Posted: 2/5/2014 6:12:11 AM EDT
|
As we all know, Section 11 of Public Act 13-220 reads:
Sec. 11. Section 53-202m of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, as amended by 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, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994 In short, the text of Section 11 reads that firearms manufactured prior to 13 September 1994 that are assault weapons under the former 2 part feature test in place on 1 January 2013 are excluded from the registration requirements and transfer restrictions imposed by the Connecticut assault weapons ban. As Commissioner Bradford wrote, Section 11 of Public Act 13-220 was intended to resolve an ambiguity in Public Act 13-3. The section clarifies the intent of the legislature to exclude assault weapons manufactured before September 13, 1994 from transfer restrictions and registration requirements. This is unquestionably true- so much so that it would appear at first review that Section 11 simply revises the former preban exemption, which was left intact and in effect alone of toothless, upon the passage of Public Act 13-3. However since the passage of Public Act 13-220, interpreting what those seemingly simple words continue to protect has been a challenge. Following the letter from Commissioner Bradford, an unsigned document was seen by many on the Connecticut State Police/ DESPP website (URL: http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/preban_assault_weapons.pdf [LEFT COLD INTENTIONALLY], which described the legal basis for the transferability of preban firearms. That document effectively indicated that all firearms manufactured prior to 13 SEP 1994 were exempt from the transfer restrictions and registration requirements imposed on assault weapons, their purchasers, and possessors. On numerous occasions sworn members of the Connecticut State Police offered similar interpretation to many members of the public as well as to licensed firearms dealers and their representatives. As a result of that information, Connecticut firearms dealers have been transfering a broad array of (cool) firearms that were made prior to 13 September 1994 and which are assault weapons as defined by current law, but which are seemingly exempt from the transfer restrictions and registration requirements. IS THIS INTERPRETATION CORRECT? One must ask, however, is this interpretation correct? On 3 December 2013, the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research issued an informational report stating that: The assault weapons exempt from the law’s transfer and registration
requirements are semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, or pistols (1) not listed by name under the original assault weapons ban but defined as such because they have at least two of a list of features specified in the statutes in effect on January 1, 2013 and (2) legally manufactured before September 13, 1994 (the date the now expired federal ban on assault weapons took effect). This means that anyone owning any of these pre- 1994 weapons does not have to register it. Nor is the firearm subject to the restrictions placed on the transfer of registered assault weapons. OLR Report 13-R-0453 Under the theory promulgated in the OLR report, the preban exemption has comparable meaning to that which existed prior to the enactment of PA13-3. Under the previous law, only firearms which were assault weapons by feature count, and which were manufactured prior to 13 September 1994, were exempt from the transfer restrictions and registration requirements typically imposed on assault weapons. That is because under the law in force prior to the enactment of PA 13-3, via sections enacted in 1993 (as amended in or about 2001), certain firearms were assault weapons by name, type, or select fire ability , and if not registered during the provided window were contraband, the possession of which was a criminal act. This status was regardless of feature count. Though many of those firearms were semiautomatic firearms which were also assault weapons by feature, their status under section 53-202a(a)(1) or 53-202a(a)(2) was not impacted by 53-202m, which applied exclusively to 53-202a(a)(3) and 53-202a(a)(4). When Public Act 13-3 was enacted, the entirety of the former assault weapons ban was repealed. It was replaced with a new assault weapons ban, which defined an assault weapon as any select fire firearm, a list of specific models and types taken directly from the former ban in 53-202a(a)(1) or 53-202a(a)(2), a long list of more contemporary centerfire semiautomatic rifles along with (certain?) clones and duplicates, a long list of contemporary pistols along with (certain?) clones and duplicates, and a shotgun list limited to the Saiga 12 along with (certain?) clones and duplicates. Public Act 13-3 also defined as an assault weapon any firearm meeting the new feature test. [look it up if you need specifics] Since reading the OLR report, that strict (and very limited) interpretation of 53-202m is the one which I have been living by, out of fear that at some point officials at the DESPP could improve their reading comprehension skills- which could result in a change in interpretation that could result in (a wide a variety of bad things that I do not wish to experience, particularly over a hobby). Reading into things more closely last night, and thinking about it far too much, I began to wonder- could a more permissive interpretation actually be the correct interpretation. The fact that a firearm was an assault weapon by name or type under the previous law did not mean that it was not also an assault weapon by features. Take for example a Colt AR-15 equipped with a fixed stock, bayonet lug, and flash hider manufactured sometime before 13 Sep 1994. That Colt AR-15 is an assault weapon under every conceivable legal test in Connecticut- by name (under the new and old bans) and by features (under the new and old bans). Prior to Public Act 13-3 the aforementioned Colt AR-15 could not be transferred as an exempt preban- because of its status under 53-202a(a)(1). Now, a feature assault weapon and a name or type banned are on a more equittible footing, given the expansive wording of 53-202m , which addressed the breadth of the assault weapons ban contained within PA 13-3. Let's review another example- this one close to home. This example is a Norinco MAK-90, which was lawfully manufactured prior to 13 September 1994 and is in factory stock configuration- equipped with no bayonet lug, a nude muzzle, and a thumbhole stock. Under the former law 5-202a(a)(1), the Norinco MAK-90 would have been an assault weapon as it was an AK-47 type firearm. It does not, however, meet the 2 part feature test in 53-202a(a)(3) Per section 25 of Public Act 13-3, the Norinco MAK-90 is specifically named, is also an AK-47 type, and also meets the new 1 count feature test. I do not believe that this firearm should be exempt from the transfer restrictions or registration requirements, as it is not an assault weapon as the term is defined in 53-202a(a)(3). One last thing that I have heard, here and at ranges, is that we can have select fire now. I disagree, even though all civilian transferable machineguns were manufactured prior to 19 May 1986- a date well before 13 September 1994- and which, in most instances if traceable and verifiable based on data contained within the ATF NFRTR database. I believe this because while some (if not all) select fire firearms are capable of semiautomatic fire, that they are not semi-automatic firearms for the purpose of the feature test given how select fire is enumerated separately under previous and current legislation. Note- I am not a lawyer and do not intend for this thread to be legal advice. I don't intend for it to be any advice. Rather my intention is for this thread to be informative and to be a seed for academic discussion of this topic. |
|
Oh for the love of god, we need another thread on this?
We have already kicked this discussion around for two pages in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_26/545812_New_info_from_DESPP_and_an_OLR_on_interpreting_PreBan_statute.html We further kicked around for four pages a similar discussion in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_26/546637_DESPP_SLFU_May_Have_Reversed_Themselves_on_Prebans____Again_.html We even kicked this discussion around in the forum FAQ sticky starting around this post entry: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_26/534071_F_A_Q__CT_is_this_legal_thread_and_helpful_links.html&page=1#i5923618 And in other discussions: CCDL post letter from Dept of Public Safety Commisioner UPDATED 11-05-2013 • Pre Sep 1994 firearms - Banned by name i don't have time for this As has been repeatedly stated, SLFU and the former DESPP commissioner are ignoring the language " not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection" from the OLD law to claim that banned by name prebans are legal to transfer and don't have to be registered.. OLR and attorney Rachael Baird both state banned by name prebans are still banned. See the following link for the SLFU explanation of their view: http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/pre-ban_assault_weapons.pdf Letter from attorney David Clough to Commissioner of Public Safety Reuben Bradford: http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2013/10/Clough2Reuben.pdf Reply letter from Commissioner of Public Safety Reuben Bradford to attorney David Clough: http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2013/10/Clough-David-PA-13-220.pdf See the following link for the Office of Legislative Research explanation of their view: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/pdf/2013-R-0453.pdf See the following link for attorney Rachael Baird legal opinion: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/a79af6bb-e571-4f58-9217-56b16882f46e Post editied |
|
Quoted:
This horse has been beaten to death. Let's have a few more threads on this and parking at Hoffman's. ....yep, let's rub it in some more that I had been honest and I registered my Colt Sporter back in 1994 when they're now giving amnesty to all the people who didn't. |
|
Quoted:
It's hardly been beaten to death when the final answer to the question is "depends who you talk to." Quoted:
Quoted:
This horse has been beaten to death. Let's have a few more threads on this and parking at Hoffman's. It's hardly been beaten to death when the final answer to the question is "depends who you talk to." ...and you will never get a definitive answer when there's so much slop in a law that no two people can agree on what the heck the law even says. It's the whole reason the DESPP stopped advising gun manufacturers on designs that conform with the law; they came out and admitted they didn't want person A to say yes just to have person B come along later and say no. |
|
Three things
1) JAD, going by the "MAK-90 does not meet the feature test so it is not an exempted AW" ----- Why not add features? It's pre-94... ----------- Going by your interpretation nobody would be able to thread a barrel on a pre-94 pistol if it didn't already have "evil" features to qualify as an AW 2) sbhaven, the disagreement in the interpretation stems from "notwithstanding" ----- "Notwithstanding" in the new law is interpreted by DESPP as exactly that. Even though old section 3 references section 1, section 1 is does not apply because of the "notwithstanding" wording. ------------ Is that the same Rachel Baird letter which specifically addressed non-named prebans and conveniently did not address named prebans, which everyone took as her saying "named prebans are still banned" even though that's not the question she was answering? (EDIT: I see that it is the same letter I was thinking of) 3) Enough is enough 
|
|
Quoted:
Three things 1) JAD, going by the "MAK-90 does not meet the feature test so it is not an exempted AW" ----- Why not add features? It's pre-94... ----------- Going by your interpretation nobody would be able to thread a barrel on a pre-94 pistol if it didn't already have "evil" features to qualify as an AW 2) sbhaven, the disagreement in the interpretation stems from "notwithstanding" ----- "Notwithstanding" in the new law is interpreted by DESPP as exactly that. Even though old section 3 references section 1, section 1 is does not apply because of the "notwithstanding" wording. ------------ Is that the same Rachel Baird letter which specifically addressed non-named prebans and conveniently did not address named prebans, which everyone took as her saying "named prebans are still banned" even though that's not the question she was answering? (EDIT: I see that it is the same letter I was thinking of) 3) Enough is enough Actually, that is something that I started asking myself after I figured this out- do a conversion, and bueno. I guess it says what we all knew all along- assaultier is better. Not what I was trying to suggest. Though I have expressed concerns in the past regarding it, I have faith in the CSP interpretation of a receiver as a firearm. I simply used the examples I did as very easy, clear examples. I don't intend for them to be read into, hence why I described specific configurations in addition to using names. |
|
Quoted:
... As has been repeatedly stated, SLFU and the former DESPP commissioner are ignoring the language " not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection" from the OLD law to claim that banned by name prebans are legal to transfer and don't have to be registered.. OLR and attorney Rachael Baird both state banned by name prebans are still banned. ... This is the type of commentary that I was looking for- something that I believe that I have overlooked. That actually could throw an monkey wrench in my reading of it as well. |
|
Quoted:
...and you will never get a definitive answer when there's so much slop in a law that no two people can agree on what the heck the law even says. It's the whole reason the DESPP stopped advising gun manufacturers on designs that conform with the law; they came out and admitted they didn't want person A to say yes just to have person B come along later and say no. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This horse has been beaten to death. Let's have a few more threads on this and parking at Hoffman's. It's hardly been beaten to death when the final answer to the question is "depends who you talk to." ...and you will never get a definitive answer when there's so much slop in a law that no two people can agree on what the heck the law even says. It's the whole reason the DESPP stopped advising gun manufacturers on designs that conform with the law; they came out and admitted they didn't want person A to say yes just to have person B come along later and say no. This goes for every law, everyone has there own opinion - interpretation 
|
|
Quoted:
2) sbhaven, the disagreement in the interpretation stems from "notwithstanding" ----- "Notwithstanding" in the new law is interpreted by DESPP as exactly that. Even though old section 3 references section 1, section 1 is does not apply because of the "notwithstanding" wording. ------------ Is that the same Rachel Baird letter which specifically addressed non-named prebans and conveniently did not address named prebans, which everyone took as her saying "named prebans are still banned" even though that's not the question she was answering? (EDIT: I see that it is the same letter I was thinking of) 3) Enough is enough Andropos I understand why they are hanging their hat on the "notwithstanding" wording, the problem is that it doesn't make any sense since the statute specifically states that "an assault weapon as defined in" are the one's that are exempt from the ban if they are pre 9/13/94. Why bother with the "an assault weapon as defined in... " language if "notwithstanding" exempts ALL firearms prior to 9/13/94? Doesn't make any sense to me even though you and others have tried to explain it multiple times. Not to mention that if the "notwithstanding" means what they say it means now, then banned by name prebans were legal to buy prior to 4/4/13 since that version of 53-202m is essentially the same as it is now. Kind of strange how for 13 or so years SLFU had one opinion, then they changed their minds sometime after 4/4/13 even though the language of 53-202m remains the same. And yes this has been  .
Which is why I now tell people to read the law, read the SLFU and former commissioner of DESPP's opinions, read the Office of Legislative Research's opinion, read Rachael Baird's opinion and make up one's own mind. Some FFL's are selling banned by name prebans, others are not. If law enforcement decided to bust one for having an illegal assault weapon they will use the language of the law to charge the person. As of now the SLFU opinion's are non legal opinions. Its going to take a court case (or two) to settle who's right and who's wrong. There is also the fact that a new commissioner of DESPP was sworn in and she appears to be very anti gun so its possible SLFU could reverse themselves again at some point in the future. 
|
|
I will say again, Rachel Baird's opinion letter does not necessarily say what people are claiming it says.
Read it carefully, all she does is confirm that non-named prebans are still legal. This is something everyone already knew. She does not address the legality of named prebans from Section 1 because that is not the question she was asked... Until she flat out states her legal opinion on prebans named in Section 1, she does not have a legal opinion on that section. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling themselves and spreading non-information. |
|
Quoted:
I will say again, Rachel Baird's opinion letter does not necessarily say what people are claiming it says. Read it carefully, all she does is confirm that non-named prebans are still legal. This is something everyone already knew. She does not address the legality of named prebans from Section 1 because that is not the question she was asked... Until she flat out states her legal opinion on prebans named in Section 1, she does not have a legal opinion on that section. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling themselves and spreading non-information. I have read it carefully. While she wasn't asked about banned by name firearms specifically, her conclusion does appear to indicate they are still banned since she included the language "not specifically named in subsection (1)". It is that section of language that SLFU leave out of their conclusion on 53-202m when they conclude banned by name prebans are legal. People can draw what ever conclusion they want to from her conclusion, which was: 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. <shrugs> |
|
Quoted:
I have read it carefully. While she wasn't asked about banned by name firearms specifically, her conclusion does appear to indicate they are still banned since she included the language "not specifically named in subsection (1)". It is that section of language that SLFU leave out of their conclusion on 53-202m when they conclude banned by name prebans are legal. People can draw what ever conclusion they want to from her conclusion, which was: 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. <shrugs> Quoted:
Quoted:
I will say again, Rachel Baird's opinion letter does not necessarily say what people are claiming it says. Read it carefully, all she does is confirm that non-named prebans are still legal. This is something everyone already knew. She does not address the legality of named prebans from Section 1 because that is not the question she was asked... Until she flat out states her legal opinion on prebans named in Section 1, she does not have a legal opinion on that section. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling themselves and spreading non-information. I have read it carefully. While she wasn't asked about banned by name firearms specifically, her conclusion does appear to indicate they are still banned since she included the language "not specifically named in subsection (1)". It is that section of language that SLFU leave out of their conclusion on 53-202m when they conclude banned by name prebans are legal. People can draw what ever conclusion they want to from her conclusion, which was: 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. <shrugs> And again I will say that she wasn't asked about Section 1, she was specifically asked about Section 3 & 4 and her response is nothing more than a direct answer to those two sections. Why would she give an opinion on Section 1 when it wasn't something asked of her? The wording of the two questions is specific to Sections 3 & 4, and the language she uses (including the text of the law) provides a direct legal opinion on what everybody already knew to be true. I'd kick in a few bucks towards having her write a legal opinion on Section 1, just to so the rest of us can confirm her interpretation of the law to be one way or the other. |
|
Quoted:
I have read it carefully. While she wasn't asked about banned by name firearms specifically, her conclusion does appear to indicate they are still banned since she included the language "not specifically named in subsection (1)". It is that section of language that SLFU leave out of their conclusion on 53-202m when they conclude banned by name prebans are legal. People can draw what ever conclusion they want to from her conclusion, which was: 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. <shrugs> Quoted:
Quoted:
I will say again, Rachel Baird's opinion letter does not necessarily say what people are claiming it says. Read it carefully, all she does is confirm that non-named prebans are still legal. This is something everyone already knew. She does not address the legality of named prebans from Section 1 because that is not the question she was asked... Until she flat out states her legal opinion on prebans named in Section 1, she does not have a legal opinion on that section. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling themselves and spreading non-information. I have read it carefully. While she wasn't asked about banned by name firearms specifically, her conclusion does appear to indicate they are still banned since she included the language "not specifically named in subsection (1)". It is that section of language that SLFU leave out of their conclusion on 53-202m when they conclude banned by name prebans are legal. People can draw what ever conclusion they want to from her conclusion, which was: 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. <shrugs> As stated many, many, many times before (it's de ja vue all over again)...what SB says... Those who continue to a want to do word gymnastics and mentally rationilze buying a named pre-banned...you can beat a dead cat all you want, but what you see on the other side is not the heart beating. |
|
Quoted:
And again I will say that she wasn't asked about Section 1, she was specifically asked about Section 3 & 4 and her response is nothing more than a direct answer to those two sections. Why would she give an opinion on Section 1 when it wasn't something asked of her? The wording of the two questions is specific to Sections 3 & 4, and the language she uses (including the text of the law) provides a direct legal opinion on what everybody already knew to be true. I'd kick in a few bucks towards having her write a legal opinion on Section 1, just to so the rest of us can confirm her interpretation of the law to be one way or the other. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will say again, Rachel Baird's opinion letter does not necessarily say what people are claiming it says. Read it carefully, all she does is confirm that non-named prebans are still legal. This is something everyone already knew. She does not address the legality of named prebans from Section 1 because that is not the question she was asked... Until she flat out states her legal opinion on prebans named in Section 1, she does not have a legal opinion on that section. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling themselves and spreading non-information. I have read it carefully. While she wasn't asked about banned by name firearms specifically, her conclusion does appear to indicate they are still banned since she included the language "not specifically named in subsection (1)". It is that section of language that SLFU leave out of their conclusion on 53-202m when they conclude banned by name prebans are legal. People can draw what ever conclusion they want to from her conclusion, which was: 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. <shrugs> And again I will say that she wasn't asked about Section 1, she was specifically asked about Section 3 & 4 and her response is nothing more than a direct answer to those two sections. Why would she give an opinion on Section 1 when it wasn't something asked of her? The wording of the two questions is specific to Sections 3 & 4, and the language she uses (including the text of the law) provides a direct legal opinion on what everybody already knew to be true. I'd kick in a few bucks towards having her write a legal opinion on Section 1, just to so the rest of us can confirm her interpretation of the law to be one way or the other. Are you kidding? She very obviously gave an opinion on subsection 1 when she included the words in HER conclusion. |
|
Quoted:
And again I will say that she wasn't asked about Section 1, she was specifically asked about Section 3 & 4 and her response is nothing more than a direct answer to those two sections. Why would she give an opinion on Section 1 when it wasn't something asked of her? The wording of the two questions is specific to Sections 3 & 4, and the language she uses (including the text of the law) provides a direct legal opinion on what everybody already knew to be true. I'd kick in a few bucks towards having her write a legal opinion on Section 1, just to so the rest of us can confirm her interpretation of the law to be one way or the other. And as I stated while she wasn't ASKED about banned by name firearms, her conclusion STILL references them to indicate they are banned since she indicates a semiautomatic firearm must meet the following criteria of which not being on the banned by name list is one of the criteria. We can disagree all we want but, her written "conclusion" is what it is. <shrugs> Edit to add: And even if she is asked specifically about banned by name prebans and she comes up with an opinion similar to that of SLFU, we will get to see the how she reached that conclusion and how it may differ with her conclusion reach to previous questions. |
|
Quoted:
If they are not there may be a lot of sore arseholes out there At who's expense? 1) gun shops selling to unsuspecting consumers with 2) blessing from the head of dessp and his staff and 3) state police authorizing such sale during the paperwork mandated NCIS. authorization. Anything is plausible . Wouldn't this be considered entrapment? A person walks in and buys an off the shelf firearm complete with ncis authorization then gets nailed with a felony! Seriously WTF gives |
|
Its a bit more complicated then that. Think about all the people who had banned by name firearms that were manufactured prior to 9/13/94 which were never registered under the old law. Under the SLFU reinterpretation of 53-202m, those firearms are no longer illegal. Furthermore what about everyone who was arrested and convicted solely on the basis of having such a firearm prior to 4/4/13? Like I've said in other discussions, this reinterpretation by SLFU to say what was illegal prior to 4/4/13 is now legal even thought section 53-202m hasn't substantially changed has opened up a huge can of worms.
It's going to take a court case over this would tell us if one could use this statute Sec. 53a-6. Effect of ignorance or mistake along with SLFU and the former commissioner of DESPP's statements and the wording of 53-202m as a legal defense if one gets arrested for having a banned by name preban post 4/4/13. Of course if the legislature takes a run at repealing 53-202m then all of this is moot since they will most likely mandate all prebans be registered. Which if I cinch the tinfoil hat down really tight and go all conspiracy theory  , might have been the goal by some anti gunner in SLFU in the first place. Make it so the anti gun legislators get so mad that people are side stepping their gun ban that they go even farther in banning guns. There have already been several news reports on the preban issue by the anti gun MSM to rile up the usual anti gun legislators and anti gun groups.
|
|
Quoted:
....yep, let's rub it in some more that I had been honest and I registered my Colt Sporter back in 1994 when they're now giving amnesty to all the people who didn't. Quoted:
Quoted:
This horse has been beaten to death. Let's have a few more threads on this and parking at Hoffman's. ....yep, let's rub it in some more that I had been honest and I registered my Colt Sporter back in 1994 when they're now giving amnesty to all the people who didn't. Another reason why registering is stupid and counter-productive. 
|
|
Quoted:
Another reason why registering is stupid and counter-productive. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This horse has been beaten to death. Let's have a few more threads on this and parking at Hoffman's. ....yep, let's rub it in some more that I had been honest and I registered my Colt Sporter back in 1994 when they're now giving amnesty to all the people who didn't. Another reason why registering is stupid and counter-productive. And a felony if caught Any more bad advice? |
|
Wait a minute.............. Technically speaking, the wording of the actual law currently in place states that previously "banned by name" rifles in subsection (1) are still banned and therefore not legal to purchase in CT, this confirmed by the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research and a few other lawyers.
However, based on DESPP's, SLFU's and CT State Police's interpretation they have determined that it's legal to purchase previously banned by name rifles and are currently allowing them to be purchased. Sooooooo..... If I have this right, the CT State Police are authorizing the transfer of what are, by law, illegal rifles, based on their interpretations of the law?!? WTF does that mean if, or should I say when (because we all know it's coming) the State of CT decides to take a position on the whole "pre-ban" clause? Because "banned by name" rifles are illegal does that mean everyone who purchased one of these becomes a felon?.......... Well, I guess by law they actually are felons right now even though the Police said it was OK. Will there be GESTAPO-style rounds of 2 o'clock knocks? ........... I mean, they know who has them thanks to the DPS-3-C forms...Right??? Will there be an amnesty period for those who bought them to register them or move them out of state...... OR, will CT even allow them to remain in the new owners possession because, technically speaking, they are still illegal rifles? Will they be confiscated? Will they just ignore the whole thing and do away with the entire pre ban clause and let everyone keep everything to avoid what will be an unrelenting barrage of embarrassment and criticism.... not to mention lawsuits????? Wow, wow and WOW. I really cannot wait to get the F U C K out of this cesspool of a state. Seriously!!! WTF?!?!? |
|
Why would they be talking about eliminating the exemption in an amended law this session, if the exemption did not exist?
JAD as far as I am concerned the law is as clear as mud. This is going To be legal in practice as long as we say it is, or the legislature takes action to change the law to specifically stop it. We are pretty much setting our own precedent that this is legal. If we all stopped buying prebans, we have pretty much given them permission to interpret this as illegal. This is one of those odd situations where you are not going to find the answers in the word of law, but the practice of it. At this point, it's not worth debating. Every preban bought validates the law in our favor |
|
Quoted:
At this point, it's not worth debating. Every preban bought validates the law in our favor Exactly. Every banned by name preban legally sold/transferred makes it that much more difficult for the legislature or courts to unfuck things if they decide to revert to the old meaning of 53-202m. Lawsuits galore will probably ensue if the state tries. This just has to be driving people like Lawlor, CAGV, and the other progressive anti rights anti gun people/groups crazy. <cue grumpy cat good pix> |
| They will fix their mistakes. It will take them time but they will fix their mistake. They may be forced to accept all the rifles transferred in during the cunfusion but they Will eventually get around to putting a stop to the transfers! Buy em now during the confusion cause this will not last!!! |
|
Quoted:
Why would they be talking about eliminating the exemption in an amended law this session, if the exemption did not exist? JAD as far as I am concerned the law is as clear as mud. This is going To be legal in practice as long as we say it is, or the legislature takes action to change the law to specifically stop it. We are pretty much setting our own precedent that this is legal. If we all stopped buying prebans, we have pretty much given them permission to interpret this as illegal. This is one of those odd situations where you are not going to find the answers in the word of law, but the practice of it. At this point, it's not worth debating. Every preban bought validates the law in our favor Matt, you always have logical takes on illogical matters. 
|
|
Quoted:
Matt, you always have logical takes on illogical matters. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would they be talking about eliminating the exemption in an amended law this session, if the exemption did not exist? JAD as far as I am concerned the law is as clear as mud. This is going To be legal in practice as long as we say it is, or the legislature takes action to change the law to specifically stop it. We are pretty much setting our own precedent that this is legal. If we all stopped buying prebans, we have pretty much given them permission to interpret this as illegal. This is one of those odd situations where you are not going to find the answers in the word of law, but the practice of it. At this point, it's not worth debating. Every preban bought validates the law in our favor Matt, you always have logical takes on illogical matters. You are overlooking or I've simplifying way too much! Sorry but it needs to be said! They WILL Fix this! |
|
Quoted:
Matt, you always have logical takes on illogical matters. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would they be talking about eliminating the exemption in an amended law this session, if the exemption did not exist? JAD as far as I am concerned the law is as clear as mud. This is going To be legal in practice as long as we say it is, or the legislature takes action to change the law to specifically stop it. We are pretty much setting our own precedent that this is legal. If we all stopped buying prebans, we have pretty much given them permission to interpret this as illegal. This is one of those odd situations where you are not going to find the answers in the word of law, but the practice of it. At this point, it's not worth debating. Every preban bought validates the law in our favor Matt, you always have logical takes on illogical matters. 
|
|
Quoted:
You are overlooking or I've simplifying way too much! Sorry but it needs to be said! They WILL Fix this! Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would they be talking about eliminating the exemption in an amended law this session, if the exemption did not exist? JAD as far as I am concerned the law is as clear as mud. This is going To be legal in practice as long as we say it is, or the legislature takes action to change the law to specifically stop it. We are pretty much setting our own precedent that this is legal. If we all stopped buying prebans, we have pretty much given them permission to interpret this as illegal. This is one of those odd situations where you are not going to find the answers in the word of law, but the practice of it. At this point, it's not worth debating. Every preban bought validates the law in our favor Matt, you always have logical takes on illogical matters. You are overlooking or I've simplifying way too much! Sorry but it needs to be said! They WILL Fix this! No doubt. Buy your pre bans now people |
|
There is no doubt this current situation will be changed, as soon as the "powers that be' are able to do so; make no mistake about that. To presume our right to buy pre-bans will continue past the current legislative session (which began yesterday, incidentally) is utter foolishness. The current group of *progressive* legislators, legislative attorneys, appointed commissioners, and the like will only stand idle long enough to write a so-called "amnesty amendment" to the current law (which will in all actuality further erode our rights), hold a kangaroo hearing, and a subsequent late-night vote.
Buy those pre-bans now. Import them, trade them, acquire them by any means available, even if you really don't need "another one". This opportunity is already closing as we speak about it. |
|
Quoted:
Its a bit more complicated then that. Think about all the people who had banned by name firearms that were manufactured prior to 9/13/94 which were never registered under the old law. Under the SLFU reinterpretation of 53-202m, those firearms are no longer illegal. Furthermore what about everyone who was arrested and convicted solely on the basis of having such a firearm prior to 4/4/13? Like I've said in other discussions, this reinterpretation by SLFU to say what was illegal prior to 4/4/13 is now legal even thought section 53-202m hasn't substantially changed has opened up a huge can of worms. It's going to take a court case over this would tell us if one could use this statute Sec. 53a-6. Effect of ignorance or mistake along with SLFU and the former commissioner of DESPP's statements and the wording of 53-202m as a legal defense if one gets arrested for having a banned by name preban post 4/4/13. Of course if the legislature takes a run at repealing 53-202m then all of this is moot since they will most likely mandate all prebans be registered. Which if I cinch the tinfoil hat down really tight and go all conspiracy theory , might have been the goal by some anti gunner in SLFU in the first place. Make it so the anti gun legislators get so mad that people are side stepping their gun ban that they go even farther in banning guns. There have already been several news reports on the preban issue by the anti gun MSM to rile up the usual anti gun legislators and anti gun groups.Quote for Grumple |