Kaminsky Memorandum of Decision Appears to Affects Prebans

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Kaminsky Memorandum of Decision Appears to Affects Prebans (Page 1 of 4)

Posted: 6/20/2017 6:12:07 PM EDT

Per a posting over on CTGT that includes a PDF link, the Kaminsky "memorandum of decision" may have thrown a wrench into the interpretation of the AWB statute the former commissioner of SLFU and SLFU itself had post 2013. The memorandum appears to indicate that much like prior to 2013, the preban statute does indeed ban AK's and other banned by name firearms. This potentially opens the can of worms that has been mentioned going back to 2013 on SLFU and the former commissioner of SLFU's reinterpretation of the preban statute post 2013.

The court writes: "An agency's interpretation is not entitled to deference if it is plainly inconsistent with the clear language of the statue. ... That is the case here."

No telling what this may mean to those who now have firearms this memorandum indicates are now illegal.

Posted: 6/20/2017 6:25:41 PM EDT

[#1]

Well, at least the SFLU is on par w/ the ATF/NFA.

Posted: 6/20/2017 7:54:47 PM EDT

[#2]

Someone at SLFU probably bought a shit ton of prebans during the panic and now they need to generate a market for the price to go up again.

Posted: 6/21/2017 12:24:08 AM EDT

[#3]

I was getting happy that ammo prices are down pre-ban prices are down, then the state throws a left hook out of nowhere.

If something comes out of it would this mean we register or turn in?

This would normally blow over, but idiots are gonna line up to start asking the state questions and then have it backfire like the sig-brace and the ATF.

Posted: 6/21/2017 8:38:10 AM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:

This would normally blow over, but idiots are gonna line up to start asking the state questions and then have it backfire like the sig-brace and the ATF.

View Quote

Attached File

Posted: 6/21/2017 9:07:40 AM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
Someone at SLFU probably bought a shit ton of prebans during the panic and now they need to generate a market for the price to go up again.

View Quote

All I keep hearing over in the AK realm is imports are drying up !!! Now there are sanctions put on Molot yesterday and all the Veprs have disappeared !!!! Prices on AK's are going through the roof

Posted: 6/21/2017 10:37:45 AM EDT

[#6]

Well the real question is what dealers will stop transferring prebans? I think that will be a good indication of how serious this is.

Posted: 6/21/2017 11:21:55 AM EDT

[#7]

write letters !

Posted: 6/21/2017 12:37:04 PM EDT

[#8]

The biggest enemy of gun owners is other gun owners.

Posted: 6/21/2017 3:22:45 PM EDT

[#9]

Posted: 6/21/2017 4:01:58 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
Well the real question is what dealers will stop transferring prebans? I think that will be a good indication of how serious this is.

View Quote

Yep going to be interesting to see if those FFL's who were transferring will now stop.

Posted: 6/21/2017 4:12:19 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
The biggest enemy of gun owners is other gun owners.

View Quote

How exactly did other gun owners cause this problem other than one guy trying to get his property back? This mess was caused by SLFU and its former commissioner issuing the opinions they issued. This mess was caused by poorly written laws that are at times confusing and contradictory. Especially when you factor in one has to follow both federal and state laws. Gun owners are not to blame here, politicians who wrote these bad/unconstitutional laws are.

Having legions of FUDDS or gun owners write SLFU about this isn't going to change anything since the memorandum opinion was in response to a suite against the commissioner of DESPP. So in other words SLFU already knows about this opinion/memorandum.

Is the sky falling for all gun owners? No. However, for those few gun owners who purchased certain banned by name prebans (from the old banned by name list) they now potentially have a court declared illegal AW just like others out there who have unregistered AW's the state says are illegal. Will the legislature deal with this (one way or another? Who knows.

Posted: 6/21/2017 4:58:23 PM EDT

[#12]

Posted: 6/21/2017 4:59:15 PM EDT

[#13]

so everyone that bought colts even though, they were always in question because they were named, are fucked, and i believe olympic arms is on the list as well.

PWA FTW

Posted: 6/21/2017 5:39:59 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
so everyone that bought colts even though, they were always in question because they were named, are fucked, and i believe olympic arms is on the list as well.

PWA FTW

View Quote

Fucked like the people that didn't register?

That's not too fucked as far as I can tell. Unless you're talking about the <10 (?) people that have been nabbed for undocumented salt weapons.

Posted: 6/21/2017 7:14:17 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/237961/he-s-right-you-know-235468.JPG

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

This would normally blow over, but idiots are gonna line up to start asking the state questions and then have it backfire like the sig-brace and the ATF.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/237961/he-s-right-you-know-235468.JPG

Actually, although I understand his reasoning, he is not right.

The ATF/SIG brace thing are totally different circumstances. ATF came out with an opinion, that basically said they didn't care about how you shot the brace. Then, legions of morons sent letters to ATF basically asking if they could get around the SBR section of the 1934 GCA, by using the brace as a replacement for a shoulder stock, so they didn't have to do a Form 1. They basically forced ATF to come back and say no, you can't violate the 1934 GCA by using a braced pistol as an SBR.

This Preban situation is totally different. The individual brought a suit, that used the former commissioners opinion letter as evidence. The judge, looked at the law, then looked at the opinion, and determined that the opinion is wrong. That is the trouble with opinions, judges/law trump them, and the new commissioner could have changed it any time. I think she was waiting for something like this, so she could "blame" the courts, since her agency was knee deep in it.

Now, all that is left is to see how the state handles all the prebans out there now.

Posted: 6/21/2017 8:07:02 PM EDT

[#16]

What's interesting is that if he had converted the select-fire weapons to full-auto-only then all that would have been forfeit was the "AK-47 type"

Posted: 6/21/2017 8:11:59 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
so everyone that bought colts even though, they were always in question because they were named, are fucked, and i believe olympic arms is on the list as well.

PWA FTW

View Quote

The CT State Police determined that the Colt Sporters were not "assault weapons"

Go figure, but the AK-47 was

Posted: 6/21/2017 8:13:40 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
What's interesting is that if he had converted the select-fire weapons to full-auto-only then all that would have been forfeit was the "AK-47 type"

View Quote

That, or just registered them again with the state. They were already registered as MGs no?

Posted: 6/21/2017 8:22:55 PM EDT

[#19]

So did the new ruling state that prebans that are not banned by name are still leagal?

And the baned by name list is still the old list from the first AWB?

BTW there is a baned by name firearm on the list called 'bushmaster auto rifle' what the heck is that?

Can someone post this kaminsky document please. Thanks

Posted: 6/21/2017 9:03:22 PM EDT

[#20]

Looks to me like everything the Court and DPS argued in this case was intended only to win this specific case.

Posted: 6/21/2017 9:19:30 PM EDT

[#21]

Some serious mental gymnastics going on in that kaminsky document related to prebans.
Holy shit. I'm confused now.

Posted: 6/21/2017 9:20:04 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
Looks to me like everything the Court and DPS argued in this case was intended only to win this specific case.

View Quote

And ... it was a civil case, not criminal.

Posted: 6/21/2017 9:47:14 PM EDT

[#23]

Anyone got any PWA lowers they wanna get rid of!?

Posted: 6/21/2017 9:57:55 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
Anyone got any PWA lowers they wanna get rid of!?

View Quote

7000

Posted: 6/21/2017 10:13:24 PM EDT

[#25]

So I just read that fuck show of a document.

Dafuq did I read...?

Preban are legal and then they aren't.

Being real though, seems like the court said the preban ar15 is good to go but not the MG ak47 and other guns. Even though they were technically a preban, but because they are MG's? Correct me if I'm wrong.

And I've looked at the list for banned by name guns and a few aren't in there. So technically speaking, those are good to go without question? Looks like people should get a COP for their prebans to be safe?

ETA: ill sell my pwa complete lower for 2grand

Posted: 6/21/2017 10:46:12 PM EDT

[#26]

Edited. New list or pre 2013 ban list?
Is there a link to the ruling?

Posted: 6/21/2017 10:54:11 PM EDT

[#27]

I know this is old news

But Here

Posted: 6/21/2017 11:28:28 PM EDT

[#28]

Basically all that is left now is the OLR report that says non named preban are ok. There is no other slfu document worth shit now.

Wait and see I guess.

lots of mental gymnastics going on.

Quote History

Quoted:
So I just read that fuck show of a document.

Dafuq did I read...?

Preban are legal and then they aren't.

Being real though, seems like the court said the preban ar15 is good to go but not the MG ak47 and other guns. Even though they were technically a preban, but because they are MG's? Correct me if I'm wrong.

And I've looked at the list for banned by name guns and a few aren't in there. So technically speaking, those are good to go without question? Looks like people should get a COP for their prebans to be safe?

ETA: ill sell my pwa complete lower for 2grand

View Quote

Posted: 6/22/2017 7:47:51 AM EDT

[#29]

FDM

Posted: 6/22/2017 8:41:47 AM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
Is there a link to the ruling?

View Quote

See my OP post. I linked to a post over on CTGT that has a PDF of the memorandum. (edit: you can see the PDF link on CTGT if your a member of CTGT)

Posted: 6/22/2017 8:48:53 AM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
Basically all that is left now is the OLR report that says non named preban are ok. There is no other slfu document worth shit now.

View Quote

It should be noted that the OLR report specifically states: "This office is not authorized to give legal opinions and this report should not be construed as such."

Posted: 6/22/2017 8:52:59 AM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
So I just read that fuck show of a document.

Dafuq did I read...?

Preban are legal and then they aren't.

View Quote

Yeah had the same thought. WTF am I reading. Its the same thought I have with almost any court opinion on CT and other ban state's gun laws that upholds the restrictive law(s). The mental gymnastics they use to reach their conclusions to continue banning certain firearms/magazines are sometimes/most times

.

Posted: 6/22/2017 10:19:51 AM EDT

[#33]

This is what happens when lawyers take bad cases. They make bad caselaw. Arrogance blinds counsel often and those in the arena know you can't hammer local courts with arguments about the supremacy clause. It's like going into someone's house and telling them they can't make any decisions there because the bank holds the mortgage. This decision screams of a court responding strongly to a lawyer's poor arguments and weak basis trying to support a client who had no business bringing the action. Just because you can sue doesn't mean you should. Unless this "great lawyer" (who's constantly lauded on this forum) took the case pro bono, my guess is the bill is in the neghborhood of $20k. This guy could have foregone the lawsuit, replaced the 2 class 3 guns and semi AK for less than that and we would all have still been abe to get any pre94 gun. What a waste and an illustration of bad lawyering, either by argument and/or case selection.

Posted: 6/22/2017 10:51:49 AM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
.... this "great lawyer" (who's constantly lauded on this forum).....

View Quote

Who is the lawyer?

Posted: 6/22/2017 11:16:36 AM EDT

[#35]

Rachael Baird

Posted: 6/22/2017 11:22:32 AM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
Rachael Baird

View Quote

At least one shop that was looking for a lawyer last year told me she didn't know very much when they spoke with her.

Posted: 6/22/2017 11:49:07 AM EDT

[#37]

She obviously didn't know better than to take this case to court and risk screwing over every gun owner in the state of CT.

Posted: 6/22/2017 1:02:25 PM EDT

[#38]

Folks before you trash Baird on this particular issue please note that she previously issued her own opinion on prebans that is hosted on CT Carry's website:
http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/a79af6bb-e571-4f58-9217-56b16882f46e

Conclusion
A semiautomatic firearm meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, not specifically named in subsection (1), and manufactured prior to September 13, 1994, is fully transferable and not required to be registered under Connecticut law.

View Quote

Posted: 6/22/2017 1:07:40 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
She obviously didn't know better than to take this case to court and risk screwing over every gun owner in the state of CT.

View Quote

Sadly ANY case one takes to court with respect to guns is taking a risk that the court may screw gun owners.

Because of her prior stance on the preban law (see above post) it is easy to speculate that it may have been her client that pushed this case to go forward. As a lawyer she should be doing everything possible to win the case for her client. That includes using materials that could end up potentially harming other gun owners.

Posted: 6/22/2017 2:07:55 PM EDT

[#40]

Exactly,
Now there is no preban guidance at all from slfu since the judge shit canned the former commissioners letter.... And the OLR document is useless.....

Quote History

Quoted:

It should be noted that the OLR report specifically states: "This office is not authorized to give legal opinions and this report should not be construed as such."

View Quote

Posted: 6/22/2017 4:08:37 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
Now there is no preban guidance at all from slfu since the judge shit canned the former commissioners letter....

View Quote

Yes there is. There is still "guidance", such that it is, from SLFU in the form of: http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/pre-ban_assault_weapons.pdf

The memorandum, unless I missed it, only dealt specifically with the Bradford letter not the SLFU peban pdf.

Posted: 6/22/2017 4:57:20 PM EDT

[#42]

Maybe...but the slfu PDF was made up because of the commissioners letter....

Posted: 6/22/2017 5:44:12 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:

Sadly ANY case one takes to court with respect to guns is taking a risk that the court may screw gun owners.

Because of her prior stance on the preban law (see above post) it is easy to speculate that it may have been her client that pushed this case to go forward. As a lawyer she should be doing everything possible to win the case for her client. That includes using materials that could end up potentially harming other gun owners.

View Quote

Throwing the B.S. flag respectfully because this was a CIVIL CASE and she filed the lawsuit. It was 100% voluntary in nature and essentially poking the bear. Read the judicial filings since it was initiated in 2014. She KNEW the state's argument and the likely outcome from the many pleadings and briefs and continued to push the case instead of withdrawing as it unfolded. She took the money and hoped to make a name for herself. Instead she drove the bus full of CT gun owners off the cliff in search of glory.

Posted: 6/22/2017 5:55:25 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:
Throwing the B.S. flag respectfully....

View Quote

Very possible she knew it wouldn't go well or should have known it wouldn't go well. I haven't read all of the previous proceeding document so its pure speculation on my part. <shrugs> Any civil case brought against CT's idiotic firearm laws or those responsible for its implementation or enforcement is always facing a very difficult uphill battle even without the various issues, including Brandford's letter, that this case brought to the table.

Posted: 6/22/2017 6:57:40 PM EDT

[#45]

Hmmmm....interdasting

Posted: 6/22/2017 6:59:59 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
Hmmmm....interdasting

View Quote

What took you so long?

Posted: 6/22/2017 7:03:56 PM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:

What took you so long?

View Quote

Work. Not everyone has time to build decks .

Posted: 6/22/2017 7:10:13 PM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:
Work. Not everyone has time to build decks .

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

What took you so long?

Work. Not everyone has time to build decks .

Busy killing dogs and kicking in doors?

Posted: 6/22/2017 8:24:23 PM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:

Busy killing dogs and kicking in doors?

View Quote

Oh God no. I have people for that.

Posted: 6/22/2017 8:28:39 PM EDT

[#50]

That MRAP is t gonna drive itself!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Kaminsky Memorandum of Decision Appears to Affects Prebans (Page 1 of 4)

Hometown » Connecticut

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us