Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: AR and High Cap Mag Registration

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    40

    AR and High Cap Mag Registration

    Hey Guys,

    As the year winds down and Jan '14 gets closer and closer, I have really been thinking a lot about the new mandatory registration laws. I have had a small sliver of hope that eventually we may see some of these new laws overturned and won't have to reg all of the stuff we have in those categories; but it would appear that is not likely to happen. I am in fear that registration will lead to confiscation, and plan to hold out to the last minute to do so. Out of curiosity, have any of you already done your part and gotten it out of the way? Is there any chance of some of these new laws being overturned by the deadline? What are your thoughts?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Registration will lead to confiscation; always has.

    And overturning the law? Will take about 6 years IMO.

    And the registration requirements? Will likely survive - I do not see adequate arguments to cause them to be enjoined.

    The only argument presently before the courts is the e-cert process being defective which would kill the entire bill. I think its a great argument and should win the day but in reality will not.

    I am content to just sit and wait and prepare. Who knows, maybe a judge will stop everything before Jan.

    My guess to a ruling, time-wise, to a ruling on a temporary injunction would be in OCT or NOV of this year.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Registration will lead to confiscation; always has.

    And overturning the law? Will take about 6 years IMO.

    And the registration requirements? Will likely survive - I do not see adequate arguments to cause them to be enjoined.

    The only argument presently before the courts is the e-cert process being defective which would kill the entire bill. I think its a great argument and should win the day but in reality will not.

    I am content to just sit and wait and prepare. Who knows, maybe a judge will stop everything before Jan.

    My guess to a ruling, time-wise, to a ruling on a temporary injunction would be in OCT or NOV of this year.
    So are you basically implying you will wait as long as possible as well, in hopes something may come up? Or do you think it does not matter much, and we pretty much have no options - so just get it out of the way. I'm in fear as well that registration leads to confiscation. At the same time however, I wouldn't want to not register any thing I have and risk jail time.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical_Evo View Post
    So are you basically implying you will wait as long as possible as well, in hopes something may come up? Or do you think it does not matter much, and we pretty much have no options - so just get it out of the way. I'm in fear as well that registration leads to confiscation. At the same time however, I wouldn't want to not register any thing I have and risk jail time.
    I'll wait ... you can move the guns/mags out of state if you like. Or modify them to be outside the scope of the requirements for registration.

    You really should not have all your guns in one location anyways.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I'll wait ... you can move the guns/mags out of state if you like. Or modify them to be outside the scope of the requirements for registration.

    You really should not have all your guns in one location anyways.
    I don't have many other options I don't think. But I will wait til last min to reg.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Before FOIC- pleadings in respect to PA13-3 reg. req.-see how the state responds

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW

    Narrow Review of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution


    The text of the second amendment

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    A core purpose of the amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government.

    Tench Coxe made this point in a commentary on the Second Amendment.“Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” Federal Gazette, June 18, 1792, at 2, col. 1, Coxe explained the purpose of the Amendment this way:
    As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

    Similarly, Madison himself wrote that a regular army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands." The Federalist No. 46, at 299 (James Madison) (Willmore Kendall & George W. Carey eds., 1966).

    Connecticut Public Act 13-3 Registration Requirements
    Under PA 13-3, Connecticut residents are now required to provide the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (aka DESPP), an agency of the State of Connecticut, information related to arms and gun magazines that they possess. Information being sought includes immeasurable rifles, handguns, and gun magazines; the specific information being sought for each of the items now being required to be registered are detailed in the DESPP forms attached as Exhibits A and B. Clearly, the information being sought gives the state detailed information in respect to the capabilities of the items sought to be registered. PA13-3’s registration requirements are currently considered to be constitutional.


    Examination of Registration Requirements of PA13-3 to Second Amendment
    A safety risk is one that may include the risk of death. The State, through PA13-3, now requires its residents to provide detailed information in respect to arms and magazines possessed by its citizens.
    Clearly if disclosures of arms and magazines would involve a safety risk then this request by the state would clearly run afoul of the second amendment’s “shall not be infringed” provision. After all, a state cannot state that a resident can own a gun or magazine but that to own one that you must disclose this information to the state and such a disclosure may result in your death. Nothing could be more of an infringement than saying that death could be the result of gun or magazine ownership.



    Legislature’s Passage of PA13-3 Notes No Safety Risk With Disclosure
    Party A provides detailed information regarding arms to Party B. Does this result in a safety risk to Party A? The legislature of this state, by passing PA13-3 with its registration requirements, has clearly stated no. If the legislature believed that disclosure of arms by its residents would create a safety risk for any of the residents then it never would have included the registration requirements contained within PA13-3.

    Connecticut’s Executive Branch Also Notes No Safety Risk With Disclosure
    The governor of this state signed PA13-3 and also campaigned heavily for passage of such a bill and campaigned heavily for the registration requirements contained in PA13-3. The governor is the chief executive officer for the executive branch in this state.

    The complainant also contacted the governor’s office during the legislative session prior to the passage of PA13-3 and asked if the governor thought that the registration requirements would create a safety risk for those that disclose and the reply back was an emphatic no.

    Lawmaking Bodies in State Agree that There are No Safety Risks Associated With Firearms Disclosure

    Both the legislature and the executive branches have decided that, through its passage of PA13-3, that no safety risk is associated with the disclosure of arms from one party to another.


    Tyrannical Governments Can Include Any Governmental Body
    The second amendment provides a defense of the people to tyrannical governments; this protection is not limited to just federal governments but also state and local government tyranny.

    Theory That Safety Risk Assessment is Irrelevant To Citizens v. Governmental Bodies is Without Merit
    The respondents may argue that that and analysis of a safety risk regarding arms disclosures between Party A and Party B is dependent upon who exactly the parties are and that findings of safety risks can be found to be complete opposite results depending upon who the parties are is completely without merit.

    In this case, it is a citizen asking for records that would disclose arms of a town. Yet a core reason for the second amendment is to allow residents some protection against tyrannical governments including this and every other town government.

    Its axiomatic that the town government, who would have access to residents’ firearms and magazines now required under PA13-3 to register, can have information regarding arms that people possess and claim no safety risk is associated with the disclosures under PA13-3 and then turn around and say that disclosure of their arms’ records would result in a safety risk to the town government and its employees.




    Respondent’s Claim of A Safety Risk of Disclosure of Records Sought is Also A Pleading that PA13-3’s Registration Requirements are Unconstitutional

    Any argument by any respondent that claims that disclosure of records that would detail information regarding the arms that the respondent town possesses, under a safety risk exemption or exception under CGS Chapter 14, would be the exact argument that one would make to plead that the registration requirements of PA13-3 are unconstitutional.

    However, there is no case law that would support such claims and is contrary to the actions taken by the legislature and executive branches of this state.

    The Freedom of Information Commission is likely not the authority to rule upon the constitutionality of PA13-3 and the commission should accept the constitutionality of PA13-3. The commission should take judicial notice of the public act.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    You basically have 4 choices.

    1) Don't comply
    2) Move the guns and mags out of state, never to legally return unless the law is overturned.
    3) Modify them to be compliant. The simple addition of a MR2 to an AR15 will suffice. Mags are different. You could drill and rivet them or maybe disassemble them. (I don't recall if the law says something about parts that can be assembled into a magazine)
    4) Register / declare your AWs / LCMs.
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/ar-talk...mr2-kit-2.html

    "My legal judgment is that this device makes your AR completely legal and not required to be registered. This is my opinion, I cannot guarantee the state will agree but there is no way they could claim this uses a detachable magazine, and that is the key."

    ************************************

    Issue 1
    I would think that issues would still be seen in CT.. First, you would still have a Bushmaster lower .. its stamped as one of the listed "assault rifles" .... so you change the lower to a homemade one ( a judge in this state would gobble up the argument that the gun is still a Bushmaster on the banned list). Now its not on the list.
    *************************************
    So you go to the law....from SB1160.. & Issue 2
    [(A)] (i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept
    a detachable magazine and has at least [two] one of the following:
    [(i)] (I) A folding or telescoping stock;
    [(ii) A] (II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, [that
    protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon] 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;
    [(iii)] (III) A [bayonet mount] forward pistol grip;
    [(iv)] (IV) A flash suppressor; or [threaded barrel designed to
    accommodate a flash suppressor; and]
    [(v)] (V) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; or
    (ii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with
    the ability to accept more than ten rounds; or
    (iii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of
    less than thirty inches; or


    Goes on to cover pistols ....

    "has the ability to accept a detachable magazine" .... I think that this is an issue; the mag is still detachable without the need for tools. An end-user can detach the mag w/o any specialized skills needed.



    What's other folks opinion? The inventor of the five dollar mag. release (selling for 10x what it should cost) cannot even state that such a gun is OK in CT.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-28-2013 at 07:27 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    David,

    I have asked the DeSPP about the legality of the MR2 and they refused to give me an opinion. Thats good enough for me. It shows I exercised due diligence. Imagine if you called your building inspector with a question about the building code prior to making some changes to it. Now imagine if he said to you "sorry, I can't give you advice". Your town would fire him within a month. (well maybe not. its government work, but you get my point)

    The fact that I have reached out to the the DESPP and they have refused to answer me is huge. If the DESPP wants to reach out to me to clarify, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this.
    At this point, I can't even get guns to convert since on distributors will sell into CT. So for me this is a theoretical discussion. Unfortunately.

    Re your comment on a bushmaster. If its a named gun, there's no way around it.

    But if its not a named gun, there is no reason that a lower is illegal. I will sell you a lower this weekend if you want one. The key is that it is incumbent upon you, the buyer, to build it into a compliant firearm. There is nothing in the law prohibiting the sale of an AeroPrecision X15, for example. Of course, if you are in possession of all the other parts to turn it into an AW you are in violation of the law. But if you choose to build it into a compliant rifle, or even shotgun, then there aren't any problems.

    You could build it as a straight pull bolt action gun, with no gas system and it would be completely legal. You could build it into single shot .50 cal gun and it would be perfectly legal.

    Of course you could build it into an illegal AW. But thats up to you, the buyer. The legality of a lower is not determined by the possibility that the buyer might make it into something illegal. Shoot, with some 32 thousandths steel, a file and a band saw you could make it into a machine gun with a lightning link. Lowers are not prohibited from future sale in CT.
    Last edited by dcmdon; 08-28-2013 at 09:54 PM.
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    FFL Required; Ships after FFL is received & verified. Restrictions Apply.

    http://www.surplusammo.com/aero-prec...-receiver-new/

    You may be able to sell me a Aero X15 ... if you are a fll ... its not an 80% lower .. its finished

    And the fact that DESPP did not answer you? I think is total BS myself but I don't think it "lets you off the hook".

    I too have asked DESPP queries w/o any response and after several followups. You may wish to contact Rep. Sampson ~ I contacted him with my queries and he rebounded the queries to DESPP but even he has not gotten a response. So I don't think its personal (no reply from DESPP) ~ its just that they don't want to answer any questions.

    Now, I think that DESPP would be more than willing to look at your gun if you called them and said "I don't know if this gun needs to be registered--can I bring it in for an evaluation?" Then they may allow you to bring it in...but get this in writing ~ you cannot transport a AW unless to a gunsmith or a range.

    But you are correct, the law does not seem to ban AR lower sales (although my local gun shop no longer carries them). And the AR platform is so versatile you can make almost anything using a standard or modified lower.

    I look at it this way: is the magazine attached or is it detachable?

    And DESPP has said that you can have AR lowers and not register them (to me from a Det. & the law is quite clear that this is OK) BUT you cannot have the parts needed to complete a rifle into an AW in you possession now or in the future (at least in this state).

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by dcmdon View Post
    David,

    .
    I shot you a pm.

    I like your thinking ... get your rifle outside the definition of AW and one no longer needs to register ..

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I shot you a pm.

    I like your thinking ... get your rifle outside the definition of AW and one no longer needs to register ..
    Exactly. The goal here for me is absolute and total compliance with the statute. But not to be so fearful that I am unwilling to exercise my rights WITHIN the statute.

    Oneother thing. An AeroPrecision X15 receiver is NO different than a Remington 1100 or Glock 17 receiver. They can all be built into compliant firearms or they can be built into assault weapons.

    I own Glocks and I also own threaded barrels for a couple. I have two choices under the new law. (since noncompliance is not an option for me).

    1)Register every Glock in which the threaded Barrels will fit.
    2) Sell the barrels.
    Last edited by dcmdon; 08-29-2013 at 07:34 AM.
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Willimantic/Windham
    Posts
    5
    I don't believe the MR2 addition will make any AR legal in Ct. All AR's are banned specifically by name and type, also anything that looks like or resembles it is AW.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by darkk View Post
    I don't believe the MR2 addition will make any AR legal in Ct. All AR's are banned specifically by name and type, also anything that looks like or resembles it is AW.
    AR15 is a name owned by Colt's Industries. Every other maker's gun that we colloquially refer to as an AR15 is not actually an AR15. Its whatever its maker chooses to name it.

    For example, the Rock River arms gun is called a LAR-15.

    So if you purchase an AP XM15 and build it into a bolt gun, you are clean from a name perspective and from a copy or facsimile perspective.

    Like I said above, an XM15 receiver is no different from a Remington 1100 receiver. Both can be built into a legal firearm or an illegal AW. Its up to the owner what path they take.

    Don
    Last edited by dcmdon; 08-29-2013 at 04:57 PM.
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by darkk View Post
    I don't believe the MR2 addition will make any AR legal in Ct. All AR's are banned specifically by name and type, also anything that looks like or resembles it is AW.
    The law does not say anything that resembles a AR .... its does say, in part:

    [(2)] (ii) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to
    convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subparagraph
    (A)(i) of this subdivision, [(1) of this subsection,] or any combination of
    parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subparagraph (A)(i)
    of this subdivision, [(1) of this subsection,] may be rapidly assembled if
    those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same
    person;
    (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 yada yada yada


    Perhaps the bolded section was what you were thinking ... but the Benjamin case, long ago, struck down the old AWB wording of "TYPE" to include only similar guns made by listed manufactures.

    But, of course, one needs to consider the characteristics sections of the law previously posted on this thread as well..

    Stag has made a 22 AR version that they claim that they consulted with DESPP prior to making ... of course a 22 version is as useful as a Henry 22 level action ... good to about 100 yds I guess..little dinky hole that would make me madder more than anything.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Willimantic/Windham
    Posts
    5
    I own a Bushmaster XM15 and it is banned by name. Most if not all AR type guns are banned by name. Even changing them to bolt action, sling shot or arrow bolt at this time will not change the fact that that brand and model name are banned guns.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by darkk View Post
    I own a Bushmaster XM15 and it is banned by name. Most if not all AR type guns are banned by name. Even changing them to bolt action, sling shot or arrow bolt at this time will not change the fact that that brand and model name are banned guns.
    You are incredibly, indisputably wrong. Yes, the major manufacturers were banned by name. But there were AR type guns made under hundreds of names.

    None of the companies that only make receivers, like Mega or Aeroprecision are named.

    Rifles made by companies like Noveske, PSA, Spikes, Bravo Company, Daniel Defense, LMT, and last but not least Stag Arms (a CT company), were not banned by name.

    So sorry. You are wrong. Check the text of the law. It sticks really to the biggies as far as banning by name.

    Go here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/201...160-R00-SB.htm

    and do a page search on "bushmaster". It will take you right to the paragraph with the named AWs. There you will see that you are wrong.

    So again, for any non-named gun, for which there are many, if you either fix a 10 round magazine or make it into a straight pull bolt gun by removing the gas system, you are good to go.
    Last edited by dcmdon; 09-02-2013 at 09:29 AM.
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by darkk View Post
    I don't believe the MR2 addition will make any AR legal in Ct. All AR's are banned specifically by name and type, also anything that looks like or resembles it is AW.
    I am reversing my previous post regarding the MR2 if one has a lower not on the listed guns... from PA13-3:

    (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;
    (4) "Detachable magazine" means an ammunition feeding device
    that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action;

    .....
    [(3)] (E) Any semiautomatic firearm [not listed in subdivision (1) of
    this subsection] regardless of whether such firearm is listed in
    subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, of this subdivision, and regardless
    of the date such firearm was produced, that meets the following
    criteria:
    [(A)] (i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept
    a detachable magazine and has at least [two] one of the following:


    **************************************

    You MUST dissemble the lower from the upper with the MR2 .... so if you have a homemade or other lower and the MR2 you should be OK.

    Any one else have opinion?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2
    I won't say who, but I spoke with a detective at the DESPP in CT and he told me that regardless of whether of not the rifle is on the banned list if it has been modified to have a fixed magazine or "none detachable magazine" then the rifle IS in fact legal.

    His explanation was that since the firearm had been modified it was no longer the model specified by name on the list and therefore legal.

    Now don't kill the messenger I'm just letting you guys know what I was told because I saw a nice AR with an MR2 kit in NY that they told me they can sell me if I provided an FFL in CT. This rifle was modified with an MR2 kit.

    If you don't know already. To release the magazine from the rifle using the MR2 kit you have to tae apart the action from the lower basically disassembling the rifle.

    MacMan

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMan View Post
    I won't say who, but I spoke with a detective at the DESPP in CT and he told me that regardless of whether of not the rifle is on the banned list if it has been modified to have a fixed magazine or "none detachable magazine" then the rifle IS in fact legal.

    His explanation was that since the firearm had been modified it was no longer the model specified by name on the list and therefore legal.

    Now don't kill the messenger I'm just letting you guys know what I was told because I saw a nice AR with an MR2 kit in NY that they told me they can sell me if I provided an FFL in CT. This rifle was modified with an MR2 kit.

    If you don't know already. To release the magazine from the rifle using the MR2 kit you have to tae apart the action from the lower basically disassembling the rifle.

    MacMan
    Would never take legal advice from a LEO - he isn't going to pay your fine or do your time.

    What you might do is ask him for cite and then confirm or refute it yourself.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Would never take legal advice from a LEO - he isn't going to pay your fine or do your time.

    What you might do is ask him for cite and then confirm or refute it yourself.

    I hate to sound stupid or ignorant but what do you mean by "cite"

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Would never take legal advice from a LEO - he isn't going to pay your fine or do your time.

    What you might do is ask him for cite and then confirm or refute it yourself.
    I agree with you 95% of the time. But if it is someone of some standing like Musial or Damatto and he's willing to put it in writing, then you have a bit of a get out of jail free card if you are ever arrested. It shows due diligence on your part and it also shows that you HONESTLY BELIEVED that you were acting within the law.
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Would never take legal advice from a LEO - he isn't going to pay your fine or do your time.

    What you might do is ask him for cite and then confirm or refute it yourself.
    No cite is actually needed ... one can reference the law itself.

    The question of if modifying a rifle on the banned by name list via only a MR2 change to it is a question of law.

    Unfortunately, most of the discussion about the bill by the legislators have been done behind closed doors. Its one of the reasons for my pending hearing regarding the illegal secret meetings regarding this bill that will be heard on 2 FEB 14 before the Freedom of Information Commission. I have prepared a request for an order to have several legislators testify before the commission that I am filing tomorrow.

    The inventor of the MR2 has tried to have the gun transferred to a CT FFL and have asked DESPP their opinion on the change to a gun (one not on the banned by name ~ the company did not receive an OK from DESPP ~ not surprising really even if OK). The transfer attempt has not yet been completed to my knowledge. I still think that this gun would be OK .. it would just take a FFL willing to take a risk. Not one has been found yet to my knowledge. Of course, one could not have a standard mag release in his possession lest run afoul 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 the effective date of this section: (i)
    AK-47; (ii) AK-74; (iii) AKM; (iv) AKS-74U; (v) ARM;....etc


    Whats odd about this section is that if a copy is made, how is one to (a) know its a copy w/o being able to compare it ~ although I recall reading a court opinion that says gun owners should know their capabilities (a retarded opinion) ~ and/or having the banned gun to make a comparison.

    Also, the section that bans by name includes models not covered by the semi-auto list .. so one could take a selective fire gun and make it a semi OR take one and make it full auto as long as its out of the other specs of banned guns.

    People had purchased (and could purchase) full-auto only rifles (or selective fire and have it pinned to full auto only prior to possession) prior to the new PA13-3 law .... looks like one still might be able to...I have not examined all the gun designs.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The inventor of the MR2 has tried to have the gun transferred to a CT FFL and have asked DESPP their opinion on the change to a gun (one not on the banned by name ~ the company did not receive an OK from DESPP ~ not surprising really even if OK). The transfer attempt has not yet been completed to my knowledge. I still think that this gun would be OK .. it would just take a FFL willing to take a risk. Not one has been found yet to my knowledge. Of course, one could not have a standard mag release in his possession lest run afoul of the law.
    David, you are uncharacteristically vague here. What do you mean by the company did not receive an OK.

    Did the DESPP say that they thought it would not bring a rifle into compliance, or did they refuse to give an answer. Refusing to give an answer is more their way of doing things these days.

    I look forward to your answer since you seem to have spent a lot of time parsing the intricacies of this statute.
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by dcmdon View Post
    David, you are uncharacteristically vague here. What do you mean by the company did not receive an OK.

    Did the DESPP say that they thought it would not bring a rifle into compliance, or did they refuse to give an answer. Refusing to give an answer is more their way of doing things these days.

    I look forward to your answer since you seem to have spent a lot of time parsing the intricacies of this statute.
    The company wrote to DESPP about their MR2 ... DESPP would not give an answer.

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
  •