I have absolutely NO affiliation with OMB express, but they have a used preban Gov't carbine for sale for $850... snatch it while you can. Maybe it will save someone a few bucks over getting gouged.

https://www.ombexpress.com/p-11326-pre-ban-colt-ar15-a2-govt-carbine-used.aspx#tab2

not for me, still says ar-15 on it, so no go in CT



mass peeps, its all yours!

The fact that we have to pass on this makes me a sad panda...

At the Wallingford show this weekend they allowed Colt AR15 A2's to be sold, they said that the new interpretation is that only the Sporter and Ar15 is banned but that the A2's are not listed. They showed me the 5 page opinion from the state lawyers. They said that it would be confirmed in writting soon.

Buy 'em up and M4gerize them



 

You first.

If this happens... oh lord...

Game. On.

Who are "they"?


ETA: Were these Colts neutered? Prebans?

Also, who are the "state lawyers?"

Interesting.....



Does that mean the 5 pages that already exist are blank?

this info was from the state troopers in the weapons unit that were working at the event

I would wait for a policy letter from SFLU (or better) before you try that one. If the guys working the job weren't part of the unit, they have no standing.

oh hell. in on this. want to see some official looking documents.

i was about to snatch that up for 850 if it was one of those elusive Colt Carbines, but the AR15 marking made me sad in my pants.

It would be incredibly awesome to tell the pre-ban PWA, Bushmaster, Eagle, etc. gougers to go fuck themselves but I have never even heard a rumor of this.  I pray to Sweet Baby Jeebus this is true.  I'm on the phone tomorrow to make some inquiries.

I'm in.  This guy on the internet said it was legal....

this gloomy ct day may have just gotten a little brighter, hopefully this is true.......

"You can wish in one hand and crap in the other.  See which one gets filled first."

In before the noob gets banned.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

banned? for what? didnt know that posting a hopeful thought would be an arfcom sin....?

I wasn't referring to you, Ho Chi Minh.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

gotcha.          now im confused with the Ho Chi Minh,   maybe i need more coffee this mornin

Is something up at the SFLU?!?!?

First we have rumors of interpretation of suppressive as flash hisses changing and now they are looking at the literal interpretation of the AWB to include the Colt Sporter and AR15 but not the AR15 A2?

Rational side says don't expect anything, but hopeful side says "where there is smoke, there is fire"

New admin? New lawyers?  Internal shot to snub Jepsen?

As far as I'm concerned they're all internet rumors until proven otherwise though.

You have something that says supressors aren't flash hiders?

Maybe they are looking at it in the way a "Model 100" is not the same as a "Model 100-A"  



There are also typos in the banned-by-name section that would allow certain models based upon direct interpretation of the law as written.
EX: "Calico models M-900,
M-950 and 100-P"  are banned, but going by the above logic then the Calico M100-P wouldn't be banned (Calico M100-P doesnotequal Calico 100-P).
 

 

There are guns on that list that don't even exist.

What about the AIDS Cannon Model HI-FIVE by CTB Industries?



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I have been told by the proprietor of a LGS, and have heard it repeated from a few people that there was some headway being made in defining if a Suppressor is a FH despite the ATF ruling.  Nothing more than rumors, but was hoping that mentioning it might bring out some missing pieces to see if there was any substance, or if this was just scuttlebutt.

Still not crossing my fingers.   Honestly, they won't tell us what their stance is unless we ask.

hmmmmmmmmmmm. sounds very familar,    guess the cat's out the bag

what does the state police use?  Old-ass, bare A2's right?

Purely speculative thoughts here, but is it possible that the impetus of any reinterpretation is because the CSP is sick of their telephone poles and want to have ban features like us "civilians" ?  

Or would they not be even be able to possess those either under prior interpretations?





What FFL is going to accept transfers of these?  I can just see the usual suspects saying "NO WAY!" unless something very detailed comes out on state letterhead.  I think it is safe to assume that any AR-15 A2 in-state on a certificate of possession or otherwise owned is going to be very few and far between, so FTF acquisitions can be ruled out.

The riflemen use issued government model A2s, iron sights, no modifications allowed.  The issued rifles would be considered asssault weapons under the law.  But they are owned by the state not the individual trooper.  The Tac Team uses 6920s.  Once again, these are issued, not owned by the individual.  Privately owned duty rifles would be Colt Match Targets, usually the 6400C or 6731, both in post ban configuration.

I really hope this does work out for you guys - I was telling CTB last night that over the years, I've consistently seen these for sale out of state and had to leave them behind.  

Keep your eye open

I noticed this at the show also, but just kinda passed it off in smiliar manner to those here. I wont be the first, but when I see it in writing I will believe it!

I spoke with someone in theSLFU  after reading this thread. What I was told is that the new interpretation of 53-202a is that in order for firearm to be banned by name the markings on  the firearm have to match the wording in 53-202a exactly unless type is also specified.

I was  cautioned that this only applies to preban firearms as if the firearm was made after the ban date feature count comes into play.

I asked if this was posted anywhere for people to see it themselves and was told it was not.

I was not impressed with that answer but what do you expect for this state.  So I guess the answer would be to email the SLFU so at least you would have a written record of what you were told.

I think the go to person at the SLFU now is Det. Musial.

Good luck to everyone.

I emailed the SLFU last week with no response yet. If there I get a response, I will let you know and post it here on the board.

Thanks
Got_Guns

Until we have something more "official" I don't think we will see any dealers transferring any in.  If I can get a FFL to accept one, I'd feel confident enough to possess one.

I guess it would also be beneficial to ask exactly what models would be available then?

If "AR-15 A2" is kosher, would "Sporter II" be as well?  This could also apply to a ton of Hk's!

Things in CT just got a lot less sucky!

Yep.  Until an official opinion letter - one similar to the letter that was issued regarding the legality of non-7.62x39 AKs - is issued, I would steer clear.  Don't forget about the "spin the wheel, get a different response" issues of the very recent past.  "This guy on ARFCOM said it's legal" is exactly the same as "the cop on the phone told me it was legal" from a defensive standpoint.

From what I've heard, the appropriate people have asked the appropriate questions... Waiting for the letter.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Two different scenarios here

Wrong - it's exactly the same BS until there's an opinion letter.  Without something in writing, it doesn't matter who the person you spoke to is.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Are you speaking from experience or just Assuming?   I would think that if I spoke to a readily identifiable CSP weapons unit member, it's just as good

My experience says "get it in writing"

I'd substitute "someone else first" depending on the situation though

Until there is something in writing their word(CSP) is as good as the paper it is printed on.

Now, imagine that after speaking to a State Trooper, we'll assume one with a name and direct line, in firearms unit, somebody comes to possess an AR-15A2 in Connecticut. At somepoint thereafter that individual comes to interact with a police officer. The police officer examines the firearm, notices the Colt AR-15A2 rollmark and effects a probable cause arrest for 53-202C and possibly other related charges, depending on the specific circumstances that predicated the contact. Assume that the State's Attorney decides to prosecute the defendant- remembering that the State Police, nor any other agency, ever released anything saying that a nomenclature derivation on Colt AR-15 was not encompassed by the prohibiting legislation. The Defendant admits to possessing the weapon in question, which based on its features is an assault weapon- albeit exempt from registration under 53-202m, and admits that it is in fact made by Colt and denoted an AR-15A2 a model distinct from from the Colt AR-15 prohibited by name in 53-202a. Citing appellate caselaw, which affirmed the specificity of the named models ban, the Defendant moved that the charges against him be dismissed. Consistant with the traditional interpreation of the prohibition, the judge decides reject the Motion for Dismissal and to allow the jury to decide. At trial, t, he is asserting two defenses:
1) That the weapon is not covered by the ban

and

2) Ad argumentum if the Colt AR-15A2 were an assault weapon prohibited from the defendant's possession, that his possession was only and directly in result to information and advice relayed to him by a Connecticut State Trooper, assigned to the firearms unit acting in the course of his official duties- that such statement reflected an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, officially made or issued by a public servant…. charged or empowered with the responsibility or privilege… enforcing… such statute or law- entitling him to claim a defense of ignorance or mistake of law under  53a-6.

Despite the Defendant's telephone conversation with the Trooper, he has no record of the particular interpretation provided by the statute- only a telphone record indication that he had spoken with somebody in the Special Licensing an Firearms Unit at DPS HQ in MIddletown. When questioned, the Trooper relayed no recollection of the conversation and suggested that it was possible that the Defendant had possibly misinterpreted all or part of  conversation between them. On cross examination, the Trooper (also the ranking officer in SLFU) replies that numerous AR-15A2 firearms were registered on COPs after the passage of the initial Connecticut assault weapons law and also that such weapons had been forfeited by individuals, including Connecticut Stat Troopers, in the years following to avoid (potential) prosecution.

Assume that no  official ruling was ever published. The Defendant obtained a subpeona for elevant documents, though the Department's response to the subpeona yielded nothing of value.

Assume that you are a juror- possibly plucked from a ghetto slum in Hartford or Bridgeport maybe New Britain, or New Haven. Or maybe even that you are a comfortable, educated, affluent  suburbanite from Avon or Darien or the like. Remember now that you aren't an afficienado who posts 15 imes a day on ARFCOM and has 20 prebans stacked deep in thier safe....your only experience with guns is that you see stories about shootings in the North End or Fair Haven or Elmwood on Fox 61–– maybe you know somebody who does, or even you have a .38 in the dresser or a Beretta over-under for capping pheasants and clays twice per year.

You hear the evidence from both sides, you hear the state present a damning a case against the Defendant- a wann-a-be commando equipped with a paramilitary assault weapon commonly known to be criminal to possess. Then you  hear a defense put forth by a defendant, substantiated with no real;evidence to illustrate that he is not liable for possessing the implement he admits to have possessed...

How do you thnk that you (in the persona of a hypothetical  Connecticut juror) are going to vote?  



So, did I beat EMS with my wall of paranoid text?

This is a solid argument, but the reality of it depends on if a sworn officer can be considered a source of legal advice or can speak for department policy.

Certainly- Actually, if you read it close enough, there 3-4 points where it could the outcome could shift very easily, depending on specific interpretations. That's why I left the outcome open ended...

A written opinion can't say, "I have no recollection of that conversation.". Although, I will gladly support anyone who wants to be a test case - I'll send you a weekly supply of astroglide.





Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

The CSP won't write anything down, they may have in the past but that was then

Pretty certain that it took test cases to get anything official out of them in the past.  The AWB is ambiguously gay by design.

Lacking any official statement, I use dealers as my "comfort-level" barometer.  They have all to gain and all to lose.  If SLFU goes after anyone, it is the dealers.  If they are not comfortable doing something, I'm not.  The prior test cases had to almost be forced upon DPS by having the guy bring an AK into a Diner or something.  They did not want to actively enforce.  

In the event of clashing info from dealers, I play it safe.  But honestly, If I had a suppressor mounted on a post-ban with a pinned quick-detach mount brake, I'd have to literally be caught shooting it in order to get pinched.  If I did, it would be something like a $500 fine the first time.  Or I could just take the suppressor off when I see Barney Fife show up at the range.

We all know you have plenty of that asstroglide.

I hear its the ticket to the back door.

and yet again a NEHTF threads goes gay.

Careful, you might end up in his "play room".

You don't want to know what that chair is for.

Got an answer from the SFLU

just checking to make sure I can post it here, since there are names involved and one of those memos at the bottom of the email talking about being the recipient blah blah blah

Heres the response that I got from the SFLU