Just read on Glock Fanatics of CT Facebook page that a guy was told by State Police that putting an aftermarket threaded barrel into a preban Glock is a major NO, NO !! It would be considered manufacturing of an AW. The preban pistol would have to come from the factory with the threaded barrel Hope there is no truth to this !!!

These are the problems we face in CT.  Supposedly prebans can be AWs but just don't need to be registered.  So you should be able to do what ever you want.  But there is no law that states this, it's just an interpretation.  As are many of these laws.  There are so many options out there that the lawmakers have no idea about so could never cover them in the laws, so we have the duty to figure out what they meant now

Way too much derp in that FB post

Read public act 13-3.  Follow what it says. If people tell you that your wrong, then tell them to read the laws themselves

There's no interpretation of it.  What it says, is what it is. If it's preban, (pre 1994) you can do what you want.  It doesn't need to be registered as an AW to be able to have features.

That interpretation has been floating around for a while. Supposedly, that's what CSP told NGX when they inquired (which is why NGX discourages customers from installing threaded barrels on their preban pistols).

The potential for problems is why I choose not to own a MAK-90.

While I do value your opinion JAD, the whole MAK90 issue is null.  Many dealers are transferring them.  You fill out the form at the dealer and you take it home.  AT that point, you as the purchaser have done nothing wrong.  It is GUARANTEED a preban....which the law says are legal to transfer still in CT.  
If you are truly interested in a MAK, you are limiting yourself for no reason.  Its the same as buying a preban AR, or anything else preban, no different.

There was a similar discussion I think on CCDL's facebook page or CT Shooters facebook page a few months ago. Much derp going back and forth. The wording of the law is what it is. And DESPP/SLFU is making their OWN interpretation of that statute. Remember that prior to 4/4/13 the general consensus was that banned by name prebans were no go. Sometime post 4/4/13, because of SLFU's reinterpretation of the preban statute, banned by name prebans are suddenly good to go and can be bought/sold and can brought out of the closet by those who have hidden them for years.

There are several problems with the logic those who claim it had to be an AW when manufactured or an AW on or before 9/13/94. The problem is how does the gun's owner prove it was an AW prior to that date? What happens if they purchased the gun from someone else and the previous buyer removed the AW feature(s)?

Prior to 4/4/13 and post, many hold the view that so long as it was manufactured prior to 9/13/94 its good to go and can have features added to it that make it an AW. The statute in question:

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 of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

Note the language used (which I've highlighted in blue/bold). It says the "firearm" has to be manufactured prior to 9/13/94 not the "assault weapon" had to be manufactured prior to that date. As always when in doubt contact a lawyer and get clarification. If you ask SLFU your liable to get conflicting non legal opinions.

I won't buy anything that was banned by name (under the old law). Of course, I am a little paranoid about that kind of thing.

Unfortunately, facially lawful transfer process wouldn't nullify potential liability associated with possession if an LEO decided to take police action.

I believe that there is somebody (also a prohibited possessor) who was charged earlier this year with an assault weapon charge (in addition to other charges) related to a MAK-90. If I have extra time some afternoon, I may take a drive down to the Litchfield courthouse to try and confirm that. (To avoid doing that, I am going to try to get the info from the PD- so I can save myself an extra trip some afternoon).

Exactly. The wording of the statute (Sec. 53-202m for those who don't know what we're talking about) is what it is. DESPP and SLFU's reinterpretation of that statute sometime post 4/4/13 is what it is (again for those who don't know, see here and here). And the Office of Legislative Research's contrasting opinion (inline with banned by name prebans are banned) is what it is.

If a LEO decides to press the issue (as most of us know) they will charge the person with violating the statute not some non legal opinion from SLFU or a former head of DESPP. They will use the wording of the law. And the wording of the law depending on how you interpret it appears to indicate banned by name prebans are still illegal. Only way this issue is settled legally is either for someone to be charged and have their case adjudicated or for the legislature to rewrite the law to clarify specifically what they intended to ban.

As I understand it, just because a gun shop got a sales authorization number from the state and sold/transferred the gun doesn't mean it was a legal transfer or sale. Right now SLFU is continuing to hold to their non legal interpretation of what constitutes a preban, that could change at any time. If SLFU changes their interpretation again and people start getting charged for having a banned by name prebans, I would venture to guess. not being a lawyer, that about the best a person charged can hope to hang their hat on is the Sec. 53a-6. Effect of ignorance or mistake statute and pray the occasionally gun hating judges, that preside in CT, see's it their way.

I love my mak's and no one is taking them from me

All herp, all derp!

Now what if you get pulled over or checked out while shooting somewhere for example, and they say your preban pwa commando is not a preban (which it is because of the serial number is before the cutoff serial)

What do you do if a cop puts you in jail for doing 54mph in a 55mph?

Laying the ground work to eject from the state in a year. I have my eyes on everything!

If the person is prohibited from owning a gun(prohibited possessor) then of course he would be charged with possession of an assault weapon. Right?

Can I still attach a dildo to a bushmaster ?

Only if its your dildo

Ok then. How about if its not mine .... I found it?

And no suction cup thingy that goes up.

Double ended?

Who is to say the preban handgun you bought did not come with a threaded barrel?

Do what you feel comfortable with. If you want to believe the cops then so be it. Remember cops do not know the law. The arrest and let the courts sort it out.

I have bought MAK90s, preban ARs and preban handguns. Eventually I will leave this madness and live in a place where my rights are still able to be exercised. Hopefully within 3-5 years.

First, never take legal advice from a cop,

Does it have an insert for a vibrator and suction cup with a fake set of balls near the base?

Or is it just a normal plain dildo.

The prohibited possessor status would result in a Criminal Possession of a firearm/ammunition/electronic weapon charge. Based on my read of 53-202m, the preban exemption to the prohibition on assault weapon possession would still apply, even if the current possessor is a prohibited person. (Thus the individual would be criminally liable for criminal possession but should not be liable for assault weapon possession).

This!

Even the Weapons Unit covers any e-mail they reply to, with disclaimers it is not legally binding.  The State has been, and will continue to be, vague.  The more ambiguous the law, the more it will cause people to not do things for fear of violating it.  Kind of a force multiplier for the legal system.  Where do you think all the absolutely unintelligible law-speak comes from?  It is a way for politicians to extend their power.  It is also a great way to ensure lawyers stay employed, to decipher the laws that are written by other lawyers (who just happen to be politicians).  I personally think it is a conflict of interest having lawyers writing the laws.  I heard one time that colonial VA, had a law against clergy or lawyers entering politics.  More wisdom of our founding fathers that has been cast aside in the greedy pursuit of power.  All legislation should be run by panels of high school seniors, and if they can not accurately state the legislatures intent in the legislation, it should be re-written until they can!

Anyway, in this instance, for a change, the law could not be clearer:

  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 of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

Any tenth grade English class could be handed that statement, and come up with what the DESPP said about pre-bans.  If it meets the CT definition of an AW, and was made before 9/13/94, it can be bought/sold/possessed legally in CT (within the limits of the other sections of the law).  That includes things that where banned by name.  That's what amendments do, they AMEND the original language of a piece of legislation.  As an extension of that, if you put a threaded barrel on a pre-ban Glock, since the pistol (firearm) was made pre-9/13/94, it falls under the same exemption.  Now, if the Legislature did not mean to say that, then they need to amend it again (I hope NOT).  But for now, this is one of the most explicitly clear piece of legislation on the books.

Funny thing is, EVERYTHING I registered in 94 is now legal in CT!

Except that there is pesky words in there that complicate things.  

Unfortunately, either the legislature and/or CSP probably needs to come with me during reading and writing time.

Ah!  It has been a while since I actually looked at the law, and I had the section numbers confused.  By my layman's reading of the law, firearms named in section 1 would meet the definition of AW.  However, non-named pre-94 would still be good to go.  Also, since section 4 talks about parts to readily convert a firearm into an AW, I would still hold that a pre-ban Glock would still be legal under the amendment.

But still, what you, I, or anyone else thinks is moot.  It's the courts that have the final say!    All that being said, I am still pretty confident my Ruger MKII with a threaded barrel I have owned since 1986, and my pre-ban Eagle Arms AR fall under this exemption.

I have 0 concerns about owning my PWA as well. In fact, I have seriously contemplated buying a non-7.62x39 AK as well.

The problem is that most of the people who end-up in court have nothing to lose. Most of us have everything to lose.

The nice thing is....you can register prebans still.  So if anyone is concerned, just submit a cert on it and keep it with the preban firearm.

Just this fact alone gives me confidence that the preban exemption is GTG legally.

And I wonder what authority they are using to accomplish this?  I personally cant see the whole pre-ban thing lasting long.  But, I firmly believe they will allow a grace period to register pre-bans if the law change.  If not, off to VT my prebans go!

JAD

I don't want to be the test case for this either.  I was advised to stay away from pre-bans to avoid trouble.  The problem is, I just have to tilt at that windmill of injustice.  Consider it my own little bit of civil disobedience, except in this case, I am still following the law.  And, if things ever went bad, I am a poster boy of goodie two shoes behavior (totally spotless record, top secret clearance, 35 years of military service, 35 years pistol permit holder), and I think I might get help from the national gun rights groups (not that I am counting on it).

Yes and no. People who are SBR'ing their prebans can obtain a certificate of possession because the ATF is requiring such paperwork. However, if banned by name prebans are really not legal to buy and possess post 4/4/13 (as the law would appear to indicate depending on one's interpretation of that law) then one most likely cannot "legally" register such a firearm because that firearm was not lawfully possessed. The Certificate of Possession statue indicates that "any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon, as defined in subparagraph (A) of subdivision (1) of section 53-202a, prior to October 1, 1993, shall apply by October 1, 1994".

We've had many past threads on this particular issue of banned by name prebans and beaten the subject to death in most of those threads. I've said repeatedly in those threads that SLFU's reinterpretation of the preban statute has opened up a huge can of worms. A can of worms that has the potential, how ever remote, to come back to bite anyone who buys a banned by name preban post 4/4/13. We shouldn't forget the preban statue has remained essentially the same pre 4/4/13 and post 6/18/13. Prior to 4/4/13 it was generally assumed that the "AK-47 Type" (and other banned by name prebans) were illegal to buy or possess (unless that person possessed and registered it prior to 10/1/94). Suddenly, post 6/18/13, SLFU now claims such firearms are now legal even though the law hasn't substantially changed. The more people who buy banned by name prebans the better since the more out there makes it harder to enforce what the law appears to indicate. However, anyone who buys banned by name prebans post 6/18/13 should at the very least be aware that SLFU can change their interpretation back to their pre 4/4/13 view and claim such firearms are now illegal at any point in time which potentially places them in a precarious legal position and raises the potential of possible arrest and firearm confiscation. <shrugs>

As have many others who have read the preban statute but not taken the time to go back and read the law as it was on 1/1/13. And SLFU's reinterpretation of the preban statute that leaves out most of what JAD highlighted only further muddies the discussion. The wording of law is what it is. And those who want to buy banned by name prebans should at least be aware of the statute's wording so they can make an informed decision.

Edit to add: What some forget because they haven't gone back and looked at the old law is this line from subdivision (3) of the old Sec. 53-202a; "(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria". Subdivision (1) of the old 53-202a law IS the banned by name list from the old law.

Well, the amendment seems pretty straight forward (once I re-read it), but who am I?  I really don't know where the exemption for the ban-by-name firearms came from.  Since the state is unwilling/unable to clarify anything, it is going to take someone getting arrested, charged, and tried to get any definitive answers.  

Yeah. When one reads the current 53-202m statute and then the pre 1/1/13 53-202a statute on the surface it would appear to be straight forward. Which is why when SLFU and the former commissioner of DESPP came out with their revised opinions ( here and here) it left some lay people, including myself, scratching their heads trying to understand how what was once illegal is now legal even though the law hadn't substantially changed. We had several long discussions at the time about it both here and on other gun forums. It basically seems, at least to me, to amount to SLFU saying sometime post 6/18/13; "Ooops our bad, pre 1994 banned by name prebans shouldn't have been banned and you can buy/sell/possess them, but this does not constitute a legal opinion,".

Generally this reinterpretation is good for us gun owners as it makes once banned guns now available to be bought, sold, possessed and brought out of the closet (or back into the state), but unfortunately all it takes is one gun hating judge decided to uphold what the statute appears to indicate. And with some of the mental gymnastics the judges have used to uphold CT (and NY's) recent gun laws, I don't have a whole lot of faith they'd interpret the statute in our favor, but I hope I'm wrong if such a case ever made it to trial.

I tried and failed to educate that guy on his facebook post.  He never was able to point to anything solid...

I really think he thought if he bought a preban pistol, he can then put a threaded barrel on it and carry it

If there are no laws that state this then it isn't illegal.  Remember, the police can arrest you for anything and everything but it's the prosecutor who determines whether it goes to trial or whether the charges are dropped.  The DESPP HAVE released a statement declaring their interpretation of the law that prebans are legal in the state and the legislature has in essence agreed with it by not passing any amendments to change it.  Unless there is a law that specifically exempts pistols from their statement, only the most aggressive of gun hating prosecutors looking to make a political statement is going to waste their time on something so esoteric.

Remember, the prosecutor has to convince a jury why your own lawyer's position is wrong and he's gonna need a lot more than "guns is icky" to make his case.

to me a firearm is the following.





which ever holds the serial number.  thats the firearm.  thats why you need an FFL to transfer it or buy it from.

anyways, who ever sells you the preban pwa or whatever, its their liability.  they sold it as a preban, with the intent to follow the law, to a law abiding citizen. if its not a preban by the law, and they sell it. its their fault, and get your money back to buy another preban that is actually a real preban.  but, heres the important part, know the serial numbers and identification marks etc.  my pwa is a 27xxx lower.  cutoff is 35222.  im in the clear.  but the cop wont know that.  i wish i could get a letter verifying the serial from the manufacturer. i believe its LMT that made PWA's and i tried to called and some snobby women answered saying they cant tell me the date...

No, its ultimately not the seller responsibility to ensure the gun is a preban, but the buyer's. Its the buyer who will probably be found in possession of the firearm first and charged for possessing the firearm, not the seller. The seller may also eventually be charged, but you can bet the buyer will be sitting next to the seller in jail. That's why SLFU was asking sellers to have the buyer show them PROOF through a manufacturer's letter that a preban was in fact a preban. The onus is on the buyer not the seller to ensure the gun is really a preban.

There are federal standards as to what constitutes the "firearm". The state however has a slightly different definition of what constitutes a firearm.

18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions
(3) The term “firearm” means  
(A)  any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;  
(B)  the frame or receiver of any such weapon;  
(C)  any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or  
(D)  any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.  

CT's Definition of a firearm, machine gun, rifle, shotgun and pistol
(15) “Machine gun” means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a submachine gun;

(16) “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger;

(17) “Shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger;

(18) “Pistol” or “revolver” means any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches;

(19) “Firearm” means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged;

He is back at it again, and he said that Detective Calahan at DESPP in Middletown Firearms Licensing Dept. told him so !! This guy on Facebook I think is a troll

"i'm currently pushing a few detectives at DESPP to write up a letter that i can carry with me. If i get one, i will gladly scan it in and post it for everyone. i have heard 4 different things in the last 3 days from the same dept."

"im going there in person tomorrow. i have one detective who is very nice and has called me today and yesterday without me calling first. She says she wants to get everything exact instead of giving bad information. She told me she will call between 12 and 2"

" i know what the laws are but apparently they cant agree on them. but with an official letter / statement , no one will argue it."

Those are the quotes from the guy on the FB I'm following...  He really thinks he will get an "official statement"!

My response:
"Firearms manufactured before the 1994 Federal ban were simply "rifles, handguns, and shotguns". After September 1994 - due to the new Federal "Assault Weapons" Ban (AWB), those rifles, handguns, and shotguns got re-classified as "Assault Weapons" - in CT they had to be 'registered' as such. "Assault Weapon" is a term made up in 1989, "Assault Rifle" is select fire/machine gun and has been regulated by the GCA for a long time"

If I may slide in here sideways with this question regarding threaded barrels. I thought I saw where .22lr was not included with this new "LAW". I would like to purchase a new .17 HMR rifle and thread the bbl and install one of my .223 cans.

Go - NO/GO?

You guys got a link to the facebook posting? Or is it like CCDL where you need to join the group? I need a good laugh this morning.

Edit to add: Also, maybe its Dan trolling again.

.22LR and other rimfire semiautomatic detachable magazine rifles manufactured post 9/13/94 are still subject to the threaded barrel language of the OLD law due to the inclusion of the following line in Sec 53-202a. But as long as its the SOLE evil feature from the old law's feature list then its legal:
"(ix) Any semiautomatic firearm that meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013;"

Edit to add: And .22LR and other rimfire semiautomatic detachable magazine handguns manufactured post 9/13/94 are NOT exempt from the current' law's semiautomatic detachable magazine handgun single feature ban. Currently threaded barrels are one of the evil features for semiautomatic detachable magazine handguns in the current law.

Where does this stand with my Ruger 77/22 bolt action rifle?

sb laid it out for you

If it is not a semi-automatic firearm, then it is GTG

As indicated above the AWB feature ban affects semiautomatic detachable magazine rifles and handguns manufactured post 9/13/94.

Well it's not a semi auto but it does have a detachable mag.

So? The detachable magazine is a qualifier. The key factor and the most important factor, if manufactured post 9/13/94, is if it is semiautomatic or not. If semiautomatic AND it has a detachable magazine then it may be subject to the feature ban. Bolt action isn't semiautomatic as such a bolt action rifle, regardless of caliber, is NOT subject to the AW feature ban. As the forum sticky F.A.Q. CT "is this legal" thread and helpful links and the actual statute language posted below indicate generally only those semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines are generally affected by the feature ban. The large capacity magazine ban is a separate issue that impacts all detachable magazine guns regardless of manufacturing date or operation type. Generally the sale of a detachable magazine rifle that is not banned in this state is not restricted by the large capacity magazine ban. It appears that about the only non-semiautomatic detachable magazine rifle that is impacted by our AWB is the Remington Tactical Rifle Model 7615 because, for what ever reason (probably because it takes standard AR magazines), is banned by name post 4/4/13.

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definitions.
....
(i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

(I) A folding or telescoping stock;

(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;

(III) A forward pistol grip;

(IV) A flash suppressor; or

(V) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; or

(ii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the ability to accept more than ten rounds; or

(iii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than thirty inches; or

(iv) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

(I) An ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine that attaches at some location outside of the pistol grip;

(II) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip or silencer;

(III) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to fire the firearm without being burned, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or

(IV) A second hand grip; or

(v) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the ability to accept more than ten rounds; or

(vi) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(I) A folding or telescoping stock; and

(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing; or

(vii) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

(viii) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or

(ix) Any semiautomatic firearm that meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013;