Posted: 11/27/2015 3:20:15 PM EDT
|
Would the AR Spur be legal? It is my understanding that any grip or stock that allows the fingers beneath the action of the weapon is illegal.
However, the Spur is not a grip nor a stock. They even make mention of this on their website. You cannot grip the Spur one handed if you tried. In theory, you can legally have an AR with no grip at all. The Spur just fills in the gap. Am I wrong in this interpretation? |
|
Quoted:
Would the AR Spur be legal? It is my understanding that any grip or stock that allows the fingers beneath the action of the weapon is illegal. However, the Spur is not a grip nor a stock. They even make mention of this on their website. You cannot grip the Spur one handed if you tried. In theory, you can legally have an AR with no grip at all. The Spur just fills in the gap. Am I wrong in this interpretation? Doesn't matter since post 9/13/94 manufactured AR-15 semiautomatic centerfire rifles and copies and duplicates of them are banned by name. Not to mention it could be argued that the buffer spring is part of the action of the weapon as defined by the state of Connecticut (see this link for the AWB statute). And we've discussed this device in the past... ARCHIVED THREAD] - AR15 Spur |
|
Action of the weapon pertains to having a stock or grip below it. The Spur is neither.
By name is the actual Colt AR 15 or Sporter or a Bushmaster Auto Rifle ect or a direct copy. A rifle with neither name nor exact features is not a direct copy. So as an example, a Lone Wolf G9 is not an AR 15. It does not have the same features nor is it a direct copy. Hell, it is not even the same caliber. The link you quoted discusses that. The issue at hand is whether the Spur is a grip. If it is not a grip, action of the weapon does not pertain. |
|
Quoted:
Action of the weapon pertains to having a stock or grip below it. The Spur is neither. By name is the actual Colt AR 15 or Sporter or a Bushmaster Auto Rifle ect or a direct copy. A rifle with neither name nor exact features is not a direct copy. So as an example, a Lone Wolf G9 is not an AR 15. It does not have the same features nor is it a direct copy. Hell, it is not even the same caliber. The link you quoted discusses that. The issue at hand is whether the Spur is a grip. If it is not a grip, action of the weapon does not pertain. Nope. Read Connecticut's law again. They specifically ban ALL post 9/13/94 manufactured semiautomatic centerfire AR-15 rifles and any copies or duplicates of them. The relevant portion of the law: "(B) 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 April 4, 2013: .... (xix) AR-10; (xx) AR-15;" Next on the grip. Note the language they use, again from the link provided: "(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;" Now look at how they define action of the weapon, again from the link provided: "(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;" As we've discussed before in the older thread on the AR Spur, the spur grip won't make the AR legal because all post 9/13/94 manufactured semiautomatic centerfire AR's are banned by name anyhow. Even if the AR-15 wasn't specificly banned by name, because of the broad way the state defined "action of the weapon" the buffer tube/spring, because it assists in loading/ejecting the round could be considered part of the action of the weapon. And if the "spur" attaches to the AR-15 lower that in and of it self makes it part lower receiver. The lower receiver is specifically named in the "action of the weapon" definition. |
For anyone wondering, this is what the Spur looks like mounted (to the lower).
And because its mounted to the lower, the fingers of the trigger hand would (depending on how one grips it) be directly below the "action of the weapon" as the following image indicates. 
While the Spur may be legal in other states it probably isn't in CT. One could, if they want an "AR" patterned rifle, either go; preban, Ares SCR, Troy PAR, or one of the other few methods of getting around CT's shitty laws. The AR Spur looks like it would be uncomfortable to use from an ergonomics point of view.. |
|
You are failing to grasp a few things. I do not know how much clearer I can put it.
First off, the fingers below the action of the weapon ONLY apply to a GRIP or STOCK. If the Spur is neither a GRIP or a STOCK, it does not apply. That is what is in question here. It is definitely not a stock. It is also not a grip by both sight and by the manufacturer's description. Secondly, AR15 is not a class of rifles. You are confused. The only AR 15's in existence are made by Colt or Armalite. Armalite sold the rights to Colt. The name "Ar 15" is a registered trademarked name and not a class of rifles. They have many similar rifles under different names that have different features. Bushmaster is a prime example. They have XM15's along with XM15E2's along with XM15E2S's. All are different and the only one banned by name was the Bushmaster XM15. If it is not named, it is not banned unless it is a direct copy. IE having the same exact features. So if another company or the same company comes out with a rifle that does not have a bayo lug, collapsible stock, flash suppressor, ect as those banned by NAME above, they are not duplicates or copies. Why do you think companies started making other rifles under a different name with different features under the first AWB both federally and statewide and were able to sell them? They were able to sell them because they were not exact copies of those listed by name above that had 2 banned features. They were different from those banned by name above thus legal to sell and own due to Rock River Arms as an example not being an AR 15 and also not having the same features as those banned by name. Please stop spreading misinformation on here. A Lone Wolf G9 in 9mm is not a direct copy of an AR15 sold by Colt and fingers below the action only apply to grips and stocks. The question here is," Is the Spur considered a grip when the company says it is not and you cannot grip the weapon with it?" |
|
I vote it a grip.
From the 4th line of text on the Mfr's homepage: "Gain enhanced control when firing with the added checkering on the new AR-15 Receiver Spur." "Gain enhanced control when firing" I don't know what school of guns you come from, but that statement, right there, would define the "grip" of a firearm. Not to mention CT's law states "the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon". This sentence does not define what a grip is, but what it does. I'm with sb, on this one. |
|
Quoted:
You are failing to grasp a few things. I do not know how much clearer I can put it. First off, the fingers below the action of the weapon ONLY apply to a GRIP or STOCK. If the Spur is neither a GRIP or a STOCK, it does not apply. That is what is in question here. It is definitely not a stock. It is also not a grip by both sight and by the manufacturer's description. Secondly, AR15 is not a class of rifles. You are confused. The only AR 15's in existence are made by Colt or Armalite. Armalite sold the rights to Colt. The name "Ar 15" is a registered trademarked name and not a class of rifles. They have many similar rifles under different names that have different features. Bushmaster is a prime example. They have XM15's along with XM15E2's along with XM15E2S's. All are different and the only one banned by name was the Bushmaster XM15. If it is not named, it is not banned unless it is a direct copy. IE having the same exact features. So if another company or the same company comes out with a rifle that does not have a bayo lug, collapsible stock, flash suppressor, ect as those banned by NAME above, they are not duplicates or copies. Why do you think companies started making other rifles under a different name with different features under the first AWB both federally and statewide and were able to sell them? They were able to sell them because they were not exact copies of those listed by name above that had 2 banned features. They were different from those banned by name above thus legal to sell and own due to Rock River Arms as an example not being an AR 15 and also not having the same features as those banned by name. Please stop spreading misinformation on here. A Lone Wolf G9 in 9mm is not a direct copy of an AR15 sold by Colt and fingers below the action only apply to grips and stocks. The question here is," Is the Spur considered a grip when the company says it is not and you cannot grip the weapon with it?" 
Not spreading ANY misinformation here. Just posting facts (the written law), link those laws and the prior thread that has discussed the AR Spur. I have not stated the AR-15 is a "class", you stated that. I have stated that the law here in CT (which I posted) specifically states "semiautomatic centerfire rifles, or copies or duplicates thereof with the capability of any such rifles" that are an "AR-15" are banned. Again read the frigging statute for yourself. Oh and you are the one who moved the goalpost from your first post to include "Lone Wolf G9" AS AN EXAMPLE! And it should be noted that even Lone Wolf calls it a "Glock Compatible AR-15". Again the idiotic state statue states that if the lower is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that is a copy or duplicate or has the same capability of an "AR-15" (and was manufactured post 9/13/94) then its banned. There are certain firearms that while legal in NY are NOT legal in CT. On the AR Spur's website they even state in their FAQ section that the AR Spur may not actually be NY legal because NY won't give a written determination. CT state police are the same,, they generally won't give one a definitive answer. If you actually live in CT and not NY then feel free to be a test case. Feel free to see if you can get a local Connecticut FFL to either sell you a post 9/13/94 semiautomatic centerfire AR-15 lower or attach the AR Spur to a post 9/13/94 semiautomatic centerfire AR-15 lower and sell it to you. I'm sure there are a few who are looking for ways around the ban on AR's here in CT. <shrugs> |
|
Quoted:
I vote it a grip. From the 4th line of text on the Mfr's homepage: "Gain enhanced control when firing with the added checkering on the new AR-15 Receiver Spur." "Gain enhanced control when firing" I don't know what school of guns you come from, but that statement, right there, would define the "grip" of a firearm. Not to mention CT's law states "the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon". This sentence does not define what a grip is, but what it does. I'm with sb, on this one. Yeah. Ignoring the idiotic AR-15 ban language which generally will stop this discussion in its tracks for many AR-15 lowers, the definition of "grip" is not specifically spelled out in the statutes. It just says "any grip of the weapon". Is the Spur a grip? The seller/manufacturer can call it what ever they want. It is DESPP/SLFU or the CT courts that will ultimately decide if it's a "grip" and if it violates the law. The fact that it attaches to the lower which is defined as part of action of the weapon, and puts the fingers of the trigger hand below the action of the weapon doesn't help. Has anyone actually seen a post 9/13/94 manufactured AR-15 semiautomatic centerfire rifle with this "spur" part on it for sale in CT or has one actually been transferred? Are any FFL's willing to take the possible gamble/risk of transferring a rifle with this attachment? You'd think that if it was legal that it would be selling here in CT. In fact I don't even see the word CT or Connecticut mentioned on the ar15spur.com website, they only mention NY. |
|
Quoted: Are any FFL's willing to take the possible gamble/risk of transferring a rifle with this attachment? Quoted: Are any FFL's willing to take the possible gamble/risk of transferring a rifle with this attachment? This is really the only thing that matters, outside the realm of legality of course. You'd think that if it was legal that it would be selling here in CT. In fact I don't even see the word CT or Connecticut mentioned on the ar15spur.com website, they only mention NY.
It may not have caught on yet. Recall that NY doesn't have preban exemption so folks in that state will be naturally more inclined to find ways to make existing rifles compliant and also find new ways to get new rifles transferred. IMO the most important thing is being able to say that it's possible to build a legal configuration "firearm" from a virgin AR lower. If that is possible then there really isn't a legal reason for virgin lowers to not be transferred. If they can be transferred that opens up a HUGE array of options. And let's face it, sometimes compliance isn't about what the firearm is at this moment, but what it easily could be with the simple change of some parts here and there. Swap "spur" for stock at the range, swap back for compliance in your safe. Same thing if SHTF and you really need it to be a real AR then just do what you have to do. Options are ALWAYS a good thing. And this spur gives us options. Just my 2 cents. |
|
Quoted:
Again the idiotic state statue states that if the lower is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that is a copy or duplicate or has the same capability of an "AR-15" (and was manufactured post 9/13/94) then its banned. Quoted:
Quoted:
You are failing to grasp a few things. I do not know how much clearer I can put it. First off, the fingers below the action of the weapon ONLY apply to a GRIP or STOCK. If the Spur is neither a GRIP or a STOCK, it does not apply. That is what is in question here. It is definitely not a stock. It is also not a grip by both sight and by the manufacturer's description. Secondly, AR15 is not a class of rifles. You are confused. The only AR 15's in existence are made by Colt or Armalite. Armalite sold the rights to Colt. The name "Ar 15" is a registered trademarked name and not a class of rifles. They have many similar rifles under different names that have different features. Bushmaster is a prime example. They have XM15's along with XM15E2's along with XM15E2S's. All are different and the only one banned by name was the Bushmaster XM15. If it is not named, it is not banned unless it is a direct copy. IE having the same exact features. So if another company or the same company comes out with a rifle that does not have a bayo lug, collapsible stock, flash suppressor, ect as those banned by NAME above, they are not duplicates or copies. Why do you think companies started making other rifles under a different name with different features under the first AWB both federally and statewide and were able to sell them? They were able to sell them because they were not exact copies of those listed by name above that had 2 banned features. They were different from those banned by name above thus legal to sell and own due to Rock River Arms as an example not being an AR 15 and also not having the same features as those banned by name. Please stop spreading misinformation on here. A Lone Wolf G9 in 9mm is not a direct copy of an AR15 sold by Colt and fingers below the action only apply to grips and stocks. The question here is," Is the Spur considered a grip when the company says it is not and you cannot grip the weapon with it?"
Again the idiotic state statue states that if the lower is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that is a copy or duplicate or has the same capability of an "AR-15" (and was manufactured post 9/13/94) then its banned. Again, a rifle that does not have the same features as a Colt AR 15 with a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, ect is not a copy of the AR15. How can you not understand that? How do you think when after the first AWB, Colt was able to sell rifles under a different name with different features? Hello. A Colt Sporter/ Target was legal for sale after the first ban. Why? Because it was not labelled as an AR15 and it had different features such as no bayonet lug and no muzzle device. Are you going to deny that? Are you telling me that after 1994 no AR pattern rifles were ever sold in CT? They even allowed you to register such post ban1994 rifles after Sandy Hook. What rock have you been under? I'm not trying to troll here because I'm from NY. I spend as much time in CT as I do in NY being from a border town. Wooster Mountain is my most used range. Many FFL's are dead scared of selling anything nowadays. You know that. Some will not even sell a Saiga even though it is not banned by name nor has any evil features. And before you say the Saiga is banned by name, it is not. Only the Saiga shotgun is banned by name. |
|
Quoted:
Yes The big deal is who will sell one in CT? They may not sell it complete, but you can build it if they are willing to sell you a stripped lower. A fixed magazine throws all features out the windows and is 10000 % legal if you buy a lower not listed on the banned list. |
|
Quoted:
[Again, a rifle that does not have the same features as a Colt AR 15 with a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, ect is not a copy of the AR15. How can you not understand that? How do you think when after the first AWB, Colt was able to sell rifles under a different name with different features? Hello. A Colt Sporter/ Target was legal for sale after the first ban. Why? Because it was not labelled as an AR15 and it had different features such as no bayonet lug and no muzzle device. Are you going to deny that? Are you telling me that after 1994 no AR pattern rifles were ever sold in CT? They even allowed you to register such post ban1994 rifles after Sandy Hook. What rock have you been under? I'm not trying to troll here because I'm from NY. I spend as much time in CT as I do in NY being from a border town. Wooster Mountain is my most used range. Many FFL's are dead scared of selling anything nowadays. You know that. Some will not even sell a Saiga even though it is not banned by name nor has any evil features. And before you say the Saiga is banned by name, it is not. Only the Saiga shotgun is banned by name. Quoted:
[Again, a rifle that does not have the same features as a Colt AR 15 with a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, ect is not a copy of the AR15. How can you not understand that? How do you think when after the first AWB, Colt was able to sell rifles under a different name with different features? Hello. A Colt Sporter/ Target was legal for sale after the first ban. Why? Because it was not labelled as an AR15 and it had different features such as no bayonet lug and no muzzle device. Are you going to deny that? Are you telling me that after 1994 no AR pattern rifles were ever sold in CT? They even allowed you to register such post ban1994 rifles after Sandy Hook. What rock have you been under? I'm not trying to troll here because I'm from NY. I spend as much time in CT as I do in NY being from a border town. Wooster Mountain is my most used range. Many FFL's are dead scared of selling anything nowadays. You know that. Some will not even sell a Saiga even though it is not banned by name nor has any evil features. And before you say the Saiga is banned by name, it is not. Only the Saiga shotgun is banned by name. The current ban on post 9/13/94 manufactured semiautomatic centerfire AR's has nothing to do with "Colt AR-15 and Sporter". The Colt AR-15 and Sporter are still banned by name as they were prior to 4/4/13. The reason why certain post pre 9/13/94 manufactured Colt AR's were legal to buy in CT prior to 4/4/13 was because they were not specifically roll marked with just the words "Colt AR-15", or "Colt Sporter". (Edit to add: See this letter from DSP that explains the Colt firearms isue.) When the state of CT enacted Public Act 13-3 on 4/4/13 they ADDED a bunch of more firearms to the list including the generic term "AR-15". SLFU issued document number 14-37 to at least one local FFL here in CT. That document explains what a "copy or duplicate" is with respect to the newly banned firearms including the "AR-15". This test is similar to the "AK-47 type" tri-part test that was instituted years ago by SLFU and used by the CT Supreme Court in at least one court case (State v. Kalman) to determine which AK-47 type rifles were banned. Below is a portion of text from that SLFU document on copies/duplicates. .... if the answer to each of the following three questions is "yes" when comparing a firearm to one that is specifically named in C.G.S. §§53-202a(1)(B), 53-202a(1)(C) or 53¬202a(1)(D), the firearm shall fall under the "copies or duplicates" language of C.G.S. §53-202a:
1. Physical Appearance: Does the "action" of the firearm look like that of a firearm specifically named in C.G.S. §§53-202a(1)(B), 53-202a(1)(C) or 53-202a(1)(D)? 2. Functionality: Does the "action" of the firearm work like that of a firearm specifically named in C.G.S. §§53-202a(1)(B), 53-202a(1)(C) or 53-202a(1)(D)? 3. Interchangeable Parts: Are the major components of the "action" (i.e., the bolt, the operating rod, the trigger and/or the sear) in its stock configuration interchangeable with that of a firearm specifically named in C.G.S. §§53-202a(1 )(B), 53-202a(1)(C) or 53-202a(1)(D)? If the answer to all three of the above questions is "yes" and a certificate of possession has not been obtained for the firearm but is required (i.e., it is not a pre-ban firearm), the party in possession shall surrender the firearm or render it inoperable. Heck, SLFU has not given an opinion on the legality of the Freedom Shoppe FM-14 that is not a "rifle" or a "pistol", it is an "other". Yet the Freedom Shoppe is left in limbo and has decided to stop transferring them while they wait to see if the state will come back with an opinion. See this CTHTF link for that discussion. Quoted:
And before you say the Saiga is banned by name, it is not. Only the Saiga shotgun is banned by name. Please look at the statute again. In addition to banning the "IZHMASH Saiga 12 Shotguns" the state of CT also banned (in the same section they banned the "AR-15") the "IZHMASH Saiga AK". Post edited to fix one error (pre instead of post) and to add the DSP Colt ban letter. |
|
Quoted:
It may not have caught on yet. Recall that NY doesn't have preban exemption so folks in that state will be naturally more inclined to find ways to make existing rifles compliant and also find new ways to get new rifles transferred. IMO the most important thing is being able to say that it's possible to build a legal configuration "firearm" from a virgin AR lower. If that is possible then there really isn't a legal reason for virgin lowers to not be transferred. If they can be transferred that opens up a HUGE array of options. And let's face it, sometimes compliance isn't about what the firearm is at this moment, but what it easily could be with the simple change of some parts here and there. Swap "spur" for stock at the range, swap back for compliance in your safe. Same thing if SHTF and you really need it to be a real AR then just do what you have to do. Options are ALWAYS a good thing. And this spur gives us options. Just my 2 cents. NY does have a grandfathered list of sorts, Appendix A from the 1994 fed ban legislation. Its buried deep in the NY SAFE Act. But, if I remember right, the AR is not on that list. Yes, building from a virgin lower is the way to go. A lower that is NEITHER a "rifile" nor a "pistol". Its as we all know what Freedom Shoppe was doing with their FM-14. But even that is on hold now because SLFU is dragging their feet on issuing an opinion on the FM-14 even though it appears to skirt the idiotic ban on AR-15 rifles. The way the idiotic law is written the AR Spur would be legal on a non semiautomatic AR rifle, legal on a non detachable magazine AR rifle provided that rifle gets around the AR-15 copies/duplicates ban. Choices and options are good. It gives people here who don't want to spend money on a preban choices. The problem with the AR Spur, much like the fixed magazine kits we've discussed in the past, is that one has to get past the ban on the AR-15 first in order to use the Spur to possibly (if SLFU doesn't deem it a "grip") get past the feature ban language. It is understandable that most FFL's are not willing to take the risk and roll the dice to sell/transfer a firearm that falls into a potential gray area of the law. People in CT have to make the choice of following the law or not. While one could swap out the Spur with a pistol grip one would, if they are following the law, potentially run into the idiotic "parts" language which means having a pistol grip in one's possession could make that unregistered semiautomatic centerfire lower an AW.
|
|
Quoted:
Instead of putting all this effort into sneaking around this, put your effort into just leaving the state. Exactly. There are much better ways to spend one's time. If one doesn't want to move there are better options than the AR Spur (if it were legal) for we CT residents. Go preban and be done with it (and have all the evilly features) even though it may cost a few hundred more. |
|
Quoted:
Exactly. There are much better ways to spend one's time. If one doesn't want to move there are better options than the AR Spur (if it were legal) for we CT residents. Go preban and be done with it (and have all the evilly features) even though it may cost a few hundred more. Quoted:
Quoted:
Instead of putting all this effort into sneaking around this, put your effort into just leaving the state. Exactly. There are much better ways to spend one's time. If one doesn't want to move there are better options than the AR Spur (if it were legal) for we CT residents. Go preban and be done with it (and have all the evilly features) even though it may cost a few hundred more. As I have said before, the cost of the most expensive pre-ban is infinitely less then the cost of legal defense, if you get arrested trying to skirt around the AWB. |
|
The CT SFLU letter has no bearing in a courtroom. Since when does the state police make laws?
If ever arrested, any defense lawyer will tear that letter apart in a court of law since it was never passed by those we elected into office. A licensing unit for firearms cannot interpret laws. That is a job for a judge. To this day the Saiga IZ 132 (not AK 47) is sold in CT by gunshops who know the actual law. It does not have the banned features as the original AK and thus is not a copy. So this letter is meaningless similar to when the NYSP puts up on their website pictures of what they think is illegal. |
|
Quoted:
The CT SFLU letter has no bearing in a courtroom. Since when does the state police make laws? If ever arrested, any defense lawyer will tear that letter apart in a court of law since it was never passed by those we elected into office. A licensing unit for firearms cannot interpret laws. That is a job for a judge. To this day the Saiga IZ 132 (not AK 47) is sold in CT by gunshops who know the actual law. It does not have the banned features as the original AK and thus is not a copy. So this letter is meaningless similar to when the NYSP puts up on their website pictures of what they think is illegal. Quoted:
The CT SFLU letter has no bearing in a courtroom. Since when does the state police make laws? If ever arrested, any defense lawyer will tear that letter apart in a court of law since it was never passed by those we elected into office. A licensing unit for firearms cannot interpret laws. That is a job for a judge. To this day the Saiga IZ 132 (not AK 47) is sold in CT by gunshops who know the actual law. It does not have the banned features as the original AK and thus is not a copy. So this letter is meaningless similar to when the NYSP puts up on their website pictures of what they think is illegal. Might as well continue the derpage in this thread. In case you missed what I posted earlier the DESPP letter outlining what is a copy or duplicate is based on the AK-47 type three part test. That AK Type three part test has been codified to an extent by the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case I cited and linked to. A defense attorney could pick it apart to their hearts content, and no matter how right they are, the odds are very high (think 100%) that no CT court will rule the Copy/Duplicates three part test unconstitutional or null and void because it comes close to mirroring prior case law. If the Saiga IZ 132 isn't stamped solely as "Saiga AK" then the non pistol grip version is perfectly legal. No one said it wasn't. What you said was the only Saiga firearm banned by name was their shotgun. As I pointed out that isn't true, so for what ever reason you bring up the Saiga IZ 132 to make some sort of point. Point is the CT AWB statue list TWO Saiga firearms. By chance are you trying to market the AR Spur to CT? It appears you don't fully understand how things work here in CT, don't understand the convoluted law that we have LONG (since 1993) suffered under, and what types of AR-15's CT FFL's are willing to sell to non exempted persons. However, feel free to continue to tell everyone here that most here in CT (including some FFL's who lurk here) haven't been interpreting our state's laws properly and that we are spreading misinformation. <shrugs> Quoted:
Are we done yet?  Apparently not. Obviously we've been interpreting wording of the law all wrong all these years...  
|
|
So you are saying that the Saiga IZ is legal for sale because the name is different and it has a different stock yet an AR type made by some obscure company such as Lone Wolf for a build is not even though it does not have the same stock or any grip at all because it's a copy. Do you see the double standard there?
Got it. Don't take things personal. I could care less what gun shops in CT do and don't do and neither should you. Many FFL's don't not know their asses from their elbows. Just because they have done things one way for years doesn't make it right. As far as the Spur goes, no I'm not trying to sell it. I work for a living. I'm just looking for a way to shoot my AR at Wooster Mountain in Danbury like I've had for years. Don't be so closed minded. The more options, the better. If the Spur is indeed legal because it not considered a grip, that opens the door to building AR's with it and turning them back to normal with one screw when the SHTF. Prebans won't last forever. We need other options. |
| I know a very well option but it's a long shot and we need all the people to stand up. Vote these clowns out. That's all we can do. If someone gets caught doing something illegal or what that someone thinks is legal, NY and CT law enforcement and courts will make an example out of them. |
|
Quoted:
So you are saying that the Saiga IZ is legal for sale because the name is different and it has a different stock yet an AR type made by some obscure company such as Lone Wolf for a build is not even though it does not have the same stock or any grip at all because it's a copy. Do you see the double standard there? Got it. There is no double standard. The siaga IZ 132 is CT legal in its stock configuration with monte carlo stock because it supposedly fails (internals apparently cannot be put in an ak47) the three prong test for the ak47 and doesn't have a pistol grip. More discussion on why at this thread: http://www.ak47.net/forums/t_8_26/481146_Saiga_7_62x39_hunting_carbine_rifle_is_Connecticut_legal_.html If the lone wolf ar-15, even the 9mm version, passes (yes to all three elements) the 3 prong copy/duplicates test for centerfire semiautomatic ar-15 then it is banned. The CT law sucks, is confusing, is contradictory. There is a lot of minutia involved. There are even ways a firearm could pass the new CT awb, but fail the old awb meaning the firearm would be illegal.
|
|
I seem to remember on this very forum someone asking about prebans post Sandy Hook after the law passed.
The guy got bombarded by know it alls who kept saying that it was not legal, a gun shop will never transfer it, ect. And low and behold, someone got an attorney on board who wrote the proper letters and now you have prebans transferred by some FFL's and people on this board writing that you can get prebans. It's funny. |
|
Quoted:
There is no double standard. The siaga IZ 132 is CT legal in its stock configuration with monte carlo stock because it supposedly fails (internals apparently cannot be put in an ak47) the three prong test for the ak47 and doesn't have a pistol grip. More discussion on why at this thread: http://www.ak47.net/forums/t_8_26/481146_Saiga_7_62x39_hunting_carbine_rifle_is_Connecticut_legal_.html If the lone wolf ar-15, even the 9mm version, passes (yes to all three elements) the 3 prong copy/duplicates test for centerfire semiautomatic ar-15 then it is banned. The CT law sucks, is confusing, is contradictory. There is a lot of minutia involved. There are even ways a firearm could pass the new CT awb, but fail the old awb meaning the firearm would be illegal. Quoted:
Quoted:
So you are saying that the Saiga IZ is legal for sale because the name is different and it has a different stock yet an AR type made by some obscure company such as Lone Wolf for a build is not even though it does not have the same stock or any grip at all because it's a copy. Do you see the double standard there? Got it. There is no double standard. The siaga IZ 132 is CT legal in its stock configuration with monte carlo stock because it supposedly fails (internals apparently cannot be put in an ak47) the three prong test for the ak47 and doesn't have a pistol grip. More discussion on why at this thread: http://www.ak47.net/forums/t_8_26/481146_Saiga_7_62x39_hunting_carbine_rifle_is_Connecticut_legal_.html If the lone wolf ar-15, even the 9mm version, passes (yes to all three elements) the 3 prong copy/duplicates test for centerfire semiautomatic ar-15 then it is banned. The CT law sucks, is confusing, is contradictory. There is a lot of minutia involved. There are even ways a firearm could pass the new CT awb, but fail the old awb meaning the firearm would be illegal. As I have said before, the 3 element test you speak of is not law and made up by the state police licensing division who are neither judges nor politicians . |
|
Quoted:
I seem to remember on this very forum someone asking about prebans post Sandy Hook after the law passed. The guy got bombarded by know it alls who kept saying that it was not legal, a gun shop will never transfer it, ect. And low and behold, someone got an attorney on board who wrote the proper letters and now you have prebans transferred by some FFL's and people on this board writing that you can get prebans. It's funny. No, what's funny is when people from another state don't understand how things go here in CT or what SLFU has interpreted come in and try to tell us how things are. Little history lesson time. When SB1160 was enacted on 4/4/13 is basically orphaned the preban statute at the time. No one knew what to do with selling prebans. Could they be sold? Where they banned? The legislature went back in with SB1094 which was enacted on 6/18/13 and repealed/replaced the preban statute. Then sometime post 6/18/13 SLFU and the Commissioner of SLFU at that time came up with their revised interpretation of that preban statute, and made it public, that turned things on its head and appears to be at odds with a technical reading of the preban statute. We've had several long threads on this particular topic. Not going to bother rehashing it other than to say read the statutes for yourself and SLFU's reinterpretation of it, then an attorney's interpretation of it, finally the Office of Legislative Research interpretation of it, to see how people were confused and didn't know quite what to do. Currently there are FFL's that are transferring all prebans even those that generally not thought transferable prior to 4/4/13. Pre 4/4/13: Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Post 6/18/13: Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. DESPP: Pre-Ban Assault Weapons Former DESPP Commissioner: Pre-Ban Assault Weapons Office of Legislative Research: Pre-1994 Assault Weapons - 2013-R-0453 Attorney Rachel Baird Legal Opinion about Pre Ban Assault Weapons |
|
Quoted:
As I have said before, the 3 element test you speak of is not law and made up by the state police licensing division who are neither judges nor politicians . Quoted:
As I have said before, the 3 element test you speak of is not law and made up by the state police licensing division who are neither judges nor politicians . You can say it till your blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that things are a wee bit different that what you think they should be here in CT. The fact is that SLFU is responsible for the regulation, sale, and transfer of firearms, is responsible for the regulation of assault weapons. That is NOT my view, that is the opinion of the Connecticut Superior Court! Again go back and read the State of Connecticut vs Robert Kalman opinion which I posted much earlier in this thread. That court employed the 3 part (eta: AK-47 Type) test to reach its ruling. I suggest you take a moment to read through it to see why the copy/duplicates 3 part test will most likely be legal, at least in the courts view. You and I may not like it, it may be serous mental gymnastics to reach such a legal opinion, but the fact remains this is CT and that is the ruling of a court. Here is just one portion from that opinion, there are others that are relevant to this discussion but I won't post them as it will create a wall of text: The defendant’s case was tried before the court in December, 2002. One of the state’s witnesses was Sergeant Timothy Osika of the state police, who had been assigned to the special licensing and firearms unit for nearly five years. That unit is responsible for the regulation of the sale and transfer of firearms, the regulation of assault weapons and machine guns and the issuance of state pistol carrier permits. Osika was familiar with § 53-202a, the statute defining assault weapons, and compared the Maadi MISR used in the incident with an Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47. Utilizing a tripartite test employed by the state police to determine whether a weapon is an AK-47 type, he demonstrated how the Maadi MISR looks like, works like and has parts that are interchangeable with an AK-47 weapon. |