Afragu
Regular Member
with the new gun law in ct are sks legal ?
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.
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/slfu/firearms/assault_weapons.pdf
thanks again my friend,looks like the first rifle I'll be owning is an sks.
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.....
and you would know that NORINCO made both the Model 56 (AK) and the 56 (SKS)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)
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.
so in other words its still illegal to own ?
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:
Did you have it before 4/4/2013
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.
I dont own one but i did want to,smh.:cuss:
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.