AR and High Cap Mag Registration

Grapeshot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Grapeshot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Grapeshot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

davidmcbeth said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

dcmdon said:

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.

Click to expand...

The company wrote to DESPP about their MR2 ... DESPP would not give an answer.

Grapeshot said:

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.

Click to expand...

MacMan said:

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

Click to expand...

Cite = quote or direct reference to the law/statute on which the opinion is based. On internet forums is generally accomplished with a link.

Citing publication sources means giving credit to the original author.
http://www.ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/ethics/how-do-i-correctly-cite-internet-sources/

dcmdon said:

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.

Click to expand...

D'Amatto is a nice guy, just trying to coast to retirement I think -- he'll say anything, he's like a Magic 8 Ball. Just shake him again and you'll get a different answer (but nothing in writing, strictly off-the-record).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-U1DJxsAM off the record