Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/5/2001 2:21:24 PM EDT
Oct1 our illustrious Gov (who is a replublican by the way) signed into a law banning any and all defined so-called assult weapons. We have now until october 1 2002 to have them registered in the state. All magazines as I understand it over 10 rounds are now illegal-period. This law was passed at the same time a health bill was so it was basically "snuck" in. Bunch of illegitamates. Time to move but looking around most of the states are getting this close to infringing on our rights. Comments welcome. In the meantime read this url. http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2001/sba/2001SB-01402-R01-BA.htm Thanks.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 2:38:43 PM EDT
Bummer. It's all very close to the California situation. Your high-cap magazines are grandfathered. You can keep what you have but can't make, import, sell, give them away, etc.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 3:31:14 PM EDT
Hey california kid did you read the page at the url I gave you. The part on magazines do not say anything about grandfathering the magazines and anyway how can they tell if a mag is before or after their so-called ban anyway? I am thinking I might as well build an ar and store it away for a rainy day at my inlaws house in a gun friendlier state. Man this state sucks.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 3:34:12 PM EDT
Is there a complete list of banned assault rifles somewhere online? I don't see Calvary Arms on the list, maybe a possibility?
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 3:41:06 PM EDT
Im tired of this BS, all we do is sit around and watch them chop away at our rights bit by bit. It won't be long now before all of what we have is gone.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 3:49:48 PM EDT
I have a CT Firearms Laws Guide From The NRA (Unfortunately many states weren't available.) Doesn't CT already ban Assault Weapons. I've seen the list of specifically banned AWs and it is a shitload longer than evn Kali.'s. What could you have that's not included. BTW, this is unconstitutional. Is there any way for a person who travels through CT on occassion to get a permit for their newly AWs ? Just wondering.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 4:08:28 PM EDT
If you guys want read the url I posted above. There is a list in there that includes everything. No more loop holes as was stated in our newspaper. Have no idea what the morons hope to achieve by this. I shoot on my friends 600 acres of farmland but still this is no guarantee that I will not be questioned or have any confrontation with the law so that I have to justify what I am doing. Pretty bogus. I have no idea what these congressman and ladies think they are doing. We had no heads up on this law either. Why can't they make it a law to not allow other laws to be part of other ones? Just ban our freaking guns and be blatant about it. Whats the matter you chicken? Thats what they are doing anyway. Piss me off. These morons are not going to dictate my life.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 4:36:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sidewinder: Hey california kid did you read the page at the url I gave you. The part on magazines do not say anything about grandfathering the magazines and anyway how can they tell if a mag is before or after their so-called ban anyway....
View Quote
It doesn't say it's illegal to POSSESS a high-cap magazine, only to manufacture, import, or transfer them. The word "keep" is referring to "keep for sale". There IS no way to tell when a magazine was manufactured, other than the fact that all domestically made ones made after the '94 federal ban are marked "for law enforcement use only" or something to that effect. If the law doesn't say you have to surrender or destroy your magazines, then you can keep them. That which is not specifically forbidden is allowed. (Something the gun-grabbers and liberals often forget.) You're legislature followed the OCR's lead, but wrote a little less detail.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 5:01:43 PM EDT
Reading it over, I believe Ca_Kid is correct. Under the High Capacity Magazine setion it says.. [b]The bill exempts: ... 4. importation by anyone who lawfully possessed a magazine in the state before October 1, 2001, lawfully took it out of state, and is bringing it back; ...[/b] SO it sounds like there is a grandfather clause. [marines]
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 7:45:21 PM EDT
Appreciate the feedback guys. It almost seems like you need to be a lawyer to figure out some of this litigation. If nothing else the magazine issue is a somewhat positive thing although we still have to register our post ban firearms. How are they going to find out if someone gets a post ban lower and assembles an ar after the october 1st date anyway. They just trust you huh?
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 8:21:53 PM EDT
[b]Until July 1, 2002, the bill allows anyone who lawfully possessed any of the newly listed weapons before October 1, 2001 to legally possess it if he is eligible to apply for a certificate of possession by July 1, 2002 and otherwise complies with the bill.[/b] My guess is that you will need documentation that you bought the rifle before the October 1rst date. You only have 8 months to register the rifle. I'm sure that the serial numbers can be traced back to when the gun was bought and by whom. "Trust" isn't an issue here.
Link Posted: 10/5/2001 9:54:28 PM EDT
Thanx for the info. I was looking for jobs somewhere in the Stamford area. Guess I'll have to put that on hold now.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 4:11:29 AM EDT
According to Princeton Cavalry Arms lowers are not on the list and neither are the ASA lowers and I do not see anything in the law that says that one can not own those. Where is the closed loophole on that. They are post ban of course and I will talk to my dealer and see what he thinks.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 6:08:11 AM EDT
Soon there will be more states like this than not[:(]revolution is inevitable.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 8:32:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2001 8:29:17 AM EDT by Flip_from_New_York]
Originally Posted By sidewinder: According to Princeton Cavalry Arms lowers are not on the list and neither are the ASA lowers and I do not see anything in the law that says that one can not own those. Where is the closed loophole on that. They are post ban of course and I will talk to my dealer and see what he thinks.
View Quote
From the Bill: [b]5. part or parts in one person's possession either designed or intended to convert any firearm into one of the newly covered assault weapons or from which such a weapon may be assembled rapidly if they are in one person's possession. [/b] so the way I read it, because you can use any either of those lowers on any of the listed rifles, that would make that lower illegal to own.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 1:11:42 PM EDT
Hey Flip_from_New_York, not trying to get technical at all here but ar's on the list were mentioned by name so having a lower other than one of those named receivers does not seem to hold true for anyone saying that all lowers not on the list would constitue making a said weapon. Again do not want to make a big deal over this. I am having my stuff shipped out of this state to another residence. I think you will find that after this crap that was pulled on us that compliance will be pretty much nil.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 1:58:35 PM EDT
I was starting to get worried about all this discussion about new gun laws in CT, so I had to call one gun store in Newington, and assured me that that was an un-ammended proposal that was passed only by the senate, and then later ammended and all the new "assault weapons" that were on the "old news-not passed bill proposal, were stricken off and the only change is concerning .50 caliber incendiary-armor piercing ammo. I also went to the dealer that I get all my AR goodies and he concurred, all is well and nothing has changed. He also called the state police and talked someone of authority just to calm me down. Check out this state site with all the latest statutes,... http://www.state.ct.us/dps/SLFU/FirearmsAssaultWeapons.htm [bounce]
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 8:21:23 PM EDT
This is interesting: "The use of an assault weapon in a crime punishable by death is one of the aggravating circumstances justifying the death penalty." I guess first degree murder is worse if you use an AR, rather than a Mini-14. No more semi-auto M2 belt-fed .50s, either, the Kali lawmakers missed this one, so far: "4. any semiautomatic firearm that can fire .50-caliber ammunition;" Well, at least it doesn't make it a felony to let your kid shoot your AR, like the Kali law does.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 5:14:19 PM EDT
And so the BS spreads. First Kalifornia now Konnecticut. Who is next? This BS has been in effect in the PRK for 2 years and no one can or ever will be able to prove that it has eliminated any crime. Yep, keep harassing the non-criminals and eventually we all be come victims. Chip, chip, chip, turn the screws a little tighter each year. PRK's governor has said he wanted to see no more gun control bills sent his way until they could assess the effects of the AW bill and the one gun a month bill. There has been no analysis by anyone, yet one of the most restrictive gun liscensing bills ever sits on his desk and most likely will become law this week. But when was the last time a democrat ever kept his word or stuck to his statements? Where is the NRA, GOA, Calif. Rifle and Pistol Ass'n. and citizen outcry? Gun control in the PRK is out of control and we are powerless to stop it!
Link Posted: 10/10/2001 4:57:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MadMatt: This is interesting: ...I guess first degree murder is worse if you use an AR, rather than a Mini-14....
View Quote
That's because if you hit someone with a Mini-14 there's a reasonable doubt that you weren't aiming at the victim.
Top Top