Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Posted: 7/22/2013 10:13:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2020 3:42:12 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:14:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 12:27:52 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:15:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 12:32:00 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:15:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 12:28:18 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:15:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 12:29:49 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:16:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 12:30:38 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:20:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2013 10:32:56 AM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:20:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2013 12:24:19 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:20:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 10:29:21 AM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 10:40:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2020 4:11:50 PM EDT by Andrapos]
What is a CT "OTHER" firearm?

Click To View Spoiler
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 11:00:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2013 11:00:43 AM EDT by Andrapos]
...
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 11:39:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 12:33:23 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 11:40:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2013 11:33:44 AM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 11:40:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2020 3:24:46 PM EDT by Andrapos]
Link Posted: 7/22/2013 4:23:45 PM EDT
reserved space





Link Posted: 7/23/2013 1:38:34 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By zegermanznew:
reserved space





View Quote



only one spot?

gona need at least one more spot for modrapos=CT
Link Posted: 7/25/2013 2:26:44 PM EDT
Post 4-4-13 Banned by Name "Assault Weapon” List
Any of the following specified semiautomatic centerfire rifles, or copies or duplicates thereof with the capability of any such rifles, that were in production prior to or on the effective date of this section:
...
Olympic Arms AR-15, A1, CAR, PCR, K3B, K30R, K16, K48, K8 and K9 Rifles;
...
View Quote


Does that mean my Olympic Arms lower receiver need to be registered and can't not be transferred?  
Link Posted: 7/29/2013 10:02:29 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Andrapos:
Help! - I'm moving to CT.


Click To View Spoiler  
View Quote



This spoiler section should just read "DON'T".
Link Posted: 10/18/2013 6:06:08 PM EDT
Can you legally buy, finish and build an AR15 from an 80% lower and shoot it at your local range?
Link Posted: 10/26/2013 7:43:52 PM EDT
Does anyone know how to find a production date on a Bushmaster supposed pre-ban AR?
I recently purchased a Colt off Auction Arms.  I have in my budget some $ for another if I can get one reasonable.

I saw a Bmaster on auction hat the seller has listed as pre-ban.  I called Bushmaster well, "Remington" and they say they don't have the records from that long ago because they purchased the company only a few years ago.

Any suggestions or should I just buy another brand?

Colt seems to be going up since I bought mine and I thought another brand might be cool to have.

Also looking for a nice 16" upper for my Colt that currently has a 20".

Thanks.

Link Posted: 10/27/2013 8:18:49 PM EDT
I just found this....

http://foxct.com/2013/10/18/possible-loophole-in-ct-gun-law/

It looks like Pre-1994 manufactured "assault weapons" that are covered by description only (not specifically named in the new terrible bill,) may still be legal to purchase, sell, and transfer in CT. Does anyone happen to have any more information or an informed opinion on this? Maybe help some of us identify what we might be able to get before they close this up too?

God I hate this state.

Link Posted: 10/28/2013 10:03:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2013 10:11:14 AM EDT by sbhaven]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheSpillmonkey:
I just found this....

http://foxct.com/2013/10/18/possible-loophole-in-ct-gun-law/
View Quote

FYI. There is already a several page thread discussing the Fox article and its follow up started a week ago...

Fox News

Edit to add: Also please note the subject of "prebans" and their being legal to transfer has been discussed repeatedly in numerous threads since the passage of the new laws, here are several of the most recent threads...

CCDL post letter from Dept of Public Safety Commisioner
Mfg letters to verify preban status
Possible confermation from DESPP on transfering prebans on CCDL Facebook
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 12:05:10 AM EDT
Thank you :)
I have been reading the dozens of posts related to this. Time to start searching.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 7:00:26 PM EDT
Special Licensing and Firearms Unit has a new page devoted Firearms and Permit Related Forms and Information. It included a new LEO FAQ and a PDF on the subject of preban transfers no registration being legal.
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=530224&A=4213

There is a new thread on it here with all the information from the SFLU page as of 10/29/13.

Forms and information utilized by the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit
Link Posted: 11/2/2013 10:36:18 AM EDT
^So that is them telling us we dont have to register prebans, and can transfer them?

If I read that correctly....everyone with a preban should keep a copy of this.
Link Posted: 11/2/2013 10:48:49 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bending_rodriguez:
^So that is them telling us we dont have to register prebans, and can transfer them?
View Quote

Yes. That is the state admitting to what we already know, to what has been discussed numerous times here, and what has been the case since 2001.
Link Posted: 11/2/2013 1:21:00 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sbhaven:

Yes. That is the state admitting to what we already know, to what has been discussed numerous times here, and what has been the case since 2001.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By bending_rodriguez:
^So that is them telling us we dont have to register prebans, and can transfer them?

Yes. That is the state admitting to what we already know, to what has been discussed numerous times here, and what has been the case since 2001.


I dont understand what you mean by "since 2001" relating to the registration and transfer of prebans..?
But either way, what I was saying/asking is that the CT GOV has now made it "clear".  The fact that on a daily basis it seems to change wether or not prebans need to be registered by Jan 1 2014, and if they can be transfered into the state and between residents, has now been OFFICIALLY answered.

I myself really was on the fence about registering a preban receiver.  I figured that after Jan 1 2014 they would have come out and said that "oh by the way any receiver(no matter when it was manufactured needed to be registered, and if it wasnt it is now an illegal AW)".
Now I know that this cannot happen and the CT GOV has made it clear I can be happy about SOMETHING

Link Posted: 11/2/2013 4:10:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/2/2013 4:14:04 PM EDT by sbhaven]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bending_rodriguez:
I dont understand what you mean by "since 2001" relating to the registration and transfer of prebans..?
View Quote

Section 53-202m, which allows for preban transfers and no registration, was added in 2001 by PA 01-130:

Sec. 3. (NEW) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, of the general statutes, as amended by this act, and section 2 of this act, 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, as amended by this act, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.
Link Posted: 11/2/2013 4:16:44 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sbhaven:

Section 53-202m, which allows for preban transfers and no registration, was added in 2001 by PA 01-130:

Sec. 3. (NEW) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, of the general statutes, as amended by this act, and section 2 of this act, 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, as amended by this act, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By bending_rodriguez:
I dont understand what you mean by "since 2001" relating to the registration and transfer of prebans..?

Section 53-202m, which allows for preban transfers and no registration, was added in 2001 by PA 01-130:

Sec. 3. (NEW) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, of the general statutes, as amended by this act, and section 2 of this act, 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, as amended by this act, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.


ahhh i get it, so that was added in 2001, and because of that it cant/hasnt been amended, so we are able to transfer/not register them?
Link Posted: 11/2/2013 4:33:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/2/2013 4:36:19 PM EDT by sbhaven]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bending_rodriguez:


ahhh i get it, so that was added in 2001, and because of that it cant/hasnt been amended, so we are able to transfer/not register them?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bending_rodriguez:
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By bending_rodriguez:
I dont understand what you mean by "since 2001" relating to the registration and transfer of prebans..?

Section 53-202m, which allows for preban transfers and no registration, was added in 2001 by PA 01-130:

Sec. 3. (NEW) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, of the general statutes, as amended by this act, and section 2 of this act, 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, as amended by this act, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.


ahhh i get it, so that was added in 2001, and because of that it cant/hasnt been amended, so we are able to transfer/not register them?

Correct. Since 2001 prebans were legal to purchase and didn't need to be registered.

People just assumed that prebans were banned with PA 13-3 since so many other firearms were banned. What really happened is that PA 13-3 repealed and replaced 53-202a, and in doing so it changed the numbering/lettering of the subdivision within that section. Which made 53-202m an orphan since it pointed to portions of the law that no longer existed. The legislators, for what ever reason, specifically repealed and replaced 53-202m in PA 13-220 and updated it to point to the old law as it was on January 1, 2013. So technically between April 4, 2013 and June 18, 2013 it appears one could not legally transfer a preban. That may be partly where the confusion comes from. FFL's were so confused, as many others were, by PA 13-3 and PA 13-220 that in spite of 53-202m they were hesitant to transfer prebans.

The gun grabbers are pissed because they thought, and I suspect were told that all AR's/AK's would be banned, when they were not. SLFU/DESPP for what ever reason refused to admit that prebans were legal to transfer after PA 13-3, and when they did get around to confirming they were months later, they also ruled/mandated the buyer provide a letter from the manufacturer attesting to the manufacturing date being prior to September 13, 1994.
Link Posted: 11/3/2013 3:25:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mag_Dump:
Can you legally buy, finish and build an AR15 from an 80% lower and shoot it at your local range?
View Quote


I am also interested in the answer to this. I believe you would have to have possession of the lower before 4/4/13 and have to register it before 1/1/14, even if it is not complete. As the ATF considers the stripped,serialized lower the firearm,  I am planning to assign a serial number to mine and register them. Also I believe in the new law there is some language about having parts to assemble an assault weapon, but if the lowers are registered, It is not un-registered, just un assembled. Something of a gray area there. Would love to know if anyone has an opinion on this...
Link Posted: 11/5/2013 9:14:41 AM EDT
As indicated in another thread, a non resident can apply for an assault weapon Certificate of Possession.

Non-CT Resident AW Certificate Approved
Link Posted: 11/12/2013 3:26:01 PM EDT
So I have a friend in florida who is willing to sell me his non-listed preban AR.
Can I just fly down to florida, pay him, check it appropriately as firearm/luggage, and then keep it?
Do i need to go through an FFL up here in CT since we do not need to register them?
Do I need to apply for a certificate of ownership?

I appreciate the help. I am getting conflicting info from different forum threads and friends/family.
I want to make sure that I do this right.

-Thanks
Link Posted: 11/12/2013 6:46:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2013 6:49:52 PM EDT by sbhaven]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheSpillmonkey:
So I have a friend in florida who is willing to sell me his non-listed preban AR.
Can I just fly down to florida, pay him, check it appropriately as firearm/luggage, and then keep it?
Do i need to go through an FFL up here in CT since we do not need to register them?
Do I need to apply for a certificate of ownership?

I appreciate the help. I am getting conflicting info from different forum threads and friends/family.
I want to make sure that I do this right.
View Quote

No. Legally per the ATF, the sale/transfer must go through an FFL either in FL or in CT. If the sale/transfer is done in FL then that FFL is supposed to follow all of the CT laws on firearm sales/transfers. This means that they'd (the FFL) would have to file the DPS-3-C with the state (in addition I assume to doing the DPS-67-C form) for the "preban". If its not a real preban then it cannot be an assault weapon since those are (except for exempted groups) illegal to transfer post 4/4/13. You may want to ensure its a real preban by getting a letter from the manufacturer prior to picking it up, just as SLFU and FFL's are asking buyers to do here in CT with respect to prebans.

ATF: Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Q: May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State?
A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]
Link Posted: 11/12/2013 6:58:12 PM EDT
Thank you! That is exactly what I needed.

Olympic Arms has a serial number chart. These show the manufacture date ranges, and these two guns are definitely both pre-bans. (any I do not see any mention of Olympic Arms by name in the new bill).
Should this information be enough? I could order the certification papers as well, but they are $35 per and shouldn't really be needed since the chart is also from the company.

Thanks again
Link Posted: 11/16/2013 6:18:31 PM EDT
M27 links for 5.56 ammo. Can this be bought but not linked for more than 10 or can 100 rd still be linked?
What does the new law say about linked ammo?
Link Posted: 11/19/2013 7:07:45 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Toadyrock:
M27 links for 5.56 ammo. Can this be bought but not linked for more than 10 or can 100 rd still be linked?
What does the new law say about linked ammo?
View Quote


Links/belts are banned over 10 rounds
I don't know what that effectively means tho

I will be attempting to register my several thousand m60 links
I don't think I will be able to transport larger than 10 round linked belts after jan1
Link Posted: 11/24/2013 5:45:00 AM EDT
I have a question about Rimfire Rifles.
Most of the forum posts (this one included) state that Rimfire weapons are excluded from the "bad feature" count.

I found this tonight on CT's site....
http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/faqs_06192013.pdf    bottom of page 6

Q: I bought a .22 caliber rimfire rifle which has many of the assault weapon features named in the new Act. Do I have to register it?

A: Yes. Under the amended Act, any semiautomatic .22 rimfire rifle, capable of accepting a detachable magazine and which possess two or more of the military features listed in 53-202a prior to April 4, 2013 (including a bayonet lug) is an assault weapon.


53-202a on CT's firearms law site...  http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_943.htm#sec_53-202a

"(1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms:"


The "centerfire" wording has been removed?? Are Rimfire now no longer exempt? When did that happen?

Link Posted: 11/24/2013 6:37:41 AM EDT
I think i found it.... unfortunately.....

There was a new bill.

"The bill also clarifies the status of .22-caliber rimfire rifles, defining them as assault weapons when fitted with a detachable magazine and more than one of several features including a folding or telescoping stock, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. With passage of Monday’s revisions, the firearm so constructed will no longer be available for sale in Connecticut, but consumers who purchased it since April 4 will be allowed to register and keep it."


Link Posted: 11/24/2013 11:03:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2013 11:19:08 AM EDT by sbhaven]
Originally Posted By TheSpillmonkey:
I have a question about Rimfire Rifles.
....
View Quote

The current statute links on the state's website, like the one you mentioned, do NOT reflect the updated law(s).

The two bills were PA 13-3 enacted on 4/4/13, and PA 13-220 enacted on 6/18/13.

Initially PA 13-3 changed portions of section 53-202a so it applied only to semiautomatic centerfire rifles. After 4/4/13, this allowed semiautomatic rimfire rifles to be sold with all the "evil" features because there was no feature count restriction on semiautomatic rimfire rifles. PA 13-220 added the following line to 53-202a so that semiautomatic rimfire rifles are now subject to the old law's two feature limit.

"(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;"

PA 13-220 also indicates that anyone who bought a semiautomatic rimfire rifle with all the evil features between 4/4/13 and 6/18/13 is now supposed to register them by January 1, 2014. The section of law that indicates this is the following:

Sec. 7. Subsections (a) and (b) of section 53-202d of the general statutes, as amended by section 28 of public act 13-3, are repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
....
(2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this subdivision, any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon, as defined in any provision of subparagraphs (B) to (F), inclusive, of subdivision (1) of section 53-202a, as amended by public act 13-3, as amended by this act, on April 4, 2013, under the provisions of sections 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, in effect on January 1, 2013, or any person who regains possession of an assault weapon as defined in any provision of said subparagraphs pursuant to subsection (e) of section 53-202f, as amended by this act, or any person who lawfully purchases a firearm on or after April 4, 2013, but prior to the effective date of this section, 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, shall apply by January 1, 2014, or, if such person is a member of the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States and is unable to apply by January 1, 2014, because such member is or was on official duty outside of this state, shall apply within ninety days of returning to the state to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection for a certificate of possession with respect to such assault weapon. Any person who lawfully purchases a semiautomatic pistol that is defined as an assault weapon in any provision of subparagraphs (B) to (F), inclusive, of subdivision (1) of section 53-202a, as amended by public act 13-3, as amended by this act, that the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection designates as being designed expressly for use in target shooting events at the Olympic games sponsored by the International Olympic Committee pursuant to regulations adopted under subdivision (4) of subsection (b) of section 53-202b, as amended by public act 13-3, as amended by this act, shall apply within ninety days of such purchase to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection for a certificate of possession with respect to such assault weapon.

Link Posted: 11/24/2013 1:52:37 PM EDT
Thank you. So anything up to June can be grandfathered in, and anything after is now illegal to own if it has more than a single "bad feature"?
So if i bought a 22lf today, I could NOT obtain one legally with both a pistol grip and a front grip. Correct?
Link Posted: 11/24/2013 2:33:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2013 2:35:06 PM EDT by sbhaven]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheSpillmonkey:
Thank you. So anything up to June can be grandfathered in, and anything after is now illegal to own if it has more than a single "bad feature"?
So if i bought a 22lf today, I could NOT obtain one legally with both a pistol grip and a front grip. Correct?
View Quote

The way it works for semiautomatic rimfire rifles is as follows:
Any semiautomatic rimfire rifle that was legally purchased prior to 4/4/13 that has less than two features under the old law doesn't have to be registered.
Any semiautomatic rimfire rifle that was manufactured prior to 9/13/94 that has two or more features doesn't need to be registered.
Any semiautomatic rimfire rifle that was purchased between 4/4/13 and 6/18/13 and which has two or more of the following; a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher has to be registered.
Prior to 4/4/13 and after 6/18/13 you cannot buy a semiautomatic rimfire rifle manufactured after 9/13/94 with two or more of the following features: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher.
Link Posted: 11/24/2013 3:34:43 PM EDT
Thank you! So the only "no issues" time period for non-prebans is that few month gap.
They should probably update the front page of this thread :)
Link Posted: 11/24/2013 5:26:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2013 5:28:08 PM EDT by sbhaven]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheSpillmonkey:
Thank you! So the only "no issues" time period for non-prebans is that few month gap.
They should probably update the front page of this thread :)
View Quote

What portion of the front page should be updated? By the time the front page was created the window for unlimited rimfire features had passed. The following is from the rifle link of the first post, which covers all but preban rimfires.

RIMFIRE
Is it a semiautomatic rimfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine?
If yes and it has two or more pre 4-4-13 semiautomatic rifle features then it gets registered, cannot be sold instate after 6/18/13.[iv]

And the preban business is covered at this link, also from the front page.
Link Posted: 11/24/2013 6:58:56 PM EDT
You are correct. I see that now. I had misread one of the lines on the 2013 AW criteria section. All is good.
Link Posted: 11/24/2013 8:37:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2013 8:37:56 PM EDT by TheSpillmonkey]
I think the only thing I am missing is what text specifically links rimfires to the 1994 "features" criteria instead of the 2013.
I want to make sure I 100% understand myself before I put a forward pistol grip on something like a S&W M&P15-22 that already has a pistol grip (which as a forward grip is not listed in 1994, would be ok)
Link Posted: 11/28/2013 8:22:16 PM EDT
Still looking for clarification on that last question if anyone knows :)
Also, looks like they are pushing to modify the bill again come January. It was in the waterbury republican yesterday.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 1:21:54 AM EDT
The standard PS90 looks like it would otherwise be compliant, but the stock model is "26.23 inches" in total. This would make it non-compliant in CT after 4/4/13, correct? No buying one anymore ?

Link Posted: 12/8/2013 8:50:36 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheSpillmonkey:
The standard PS90 looks like it would otherwise be compliant, but the stock model is "26.23 inches" in total. This would make it non-compliant in CT after 4/4/13, correct? No buying one anymore ?
View Quote

Maybe, maybe not perhaps an FFL can chime in with their opinions. The problem is the grip/stock of the semiautomatic centerfire detachable magazine rifle. The statues state that one of the evil features is:

(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;

Further the "action of the weapon" is defined as:

(3) "Action of the weapon" means the part of the firearm that loads, fires and ejects a cartridge, which part includes, but is not limited to, the upper and lower receiver, charging handle, forward assist, magazine release and shell deflector;

And a "pistol grip" is defined as:

(8) "Pistol grip" means a grip or similar feature that can function as a grip for the trigger hand;

So far DESPP/SLFU have indicted that a "palm swell" style stock is legal on a semiautomatic centerfire rifle.
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 9:07:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2013 9:08:31 AM EDT by exajoule]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
So far DESPP/SLFU have indicted that a "palm swell" style stock is legal on a semiautomatic centerfire rifle.
View Quote


DESPP seems to be ignoring the whole "any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger..." clause, which is fine with me. But we should remember that DESPP's interpretation is just an enforcement policy - it's not the law. Their interpretation can be changed at any time without notice if they suddenly decide they want to start arresting people who have palm swell grips on their rifles. I suspect a court would find that any Mini-14 is an assault weapon in CT based on the way the law is written.
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 11:21:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2013 11:23:26 AM EDT by sbhaven]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By exajoule:
DESPP seems to be ignoring the whole "any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger..." clause, which is fine with me. But we should remember that DESPP's interpretation is just an enforcement policy - it's not the law. Their interpretation can be changed at any time without notice if they suddenly decide they want to start arresting people who have palm swell grips on their rifles. I suspect a court would find that any Mini-14 is an assault weapon in CT based on the way the law is written.
View Quote

What DESPP/SLFU is doing is making an interpretation/opinion based on their view of what defines the "action of the weapon" in relation to the "any grip of the weapon..." language. It can and will be argued that the "palm swell" grip on a Mini-14 is not below the "action of the weapon". However on most AR-15's one's hands would still be below the "action of the weapon" even if one used a palm swell style stock on an AR-15 (the fuggly CA legal stocks discussed elsewhere here).

(i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
....
(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;


(3) "Action of the weapon" means the part of the firearm that loads, fires and ejects a cartridge, which part includes, but is not limited to, the upper and lower receiver, charging handle, forward assist, magazine release and shell deflector;

A strict interpretation/opinion of (II) above could mean many if not most semiautomatic centerfirer rifles would be banned. DEPP/SLFU by making the "palm swell" interpretation/opinion won't anger the FUDD's who's guns would be ensnared by such a strict interpretation/opinion, and who sat out the fight on SB 1160 since they assumed their guns would not be affected.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.