Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: sks

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    33

    sks

    with the new gun law in ct are sks legal ?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Afragu View Post
    with the new gun law in ct are sks legal ?
    Yes they are still legal. It's only got 10 round capacity and no black plastic parts.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by forhumans View Post
    Yes they are still legal. It's only got 10 round capacity and no black plastic parts.


    thanks,i guess thats what we are stuck with from now on,how about the mini 14?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Afragu View Post
    thanks,i guess thats what we are stuck with from now on,how about the mini 14?
    Mini 14 is still OK, just not the one with the folding stock (which were always banned).

    They did ban the Kel Tec SU-16's even though they don't have pistol grips.

    Here's a good list for ya: http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/sl...lt_weapons.pdf
    Last edited by forhumans; 05-07-2013 at 01:58 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by forhumans View Post
    Mini 14 is still OK, just not the one with the folding stock (which were always banned).

    They did ban the Kel Tec SU-16's even though they don't have pistol grips.

    Here's a good list for ya: http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/sl...lt_weapons.pdf



    thanks again my friend,looks like the first rifle I'll be owning is an sks.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Afragu View Post
    thanks again my friend,looks like the first rifle I'll be owning is an sks.
    Build your own gun!

  7. #7
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Please remember that advice you receive on the internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, also I am not a lawyer, you know the routine....

    I was actually discussing this very topic on another forum. Seems like the SKS may technically be a banned gun due to the wording of the new law. Personally, I don't think it was the intent but here's what it says, "(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 the effective date of this section: (SNIP) (x) Norinco 56,"

    The Chinese in their infinite wisdom called two different rifles by the designation 56, see the Wiki Links:

    The one they meant to ban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle

    The one they banned because it has the same name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS#Variants See Chinese 56

    Since the wording says, "or copies or duplicates thereof with the capability of any such rifles," It could be construed to classify all SKS rifles as Assault Weapons under this new law.

    Again, your mileage may very.....
    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

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    Please remember that advice you receive on the internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, also I am not a lawyer, you know the routine....

    I was actually discussing this very topic on another forum. Seems like the SKS may technically be a banned gun due to the wording of the new law. Personally, I don't think it was the intent but here's what it says, "(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 the effective date of this section: (SNIP) (x) Norinco 56,"

    The Chinese in their infinite wisdom called two different rifles by the designation 56, see the Wiki Links:

    The one they meant to ban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle

    The one they banned because it has the same name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS#Variants See Chinese 56

    Since the wording says, "or copies or duplicates thereof with the capability of any such rifles," It could be construed to classify all SKS rifles as Assault Weapons under this new law.

    Again, your mileage may very.....
    If one the read the Benjiman(sp?) v. Bailey case you'll learn that that phrase means diddly squat unless the MANUFACTURER was the same .... read the case, learn alot

  9. #9
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If one the read the Benjiman(sp?) v. Bailey case you'll learn that that phrase means diddly squat unless the MANUFACTURER was the same .... read the case, learn alot
    and you would know that NORINCO made both the Model 56 (AK) and the 56 (SKS)
    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

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    and you would know that NORINCO made both the Model 56 (AK) and the 56 (SKS)
    you wouldn't .... but is there a man. listed on the gun itself that matches the one on the banned list? If not, then the copies, dup, etc mean nothing.

    You would need the "standard" banned gun to do a comparison ~ which you cannot get, cause its banned.

    I have gone to the several agencies and gov't offices asking about the need to buy a banned gun to do such comparisons --- they just run you around to someone else -- no one has an answer

  11. #11
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    you wouldn't .... but is there a man. listed on the gun itself that matches the one on the banned list? If not, then the copies, dup, etc mean nothing.

    You would need the "standard" banned gun to do a comparison ~ which you cannot get, cause its banned.

    I have gone to the several agencies and gov't offices asking about the need to buy a banned gun to do such comparisons --- they just run you around to someone else -- no one has an answer
    I am starting to feel that your goal is just to confuse people, here is a piece of advice for you, not everything is as black and white as you would like it to be. The word "type" and copies thereof were part of the old AWB which held up fine in court, you could not get a copy of an AK47 under the old ban and with the wording of the new ban they have in fact just banned all SKSs due to the wording of the new ban.

    Can't believe it myself but let me share with you a quote from Facebook that was made last night, this is the last entry into the discussion that started about the SKS a few days ago:

    "Well, I went to pick up my SKS tonight and I was told I cant take it. I'm really getting tired of this BS from CT and the idiots at the DESPP who don't know their ass from their elbow"


    ETA: I have read Benjamin, just thought I would peruse it again to see what the hell you are talking about and I suggest you reread it. The initial trial court found the word "type" in 3 areas to be to vague, however, this was overturned at the State Supreme Court and the word "type" was accepted from that point forward:

    "We conclude that the constitution did not compel that these excisions be made. The question before the trial court was whether the phrases "AK-47 type," "MAC-10, MAC11 and MAC-11 Carbine type" and "Auto-Ordnance Thompson type" completely lack a core of meaning. With respect to the first two phrases, the trial court found by necessary implication that the references in the statute to AK-47 and MAC firearms were themselves sufficiently clear to satisfy due process. That clarity, in turn, infuses the phrases "AK-47 type" and "MAC-10, MAC11 and MAC-11 Carbine type" with sufficient meaning to satisfy the constitutional requirements of facial vagueness analysis. [footnote 16] In other words, because the AK-47 and the MAC weapons are identifiable, the statutory phrases "AK-47 type" and "MAC-10, MAC11 and MAC-11 Carbine type" give adequate notice that, at the very least, the statute proscribes AK-47s and the enumerated MACS."

    To sum it up:

    " To summarizes we hold that the ban on assault weapons, General Statutes sections 53-202a through 53-202k, does not infringe on the right to bear arms in self-defense guaranteed by article first, section 15, of the Connecticut constitution. The ban does not violate principles of equal protection, and it is not a bill of attainder. Finally, all of the provisions contained in section 53-202a, enumerating the proscribed firearms, are sufficiently clear to satisfy the due process requirements of facial vagueness analysis applicable in this declaratory judgment action.
    Last edited by brk913; 05-08-2013 at 07:25 AM.
    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

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    I am starting to feel that your goal is just to confuse people, here is a piece of advice for you, not everything is as black and white as you would like it to be. The word "type" and copies thereof were part of the old AWB which held up fine in court, you could not get a copy of an AK47 under the old ban and with the wording of the new ban they have in fact just banned all SKSs due to the wording of the new ban.

    Can't believe it myself but let me share with you a quote from Facebook that was made last night, this is the last entry into the discussion that started about the SKS a few days ago:

    "Well, I went to pick up my SKS tonight and I was told I cant take it. I'm really getting tired of this BS from CT and the idiots at the DESPP who don't know their ass from their elbow"


    ETA: I have read Benjamin, just thought I would peruse it again to see what the hell you are talking about and I suggest you reread it. The initial trial court found the word "type" in 3 areas to be to vague, however, this was overturned at the State Supreme Court and the word "type" was accepted from that point forward:

    "We conclude that the constitution did not compel that these excisions be made. The question before the trial court was whether the phrases "AK-47 type," "MAC-10, MAC11 and MAC-11 Carbine type" and "Auto-Ordnance Thompson type" completely lack a core of meaning. With respect to the first two phrases, the trial court found by necessary implication that the references in the statute to AK-47 and MAC firearms were themselves sufficiently clear to satisfy due process. That clarity, in turn, infuses the phrases "AK-47 type" and "MAC-10, MAC11 and MAC-11 Carbine type" with sufficient meaning to satisfy the constitutional requirements of facial vagueness analysis. [footnote 16] In other words, because the AK-47 and the MAC weapons are identifiable, the statutory phrases "AK-47 type" and "MAC-10, MAC11 and MAC-11 Carbine type" give adequate notice that, at the very least, the statute proscribes AK-47s and the enumerated MACS."

    To sum it up:

    " To summarizes we hold that the ban on assault weapons, General Statutes sections 53-202a through 53-202k, does not infringe on the right to bear arms in self-defense guaranteed by article first, section 15, of the Connecticut constitution. The ban does not violate principles of equal protection, and it is not a bill of attainder. Finally, all of the provisions contained in section 53-202a, enumerating the proscribed firearms, are sufficiently clear to satisfy the due process requirements of facial vagueness analysis applicable in this declaratory judgment action.


    so in other words its still illegal to own ?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Afragu View Post
    so in other words its still illegal to own ?
    Did you have it before 4/4/2013?
    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

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post


    ETA: I have read Benjamin, just thought I would peruse it again to see what the hell you are talking about and I suggest you reread it. The initial trial court found the word "type" in 3 areas to be to vague, however, this was overturned at the State Supreme Court and the word "type" was accepted from that point forward:
    From the benjamin case (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=4,7):

    . The state correctly points out that, consistent with the principle of ejusdem generis, the phrase "Auto-Ordnance Thompson type" should be interpreted to include only those Auto-Ordnance Thompson firearms that share characteristics similar to the other 487*487 weapons listed in 53-202a.


    and another gem from the ruling:

    The legislature accordingly is not restricted in its options either to banning all weapons it considers harmful to the welfare of the citizenry or to banning none at all.[12]


    It should also be pointed out that the benjamin case was a pre-heller case -- the state took no stock of the 2nd amendment and many of the cases cited in the case (presser/IL case) were specifically stomped in the dirt.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 05-08-2013 at 11:57 AM.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The benjamin case is dead case law I think .... I'm sure it will be started to be addressed soon ...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    33
    [QUOTE=Rich B;1935414]Did you have it before 4/4/2013

    no

  17. #17
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Afragu View Post
    no
    Then (if the analysis BRK has, which looks plausible) it may be illegal to possess it and it was illegal to buy it. It was also illegal for someone to sell it to you in Connecticut.

    It would also be illegal for you to sell it privately in Connecticut.


    This is something that might be better addressed with an attorney since we don't have great guidance on the specifics of this bill yet or how it will be enforced.
    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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Then (if the analysis BRK has, which looks plausible) it may be illegal to possess it and it was illegal to buy it. It was also illegal for someone to sell it to you in Connecticut.

    It would also be illegal for you to sell it privately in Connecticut.


    This is something that might be better addressed with an attorney since we don't have great guidance on the specifics of this bill yet or how it will be enforced.

    I dont own one but i did want to,smh.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Afragu View Post
    I dont own one but i did want to,smh.
    build one yourself ... it does not meet the characteristics requirements (I think) ... so all you have to do is get around the list.

    You likely will have to build your own jig for a sks ....

    I've made many ARs and AKs ... fun project work if you have the patience

    But I still don't that SKSs from every manufacturer would be banned ...

    Or just buy one made\in production AFTER the act was passed ... a new manufacturer would likely be OK !



    (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 the effective date of this section: (i) AK-47; (ii) AK-74; (iii) AKM; (iv) AKS-74U; (v) ARM; (vi) MAADI AK47; (vii) MAK90; (viii) MISR; (ix) NHM90 and NHM91; (x) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S and 86S; (xi) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47; (xii) SA 85; (xiii) SA 93; (xiv) VEPR; (xv) WASR-10; (xvi) WUM; (xvii) Rock River Arms LAR-47; (xviii) Vector Arms AK-47; (xix) AR-10; (xx) AR-15; (xxi) Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster XM15, Bushmaster ACR Rifles, Bushmaster MOE Rifles; (xxii) Colt Match Target Rifles; (xxiii) Armalite M15; (xxiv) Olympic Arms AR-15, A1, CAR, PCR, K3B, K30R, K16, K48, K8 and K9 Rifles; (xxv) DPMS Tactical Rifles; (xxvi) Smith and Wesson M&P15 Rifles; (xxvii) Rock River Arms LAR-15; (xxviii) Doublestar AR Rifles; (xxix) Barrett REC7; (13-3) Beretta Storm; (13-3i) Calico Liberty 50, 50 Tactical, 100, 100 Tactical, I, I Tactical, II and II Tactical Rifles; (13-3ii) Hi-Point Carbine Rifles; (13-3iii) HK-PSG-1; (13-3iv) Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU Rifles, and RFB; (13-3v) Remington Tactical Rifle Model 7615; (13-3vi) SAR-8, SAR-4800 and SR9; (13-3vii) SLG 95; (13-3viii) SLR 95 or 96; (13-3ix) TNW M230 and M2HB; (xl) Vector Arms UZI; (xli) Galil and Galil Sporter; (xlii) Daewoo AR 100 and AR 110C; (xliii) Fabrique Nationale/FN 308 Match and L1A1 Sporter; (xliv) HK USC; (xlv) IZHMASH Saiga AK; (xlvi) SIG Sauer 551-A1, 556, 516, 716 and M400 Rifles; (xlvii) Valmet M62S, M71S and M78S; (xlviii) Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine; and (xlix) Barrett M107A1;

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    Since the wording says, "or copies or duplicates thereof with the capability of any such rifles," It could be construed to classify all SKS rifles as Assault Weapons under this new law.
    Well, that sucks. Sorry for getting your hopes up Afragu.

    If this is the case then wouldn't the Mini 14 be a "copy or duplicate" of the Mini 14-F?

    Such crap.
    Last edited by forhumans; 05-09-2013 at 02:00 PM.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by forhumans View Post
    Well, that sucks. Sorry for getting your hopes up Afragu.

    If this is the case then wouldn't the Mini 14 be a "copy or duplicate" of the Mini 14-F?

    Such crap.
    don't worry, only will suck for a little bit because:

    a) the law will be sticken due to an improper e-cert
    b) the law will be stricken due to improper process by the task force committee that produced it
    c) the law's AWB/Mag bans will be stricken in their entirety due to the now 2nd amendment incorporation (these are all popular guns in the USA, hence not unusual (like blackjacks, brass knuckles, sawed off shotguns))

    Of course I have not drunk from the same wells that most of the judiciary in CT lol

  22. #22
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Again. I believe this was clearly an oversight and I don't think they intended to add the SKS to the AWB but because of the particular wording it leaves it open that the law could be interpreted to include the SKS, which honestly is another reason to add to the lawsuits, they don't even know how to properly classify these guns. Of course I should admit that until this was brought up in another forum I never knew the Norinco SKS went by the proper name Norinco 56.....

    To add, the person who tried to buy the SKS has been informed by the DESPP that they will not authorize the transfer on the Norinco 56 (SKS) - if they follow this interpretation and the law as written that effectively makes all SKSs assault weapons....
    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

  23. #23
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Latest update on this from the guy who could not buy the SKS:

    seems all SKS are legal now. My FFL dealer called me and told me he got written confirmation from D'Amato that all SKS are legal. Seems Detective Madsen who is the Senior Officer at DESP or whatever was the wrench in the works and telling everyone it was banned, so they had a specific meeting on the issue. Norinco 56 is AK variant, not SKS. Had the law wanted to ban SKS, they would've mentioned SKS by name, not ban by country of origin only. I know, I know, we already knew this and it was stupid from the get go.... but its nice to get confirmation and I'll be picking it up tomorrow. Unless they change their minds again.




    So buy them now before they change their mind again!!!!
    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

  24. #24
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    Latest update on this from the guy who could not buy the SKS:

    seems all SKS are legal now. My FFL dealer called me and told me he got written confirmation from D'Amato that all SKS are legal. Seems Detective Madsen who is the Senior Officer at DESP or whatever was the wrench in the works and telling everyone it was banned, so they had a specific meeting on the issue. Norinco 56 is AK variant, not SKS. Had the law wanted to ban SKS, they would've mentioned SKS by name, not ban by country of origin only. I know, I know, we already knew this and it was stupid from the get go.... but its nice to get confirmation and I'll be picking it up tomorrow. Unless they change their minds again.

    So buy them now before they change their mind again!!!!

    Get the written confirmation. We will post it.
    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

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Get the written confirmation. We will post it.
    The sks question is a muddy one -- like almost everything else in the act. Written by idiots to be interpreted by more idiots.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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