Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Gunsmithing Prohibition?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108

    Gunsmithing Prohibition?

    With "Staunch 2A Defenders" like this, who needs enemies?

    http://bethel.patch.com/announcement...ult-weapon-ban

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    how exactly could he possibly alter laws regarding pre-ban guns to prevent modification? the only part with the serial number is the lower receiver. anything added beyond that is nearly unidetifiable, and unable to be enforced on whether the parts are pre-ban, post-ban, or brand spankin new. what would it matter anyway, it doesn't change the function of the gun, it's still a semi-auto rifle

  3. #3
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    how exactly could he possibly alter laws regarding pre-ban guns to prevent modification?
    I don't want to give them any ideas but they could say that you may not affix any parts to the gun that were manufatured after the inception date of the CT AWB in 1993.

    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    the only part with the serial number is the lower receiver. anything added beyond that is nearly unidetifiable,
    and would therefore be banned.

    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    what would it matter anyway, it doesn't change the function of the gun, it's still a semi-auto rifle
    That is what these people don't understand, even this defender of second amendment freedoms, does it mattter if the bayonet lug and flash hider was made in 1992 or today? Does it change the function of the rifle? How about a barrel, does that make any difference? The media and anti gunners have eceryone bamboozled, they are so confused about the term assault weapon that they have no idea what one is and isn't. I say we push for a law that states no law maker in CT can vote on or introduce legislative bills on a subject they do not know anything about, we could give them a test.
    Member:, NRA Patron Life, NSSF, CCDL, CT Carry, MRPC and Bell City
    NRA Certified Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer - Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety, Metallic Cartridge/Shotgun Shell Reloading - www.ctpistolpermit.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  5. #5
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    That is what these people don't understand, even this defender of second amendment freedoms, does it mattter if the bayonet lug and flash hider was made in 1992 or today? Does it change the function of the rifle? How about a barrel, does that make any difference? The media and anti gunners have everyone bamboozled, they are so confused about the term assault weapon that they have no idea what one is and isn't. I say we push for a law that states no law maker in CT can vote on or introduce legislative bills on a subject they do not know anything about, we could give them a test.
    "On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, "I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation" and "It will be carefully focused." Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012."

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...e-gun-ban.aspx

    I still can't get past this, it drives me up a wall!!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Sen. McLachlan noted that assault weapons manufactured prior to the state's 1993 ban may be dismantled to recycle the part containing the gunís serial number and rebuilt with modern parts that would otherwise fall under the existing assault weapons ban.

    "I plan to submit a bill that seeks to correct this
    deficiency," Sen. McLachlan said after attending the Funeral Mass for Caroline Phoebe Previdi, who was a first grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School. "I never met Caroline, but her great-grandparents, Eugene and Phoebe Previdi, were special people in my life.

    Above from article..


    So I cannot fix my gun? And don't people in this state support recycling?

    The death of Caroline does not change the meaning of the 2nd amendment, does it? Millions more have died for our freedoms...no one is speaking of these people.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60
    Pretty sad that a "defender of the Second Amendment" would propose something like this.

    Reading what he said, I don't think it's properly speaking supposed to be a prohibition on adding ANY new parts to ANY gun.

    Sen. McLachlan noted that assault weapons manufactured prior to the state's 1993 ban may be dismantled to recycle the part containing the gunís serial number and rebuilt with modern parts that would otherwise fall under the existing assault weapons ban.

    "I plan to submit a bill that seeks to correct this
    deficiency," Sen. McLachlan said. . .
    I think the "loophole" is CT statute 53-202m: http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/ch...Sec53-202m.htm

    Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.
    For reference, 53-202a is the definition of an "assault weapon", and 53-202m covers pretty much all the law about "assault weapons". Including the requirement to register it. So 53-202m is the "pre-ban" loophole--if you have a stripped lower legally manufactured before Sept. 13, 1994, it cannot by definition be an "assault weapon" no matter how many "evil features" you put on it. Practically speaking, this means that anything manufactured before the ban date is just another firearm, as long as it's not select-fire and/or automatic-fire capable. It is totally exempt from "assault weapons" law.

    Folks I've spoken to always seem to think of it as a "gray area", just like a few years ago we thought OC was legally gray until folks actually tested it and prevailed in court. It's likely that if police discovered your AR-15 with a bayonet lug and pistol grip, they wouldn't care that the serialized stripped lower was manufactured before Sept. 13, 1994, but would consider it an assault weapon anyway. No one I've spoken to wants to test it.

    However, it seems that our frenemy Sen. Michael McLachlan wants to close that "loophole". I'm betting he'd require registration of ANY gun which meets "assault-rifle" criteria, and they'd use the "type" language to require registration of AR-15s. The law talks about the "Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type" as a named "assault weapon", and from what I understand that's practically meant that anything that functions like an AK-47 and fires the 7.62x39mm round is banned no matter what name (or lack thereof) is stamped on the reciever. So banning the "AR-15 type" would mean that any AR-15 would be banned--though it might be possible to circumvent it by chambering your AR in something other than .223 (or perhaps other than 5.56x45mm).

    Does this make any sense? Scratch that. In the nonsensical context of banning weapons by cosmetic features, does this add up?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •