d) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section shall not apply to the following:
(1) The sale of such ammunition to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties;
(2) A sworn and duly certified member of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection or a police department when transporting or carrying a firearm with an armor piercing bullet or incendiary .50 caliber bullet loaded;
(3) A person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes such ammunition that is disposed of as authorized by the Probate Court; or
(4) The transfer of such ammunition by bequest or intestate succession, or, upon the death of a testator or settlor: (A) To a trust, or (B) from a trust to a beneficiary who is eligible to possess such ammunition.
(e) If the court finds that a violation of this section is not of a serious nature and that the person charged with such violation (1) will probably not offend in the future, (2) has not previously been convicted of a violation of this section, and (3) has not previously had a prosecution under this section suspended pursuant to this subsection, it may order suspension of prosecution in accordance with the provisions of subsection (h) of section 29-33.
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 4:10:45 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.
View Quote

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 4:38:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 4:56:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.



Nobody that I shoot with worries about these things. If we worried about every possible situation we should have stayed with a hobby that was more PC and less fraught with danger. BB guns are illegal, I still own em, I still shoot em!
If people are going to fall aaprt cause the sky IS falling it would probably be best to sell your guns now! Eventually we will all be felons, one way or the other
Carry on

The less information you make public, the less information that can be used against you in the future.
Knitting is somewhat safe and still legal for now
Knit on!!!!!!!!!!

For the other freemen- carry on
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 6:38:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Nobody that I shoot with worries about these things. If we worried about every possible situation we should have stayed with a hobby that was more PC and less fraught with danger. BB guns are illegal, I still own em, I still shoot em!
If people are going to fall aaprt cause the sky IS falling it would probably be best to sell your guns now! Eventually we will all be felons, one way or the other
Carry on

The less information you make public, the less information that can be used against you in the future.
Knitting is somewhat safe and still legal for now
Knit on!!!!!!!!!!

For the other freemen- carry on
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.

Nobody that I shoot with worries about these things. If we worried about every possible situation we should have stayed with a hobby that was more PC and less fraught with danger. BB guns are illegal, I still own em, I still shoot em!
If people are going to fall aaprt cause the sky IS falling it would probably be best to sell your guns now! Eventually we will all be felons, one way or the other
Carry on

The less information you make public, the less information that can be used against you in the future.
Knitting is somewhat safe and still legal for now
Knit on!!!!!!!!!!

For the other freemen- carry on

Nutter, I was simply commenting on the stupid state law in light of the ATF opinion, not that I agreed with it or would follow it. Chances of getting caught violating the state law are remote at best for those who currently have this ammo. Main problem going forward will most likely be the inability to purchase it from online or local shops.

Like it or not the law is what it is. Not talking about it, ignoring it, or pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. However remote the possibility may be, because the law exists someone, if caught breaking a law with such ammo, could be charged. It is up to each of us to personally decide if we want to follow or not follow those laws we personally deem unconstitutional or feel are just down right stupid. Some gun owners who have this ammo and who know about this lates ATF opinion will follow the state law on AP ammo, others will choose not to. And some will continue blissfully unaware they now have what the ATF/state may consider AP ammo. <shrugs>

Edit to add: Not quite sure what you mean when you claim "BB guns are illegal".
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 6:49:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Link Posted: 4/8/2014 10:43:21 PM EDT
[#12]
This is too much I loved 5.45 cause it was cheap and fun to shoot
Link Posted: 4/9/2014 2:53:19 AM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Nutter, I was simply commenting on the stupid state law in light of the ATF opinion, not that I agreed with it or would follow it. Chances of getting caught violating the state law are remote at best for those who currently have this ammo. Main problem going forward will most likely be the inability to purchase it from online or local shops.

Like it or not the law is what it is. Not talking about it, ignoring it, or pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. However remote the possibility may be, because the law exists someone, if caught breaking a law with such ammo, could be charged. It is up to each of us to personally decide if we want to follow or not follow those laws we personally deem unconstitutional or feel are just down right stupid. Some gun owners who have this ammo and who know about this lates ATF opinion will follow the state law on AP ammo, others will choose not to. And some will continue blissfully unaware they now have what the ATF/state may consider AP ammo. <shrugs>

Edit to add: Not quite sure what you mean when you claim "BB guns are illegal".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.

Nobody that I shoot with worries about these things. If we worried about every possible situation we should have stayed with a hobby that was more PC and less fraught with danger. BB guns are illegal, I still own em, I still shoot em!
If people are going to fall aaprt cause the sky IS falling it would probably be best to sell your guns now! Eventually we will all be felons, one way or the other
Carry on

The less information you make public, the less information that can be used against you in the future.
Knitting is somewhat safe and still legal for now
Knit on!!!!!!!!!!

For the other freemen- carry on

Nutter, I was simply commenting on the stupid state law in light of the ATF opinion, not that I agreed with it or would follow it. Chances of getting caught violating the state law are remote at best for those who currently have this ammo. Main problem going forward will most likely be the inability to purchase it from online or local shops.

Like it or not the law is what it is. Not talking about it, ignoring it, or pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. However remote the possibility may be, because the law exists someone, if caught breaking a law with such ammo, could be charged. It is up to each of us to personally decide if we want to follow or not follow those laws we personally deem unconstitutional or feel are just down right stupid. Some gun owners who have this ammo and who know about this lates ATF opinion will follow the state law on AP ammo, others will choose not to. And some will continue blissfully unaware they now have what the ATF/state may consider AP ammo. <shrugs>

Edit to add: Not quite sure what you mean when you claim "BB guns are illegal".


I will take all of this evil ammo that you have. So that you may rest easy. I will do it at no charge . I will do this for the children
Link Posted: 4/9/2014 4:29:29 AM EDT
[#14]
ONLY the 7n6 is banned from import.  Tula, Wolf, Brown Bear, and Red Army Standard commercial ammunition can still be imported.
Link Posted: 4/9/2014 5:30:58 AM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
ONLY the 7n6 is banned from import.  Tula, Wolf, Brown Bear, and Red Army Standard commercial ammunition can still be imported.
View Quote


Well yes that's true but I want to pay $300 for 2,260 rounds.   Not $220 for 1,000 of wolf.
Link Posted: 4/9/2014 12:29:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.


That's (the transportation provision) actually not my concern.

My concern would be that a Connecticut resident could easily inflict criminal liability upon themselves by importing ammunition into the state for personal use (think about all of the people looking to buy before the finite supply evaporates, or who are looking to feed their rifles down the road), or who unwittingly offer such ammunition for sale to persons other than those enumerated in the statute (e.g. because they no longer own a firearm in that caliber, because they bought ammo intending to buy a gun but effectively can't now,  because they were holding the ammo as an investment, etc...), or like you said (by the most literal interpretation) they handed somebody some rounds and said "Try this!"
Link Posted: 4/14/2014 9:16:11 AM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


That's (the transportation provision) actually not my concern.

My concern would be that a Connecticut resident could easily inflict criminal liability upon themselves by importing ammunition into the state for personal use (think about all of the people looking to buy before the finite supply evaporates, or who are looking to feed their rifles down the road), or who unwittingly offer such ammunition for sale to persons other than those enumerated in the statute (e.g. because they no longer own a firearm in that caliber, because they bought ammo intending to buy a gun but effectively can't now,  because they were holding the ammo as an investment, etc...), or like you said (by the most literal interpretation) they handed somebody some rounds and said "Try this!"
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.


That's (the transportation provision) actually not my concern.

My concern would be that a Connecticut resident could easily inflict criminal liability upon themselves by importing ammunition into the state for personal use (think about all of the people looking to buy before the finite supply evaporates, or who are looking to feed their rifles down the road), or who unwittingly offer such ammunition for sale to persons other than those enumerated in the statute (e.g. because they no longer own a firearm in that caliber, because they bought ammo intending to buy a gun but effectively can't now,  because they were holding the ammo as an investment, etc...), or like you said (by the most literal interpretation) they handed somebody some rounds and said "Try this!"


Is this ban being challenged in court?  I thought the caliber does not even meet their own definition to qualify for restriction.
Link Posted: 4/14/2014 1:02:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Is this ban being challenged in court?  I thought the caliber does not even meet their own definition to qualify for restriction.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Yep. ATF's reclassification does present problems for people who currently possess that ammunition within CT, or those who have it on order and being delivered to CT.

The main rub for those who already own such ammunition is subsections (b) and (c) of the Sec. 53-202l statute. Subsection (c) would appear to possibly prevent one from having the ammunition and a rifle in the same vehicle while driving to the range to shoot such ammunition. Subsection (b) presents a problem since under its wording if you gave that ammunition to someone else at the range to shoot or even possibly handed them the rifle which was loaded with such ammunition it would be against the law. Of course it all depends on one's interpretation of the wording of the law.


That's (the transportation provision) actually not my concern.

My concern would be that a Connecticut resident could easily inflict criminal liability upon themselves by importing ammunition into the state for personal use (think about all of the people looking to buy before the finite supply evaporates, or who are looking to feed their rifles down the road), or who unwittingly offer such ammunition for sale to persons other than those enumerated in the statute (e.g. because they no longer own a firearm in that caliber, because they bought ammo intending to buy a gun but effectively can't now,  because they were holding the ammo as an investment, etc...), or like you said (by the most literal interpretation) they handed somebody some rounds and said "Try this!"


Is this ban being challenged in court?  I thought the caliber does not even meet their own definition to qualify for restriction.


The > .22 verbiage applies only to certain bullets. Even if it were applicable, 5.45mm bullets are actually greater than .22.

It is also possible for a bullet to be armor piercing IF it can be fire in a pistol/revolver AND has solid projectiles or cores made of one of the specified materials.

or (B) any bullet that can be fired from a pistol or revolver that (i) has projectiles or projectile cores constructed entirely, excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium, or (ii) is fully jacketed with a jacket weight of more than twenty-five per cent of the total weight of the projectile, is larger than .22 caliber and is designed and intended for use in a firearm, and (iii) does not have projectiles whose cores are composed of soft materials such as lead or lead alloys, zinc or zinc alloys, frangible projectiles designed primarily for sporting purposes, or any other projectiles or projectile cores that the Attorney General of the United States finds to be primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes or industrial purposes or that otherwise does not constitute “armor piercing ammunition” as defined in federal law. “Armor piercing bullet” does not include a shotgun shell.
Link Posted: 4/14/2014 1:08:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Sec. 53-202l. Armor piercing and incendiary .50 caliber ammunition: Definition. Sale or transfer prohibited. Class D felony. (a) For the purposes of this section:
(1).



Honestly, I don't think it is problematic at all.

If you find yourself being charged on possession of 7n6 in violation of that statute, you probably have far larger problems to consider.

There are millions of rounds of 7n6 already in CT, and tens of thousands of far more blatant PA-13 violations.

This is about as illegal as being in possession of a banned species of fish.

Link Posted: 4/14/2014 1:12:52 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Honestly, I don't worry about it.

If I am in a position where I have to practically consider the status of my 7n6 stash, I'm in a far more problematic position than just violating the subsection that covers the ammo.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
In light of PA 13-3's repeal and revisions of 53-202l, this could be problematic for Connecticut 5.45 enthusiasts and neck beards ammo sellers.

Sec. 53-202l. Armor piercing and incendiary .50 caliber ammunition: Definition. Sale or transfer prohibited. Class D felony. (a) For the purposes of this section:
(1).



Honestly, I don't worry about it.

If I am in a position where I have to practically consider the status of my 7n6 stash, I'm in a far more problematic position than just violating the subsection that covers the ammo.



Yea what he said!  Fuck em All... slimy fucking Tories!
Link Posted: 4/14/2014 1:20:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Wondering if we have people running around documenting the disposition of destroyed or forfeited ammo that has no solid legal definition on it yet because it "might be illegal".  Standing first in line at DPS to document their eagerness to demonstrate the further canonization of our rights......

We saw this go down on a limited extent with mags and even firearms last year.

The proper course of action is to do the opposite.  Stock the fuck up and be quiet about it.

Why do we even own these guns?  To gleefully jump through the compliance hoops?

Fucking hell.  Wrong mindset.  

Tories indeed.
Link Posted: 4/14/2014 6:09:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Wondering if we have people running around documenting the disposition of destroyed or forfeited ammo that has no solid legal definition on it yet because it "might be illegal".  Standing first in line at DPS to document their eagerness to demonstrate the further canonization of our rights......

We saw this go down on a limited extent with mags and even firearms last year.

The proper course of action is to do the opposite.  Stock the fuck up and be quiet about it.

Why do we even own these guns?  To gleefully jump through the compliance hoops?

Fucking hell.  Wrong mindset.  

Tories indeed.
View Quote


I said this days ago while the fags were questioning the legality of it all!
let me say it loud and clear.................
THREE CAN KEEP A SECRET IF TWO ARE DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wanna go camping?
Link Posted: 4/16/2014 2:26:40 PM EDT
[#23]
So, how long before the price of 7N6 doubles because , you know, everyone needs a crate or two of that evil armor piercing ammo.
Link Posted: 4/16/2014 4:15:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
So, how long before the price of 7N6 doubles because , you know, everyone needs a crate or two of that evil armor piercing ammo.
View Quote


I wouldn't hold my breath on a price increase. I wont be surprised if we start seeing commercial ammo being imported in tins like we do with 7.62x39.
Link Posted: 4/16/2014 4:51:46 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I wouldn't hold my breath on a price increase. I wont be surprised if we start seeing commercial ammo being imported in tins like we do with 7.62x39.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, how long before the price of 7N6 doubles because , you know, everyone needs a crate or two of that evil armor piercing ammo.


I wouldn't hold my breath on a price increase. I wont be surprised if we start seeing commercial ammo being imported in tins like we do with 7.62x39.



Pretty much
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top