[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Official CT Preban Thread (Page 2 of 4)
|
I said I was done with this but too many people may be treading on thin ice. I sent a letter to the SLFU and asked if I could create an assault weapon from a very old pre-ban Remington 1100. They said NO This proves that even a preban stripped lower is NOT an assault weapon and if you build it into an assault weapon, regardless of wether it is a firearm by itself or not, you are breaking the law. A firearm/rifle/pistol is not an Assault Weapon as defined by the law unless it has certain features. A stripped lower can be assembled in a post ban configuration or a preban configuration. If it never had or shared it's bed with evil features it is POST BAN regardless of the date. Have fun with bubba! Hopefully, he is not well endowed. |
My mothers brothers friends husbands sisters cousin knows a friend of a friend of a person that works near the SLFU and has talked to the secretary of the guy who answers letters from AR15 guys and he said............................ Did you coach him on the re-reads. Good to know he is just Practicing.............. Guys and Girls, I may sound a little stubburn on this but I assure you I am only trying to keep all of you safe and away from legal problems. It will be very very hard to prove that a stripped lower made before 9/13/1994 was not assembled into an assault weapon before the date but if you have proof or a paper that says it was then we will both sleep better at night. I have a preban that was sold as a stripped lower and I have a notarized letter from the previous owner that it was assembled into an assault weapon prior to 9/13/1994. I suggest you do the same. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and good shooting. Kevin |
|
Man, sorry you got all wobbly kneed over a letter from one of the chuckle heads at SLFU in regards to your Remington 1100. I mean, that proves it once and for all, because anyone knows they always give us accurate info, 100% of the time. You had better get that letter out to all of us ASAP. Better clue NGX and Joel Cramer at Remarcable in on it too, before their doors get kicked in. Even though I prefaced by stating, "for what it's worth," my apologies for posting the opinions of a retired CSP lieutenant/lawyer. I will inform him that his opinions are of no value amongst AR15.com opinions. Finally, No, I did not coach him on the re-reads. I did however coach and educate the Connecticut State Police SLFU in re-reading the CT AWB/AK47 type. So if you presently own any Kalashnikov designed semi-auto chambered in .223, 5.45x39, .308, 7.62x54r, .410,20 or 12 gauge, you are welcome! I appreciate your opinions, and your concerns for all of us on the other side of this debate. I'll be one who agree's to disagree. In the spirit of things however, Merry Christmas and happy, safe shooting back at ya! |
I'll remember to pack some KY  I'm not too worried about it considering I'll be sitting there with numerous others as well a 1/4 of the states FFL dealers. Like I said before I am only trying to put this info out there, it is up to the individual to do what they are going to do. Apparently we all have some common ground on what qualifies as a legal "assault weapon" in this state. It's really a shame we even have to have this discussion. If our rights were not infringed on by one of the worst state attorney generals in the country this would not be a problem. I'm glad he does not take his salary, but he still pisses away state money like you would not believe. Not the time or place to get into it but those who know know. Add onto that a set of cryptic and ridiculously written statutes and a law enforcement body who can't be bothered with your questions/concerns and you end up...........well right here. Send 10 letters with the same question to the SLFU and I believe you will get 10 different answers. Maybe I will talk to some of my CSP friends about arranging a face to face to hash out some of these questions. We'll see. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all, and of course good shooting |
I have one but are you willing to post the serial number and your name and address here on the same listing? |
First of all, this isn't a WTB, WTS, WTT thread or forum. That belongs on the EE (or IM each other). Second of all what would be the relevance to posting your name and address. I think I know what your getting at. Open yourself up to legal action from the CSP because you interpret the law as preban stripped lowers not being legal as assault weapons. This is a real dumb thing to say. Posting your name and address on an open forum (especially one dealing with this subject matter) just increases the risk of any onlooker burglarizing your house, real smart. We all know your point of view on this subject, you have posted your opinion and posted warnings to those whose opinions differ. Lets try to keep this post constructive and keep the BS level down. Also do you have any documented cases of the CSP taking one of these cases to court. If you do please share. The only one I know of is the case involving the AK variant, that wasn't even a preban issue. The CSP does not want to take any of these cases to court, they settle outside so the poorly written statute does not come under to much scrutiny. Do you have any idea how many people in this state have these stripped lowers assembled into "assault weapons?" Quite a few. I wonder if they will be getting their doors kicked in and thrown in jail? Once again please provide proof of any court cases involving preban lowers. |
Of course not. Nor would I if it was a so-called "verifiable" lower. Let me know when you'd like to meet. Coffee is on me. |
Not meaning to turn this into a WTB thread. The point is, I'm certain enough regarding the legal status of lowers made prior to 94 that I'm more then willing to purchase them from those who aren't certain enough to hang onto them. 
|
I understand, I am too. |
|
I'm really glad I found this thread here. I didn't realize that there was still such a strict ban in place here in CT. I guess I won't be buying a folding stock for my 10/22. I just don't understand how that suddenly makes it an assault weapon, but I guess that's what everyone's frustration is. If I understand correctly, I have 2 options for getting an AR that is undoubtedly legal. I don't want to take any chances with gray area things. Basically, If I want one with all the stuff I need to find a complete rifle that was built pre-ban and came with all the evil items. If I buy one that was built after the ban, it has to have nothing but the pistol grip and isn't on the specific list. Is this correct? While not favorable, the latter is probably the most cost effective option. Can anyone recommend a particular model that is reasonably priced and CT legal? One other thing, does the pre-ban model have to have been in CT and registered when the ban was put in place or can I bring one in from a state without the ban? |
You don't have to buy a complete rifle, but if you are uneasy with the grey area you will wamt a letter from the manufacturer stating that the rifle left the factory as a complete rifle. I have an Eagle Arms stripped lower with a letter from Armalite stating that it was a complete rifle when it left. If you are looking for postban rifles you can go for Bushmaster, Rock River Arms, Stag Arms. But I would reccoment trying the preban route. There are complete rifles out there (bushmaster, eagle arms, PWA, etc) for around $1100-$1300 and that way you can have all the "evil features" that the rifle should have. If you are buying a non-Colt AR15/sporter-preban-non-select-fire gun, it does not have to be registered under the AW ban because it is exempt. And you certainly can buy one from out of state. |
|
This stuff is so crazy. If I buy a folding pistol grip stock for my 10/22 it's an assault weapon, but if I buy a brand new post-ban Bushmaster, it isn't. If I had to pick which one I'd rather look down the barrel of, it would definitely be the Ruger! I assume that even though my 10/22 was built in 93, it would fall in to the same gray area as a pre-ban lower that wasn't built in to an AW before the ban. I'm not taking any chances with getting a stock collapsible stock for it. Too bad, that's the last thing I wanted to get. |
If you have a '93 10/22 then it's a preban. You can put all the features on it. Preban weapons are excempt from the ban. Believe me, there are only a few out of many afraid of the grey area because they CSP can't build a case against it because the wording is too vague. Many, many people on here have preban lowers that are stripped and might have not left the factory as a complete rifle. There is nothing in the law that states that they had to be fully assembled before leaving the factory. Only in the federal AWB that is gone now. CTs AWB is different. In the end it's up to you to choose for yourself. Just remember, all the FFLs in the state that deal with preban, we all know who they are, will tell you the same thing: If manufactured befor sept 13, 1994 the AWB regulations do not apply. |
| The wording is vague, and it does seem like they'd have quite a bit of trouble building a case. It seems as if the gun wasn't an AW before the ban and then becomes one after, it shouldn't be exempt. I believe this is the intended nature of the ban, but the wording prevents that from being enforceable. |
Before the ban you could take any weapon throw a folding stock on it a flash suppressor, whatever. Then the bullshit ban took efeect and limited the feature count from that date forward. The weapons that were preban are therfore excempt and you can do as you wish with them. |
Are you that kid who used to sit in the front of class on Friday afternoon when the bell rang and go "Teacher you forgot to give us homework, is there any?" The SLFU has made it clear that they're more then willing to create legislation based on those questions, and you're going to go firing them off stupid letters? How about you do every gun owner in Connecticut a favor and put the pen down for a little while? The LETTER OF THE LAW was very clear on the issue, and it was MORE then defensible in court for any gun owner who ended up there. Did you think they were going to be honest about their answer either way? Now, thanks to your stupid move, the SFLU has an opinion on something they previously didn't. Hope you accomplished your goal.  |
My initial thoughts were to respond to your ignorance but instead I will try to educate you. Repitition plays an important part in learning. Read the law. Their response is word for word from the law. The date of manufacture of the receiver is only one part of being exempt as an Assault Weapon. Read the law. The Law states that a gun "as stated in section 3 or 4 above that was Manufactured prior to the date is excempt". It doesn't say that any firearm manufactured prior to the date can be converted to an AW. Read the law. |
Sure it does. The more I read it the more clear it becomes to me. Don't get me wrong, audibk, I am not here to bash you or make personal attacks, neither one of us are going to convince the other of out interpretation of the law. Thats just the way it is I guess. But here is goes one more time around. Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994. subdivisions (3) and (4) of subsection (a) specify what an assault weapon is as far as feature count, or parts in the possession of a person. Now, bear with me here, provided such firearm was leagally manufactured prior to 9.13.94 it can be used as a "host" weapon for those features. No where does it specifically state that the preban firearm had to be in assault weapon configuration prior to the ban. Please tell me where it states this? I read it over and over and over and it is nowhere to be found. "....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,...." so here it states that these weapons can be transfered and do not require registration. Wepons defined in the coresponding subsections. "....provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994." and here it states what makes the weapon qualify for exclusion. It does not get any simpiler then this. I am not taking anything out of context here as it is all spelled out in full in RED. Once again it never states the weapon had to be assembled as an "assault weapon" prior to 9.13.94, it only states that the FIREARM had to be legally manufactured before 9.13.94. A ruger 10/22 manufactured pre-9-13-94, being a semi auto with detachable magazine is a FIREARM legally manufactured before the ban date. Say today 1.21.08, I put a pistol grip and folding stock on it. It now becomes an assualt weapon according to subdivision (3) of subsection (a). Correct? Correct. Now according to Sec. 53-202m of the CT general statute we have on our hands an assualt weapon that is transferable and does not have to be registered because the FIREARM was manufactured prior to 9.13.94. This seems very clear to me and to others, I don't know how to break it down any further and once again I reiterate it is up to the discression of the individual to chose what they want to do as far as creating or purchasing an "assault weapon." I know what I am willing to buy, others know what they are willing to buy. My comfort zone is very high on this one, and will continue to be there because it is protected by the word of the law. |
Remember 4 years ago when nobody on this forum knew their elbow from their asshole with regards to the CT Assault Weapons Ban, and I wrote the original FAQ to clarify it? I've read it. I've read it a THOUSAND TIMES. Maybe I'll write them a letter about that Colt Carbine too and ask if it's an AR15. That'd be a wonderful idea too huh? Where in the law does it say that the Colt Carbine is legal? |
That Colt Carbine is a very good example of a gun that you would want proper documentation for. Even though it is not marked AR15 or sporter it is still markded COLT and it has all "evil" features in tact. If any LEO saw that thing you would have some serious explaining to do. I would almost guarantee it would get seized just because they would assume it was an COLT AR15, banned by name. Make sure you get a letter from colt spelling out exactly what that gun is, make copies and make sure a copy of that letter is never more then 3 feet away from that gun in CT. |
A basic letter from Colt stating the Make, Model, Serial Number, Manufacture Date, and confirmation of evil features before the ban? Sure. Write a letter to the SFLU to ASK them if it's legal in the state of Connecticut? Not a chance in hell. Simply put, Customer Service at Colt will not even tell you that the rifle meets CT Ban requirements. What makes anybody think the SFLU would tell you that it is legal in the state of Connecticut? |
I'm not advocating calling SLFU for anything. It is not worth the phone call. All I am saying is that the letter from COLT has to specify that the gun is not a COLT AR15 and not a COLT SPORTER. I don't think that would be too much to ask of COLT. As long as those two things are spelled out then it is very clear that this weapon falls into Sec. 53-202m. Not for the purpose of a CSP phone call but for the purpose of a FTF situation with an LEO. On another note, does anybody know where to get a letter for a PWA? I tried emailing LMT a few times with no response. I know they are prebans, (and I am not worried about them being undocumented as far a legalities are concerned) but I would still like a letter to go with them, if for nothing more then collection purposes. |
All true. My point is that the SFLU should have NEVER been approached about the "manufacture date" issue because the law was clear enough that it was easily legally defensible. But now that somebody has gone and ASKED the question, they have an opinion on it. Exact same situation with the COLT CARBINE. You might think the COLT CARBINE situation is more clear cut, but it certainly is not. What about the SP1? What about the SP2? Is an SP1 a Sporter? Is an SP2 a Sporter? If they are, then is AR15 and SPORTER really a catagory of firearms under which the COLT CARBINE would fall into, or are they specific models? If they're specific models, then why is the SP1 a "Sporter"? How about the Barrett M82A1-NG? Isn't that a different model then the M82A1, and therefore why we're able to purchase it? If so, then I ask again, why can't we purchase an SP1? It isn't a "Sporter", is it? AR-15A2? AR-15A3? M82A1-NG? The point is... if you don't want to hear their answer, don't ask the question. In 12 months if CT FFLs refuse to transfer Prebans that aren't accompanied by a letter from the factory stating it's condition at manufacture, we can all thank Audibk. We have NOTHING TO GAIN by asking for clarification on these issues, so everybody put your pens AWAY. |
| Can someone clarify something for me. If it is a weapon banned by name, it's not allowed at all, even if it was built prior to the ban date? I was under the impression that those models fell under the same situation as the others, they were just classified as AW for a different reason. |
RealFastV6 = I am in the same camp as you on that one. Don't bring something to someones attention when it is perfectly fine flying under the radar.
If a weapon is banned by name there are only a few ways it can be owned. If the weapon is a machine gun (capable of fully automatic fire only and manufactured before 1986 - including sear packs, lightning links and registered recievers) it can be owned. If the weapon was owned by you prior to the ban, you had a grace period to obtain a certificate of possession for it therefore if you had it you could keep it, but you cannot transfer it to anyone in CT. If you are active duty military relocated to CT, or if you were serving when the ban went into effect you are able to obtain some sort of certificate to own an AW. Otherwis you cannot own a weapon banned by name on that list or a post ban weapon that exceeds the feature count. |
|
You guys think the SLFU is that stupid that they can't form an opinion on their own. I have persoally talked with Det. Kubish (he may be a Leut.?) at SLFU and he is very knowledgeable about the law and all the loop holes. He wouldn't bother you about a PWA thats made in 1993 but a stripped lower that shipped from the Manufacturer on 9/12/94??? I think you're going to get that one confiscated and probably get a personal tour of the SLFU. I will let you know when my Colt Carbine gets delivered and you can come down to the range and try it out. The date of mfg was 1992. The law doesn't say Colt AR15 type. You know what is says since you read it a thousand times. A stripped lower is a firearm, but if it was never assembled as described in section 3 or had all the parts together, ready to be assembled as in section 4 then it is NOT and NEVER wil be an Assault Weapon. Your gettting a little too hot about this. It's a law that wil never go away. I am just trying to help people get around it with the least amount of risk. I would hate to see a good person with a family go to the slammer cause they took someones advice that was a little gray (or grey). If it's a stripped lower made anytime in 1994 I would recommend to those people that want to limit their risk to a minimum NOT to buy it. 1993 or older, I recommend you get a letter that it was assembled with evil features prior to 9/13/1994. If the manufacturer states it was a complete rifle prior to 9/13/1994 then you are good to go. 
|
Exactly, so if the law doesn't say "AR15 Type", then why are AR15A2s illegal? How are M82A1-NGs legal? If they're so knowledgeable about the loopholes, then how would they explain that one? (Please don't ask them...) |
|
What did you end up getting for a barrel?
I think that right there is the key. They never say the assault weapon had to be made prior to the ban, just the firearm. If we're calling the lower the firearm, then that sounds like we're covered. Even if they meant the entire weapon when they said firearm, their definition of firearm which can be found elsewhere in the state statutes is enough that a case would never stick. |
You got it. |
|
A question from an uninformed New Yorker. I often go to CT to shoot, and have brought my pre-ban Bushmaster (confirmed a complete rifle by Bushmaster) as well as a SGW, and a post-ban Bushmaster AR. My question is that in discussing buying a Colt Sporter from a local gun shop owner in NY, he told me that Bushmasters were banned by name in CT, just like Colt, and in fact the Bushmaster sales rep was recently arrested in CT for posession (of a Bushmaster XM-15)... That sounded strange. When I read the law, is specifies the "Bushmaster Auto Rifle or Pistol". Now unfortunatly, none of my Bushmaster's are auto, so I am a bit sceptical about the story and the law. Does anyone know for sure? |
I think that is a bullshit story you got from that dealer. Only the Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol are banned by name. I don't even think that applies to an XM-15 with a RDIAS. If the guy had a postban Bushmaster xm15 with a collapsible stock and bayonette lug and flash hider, then he would be in violation of our AWB and subject to arrest. Or a slect fire version, but thats it. Bushmaster is good to go here. My first AR was a Bushmaster XM15 20" target model. |
Bushmasters aren't banned by name, only those 2 model listed are. As long as you follow the feature count rule, it's OK. I'm not sure if an "Auto rifle" is a specific model they used to have or what, but I do know that there are Bushmasters all over CT. You wouldn't see gun dealers stocking them brand new if they were banned. |
|
Yes, I actually called Bushmaster (regarding an order) and casually mentioned the story. The rep I was speaking to chuckled and informed me that a) none of their personnel were arrested in CT, and b) they are completely legal, providing you observe the pre-post-ban regs. So both my prebans and my postbans are good to go. Got to learn not to take every story you hear as truth... |
|
Question : I just got my hands on a pre-ban rifle. I was going to use the pre-ban lower and get a POF P-415 piston upper with a collapsable stock and flash hider on it and sell off the other parts, but I've been reading about the lower by itself not being enough sine the upper would obviously not be original pre-ban design. Am I correct in my thinking? I have to make sure the rifle is legal and all, and if i can't do this I might aswell cut my losses and sell the pre0ban rifle as I have no other need for it. |
|
SBR, SBS, AOW all fall under the rules and regulations of the AWB. Just because you have a tax stamped SBR does not mean you can have a collapsible stock, flash suppressor,etc (can't exceed feature count). If you have a Machine gun on the other hand, anything goes. Any legnth barrel, all evil features. It just can't be select fire. Full auto only in CT. Also if you can have an AK47 or Thomson or a Colt AR15 if they are a registered full auto machine gun. jeffg87 - you are good to go with the POF upper on the preban lower. But like you said you may be better off just selling it...........to me . If you have a preban lower, you can have any type of configuration of upper you want. As long as the barrel legnth is 16" or more, otherwise that becomes a matter of SBRing and has nothing to do with the AWB. Out of curiousity, what kind of lower do you have?
|
| Another person just told me from a gunstore that using just the pre-ban lower with a telescopic stock and threaded barrel would make it illegal in ct with my new upper, because it did not come that way originally. I would have to keep it the way it came . Dammit. |
Damn that really sucks. Well if you want to trade, I've got a nice new Stag Lower so you don't have to deal with that old Grey piece of crap. ETA:
|
|
I'll bet that gunshop doesn't deal in pre-bans much, if at all. There is definitely two distinct camps on this issue. You really need to read the exact wording in the two statutes in question, and do what you feel comfortable with. Remember these terms, and their definitions when reading the statutes. INTENDED: to be planned for the future MANUFACTURED: to make from raw materials by hand or machinery, fabricate. FIREARM: the frame or receiver of any weapon. The lower receiver on AR's has the serial #'s, needs to be transfered through FFL's etc.... Ct general statute 53-202a defines what are "assault weapons" here in CT. An "assault weapon" in CT can be, according to 53-202a(4): A part or combination of parts INTENDED to convert a FIREARM into an assault weapon, as defined in subsection 3. In plain speak, if you buy say, a DPMS M4 complete parts kit (tele stock, bayo lug, flash hider) and assemble all of the parts on a brand new Stag lower, you have just assembled an illegal assault weapon. Ct general statute 53-202m defines when an assault weapon, like the one above, is exempt from it's illegal status, here in Ct. Statute 53-202m: Circumstances when assault weapons, as defined in 53-202a(4), are exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements...provided such FIREARM was legally MANUFACTURED prior to September 13, 1994. No where in the statutes above, does it say complete rifle, or assembled or built . The actual language reads only the AR's lower receiver, had to have been forged or cast and machined before 9/13/94, before assembling it, at a later date with all the parts (evil ones too) needed to make a complete, firing rifle. If you decide not to build off of your Essential Arms lower, you will have no trouble unloading it around here! |