Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Do I need to register my .22 AK-47 under the Assault Weapons Act?

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

    Do I need to register my .22 AK-47 under the Assault Weapons Act?

    As the title states, I have a .22cal rimfire rifle. It is a Kalashnikov endorsed AK-47 made by GSG. All of the documentation I had been reading boldly outlined the word "centerfire", but in one of the FAQs on DESPP it said somethings about rimfire rifles with 2 or more features of an assault weapon needing to be registered. ...I tried calling them, but their phone system keeps looping me back to a recording (I think they're having phone issues).

    I've attached a picture of what the rifle looks like. It has a 24rd detachable mag that comes standard.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	gsgak001.jpg 
Views:	3335 
Size:	39.7 KB 
ID:	11042

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download...5-b007ef087558

    These issues are pretty well described in the December newsletter. If you have specific questions about the information in the newsletter: info [at] ctcarry.com
    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

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would suggest to the OP to discontinue contacting DESPP .. they have already said they won't answer such questions.

    Go and read PA13-3 and PA-220 .. there are only a couple of paragraphs that deal with the AW being defined ...

    Really, no one is going to advise (or really should) you one way or the other since we cannot physically examine the firearm ...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    safe answer is YES...you need to register/declare.

    unfortunately the statute is written such that it includes the model name, replicas, and guns similarly capable.

    unless you want to get into the difference between "centerfire" and "rimfire" and "capabilities"...you are going to have to declare the weapon or risk having an undeclared weapon.

    if you sincerely feel the weapon is not included as banned/declare-worthy because it is rimfire...take your chances. you will be trying to argue to a CT jury/judge that rimfire isn't as lethal as centerfire. i wouldn't want to be making that argument if i were you.

    send me a private message for further information.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    safe answer is YES...you need to register/declare.

    unfortunately the statute is written such that it includes the model name, replicas, and guns similarly capable.

    unless you want to get into the difference between "centerfire" and "rimfire" and "capabilities"...you are going to have to declare the weapon or risk having an undeclared weapon.

    if you sincerely feel the weapon is not included as banned/declare-worthy because it is rimfire...take your chances. you will be trying to argue to a CT jury/judge that rimfire isn't as lethal as centerfire. i wouldn't want to be making that argument if i were you.

    send me a private message for further information.
    Will they even let me own it if I declare it as an AW? The model name is specifically: "AK-47" by GSG. I purchased it in CT though in 2010 from a legal firearms shop.

    I've got some more pics here. It is a Rimfire .22LR with a detachable mag, and a pistol grip. The only thing that is a grey area would be the 2nd 'evil feature'... Would you classify this as a threaded barrel (see pics)? ...I would say no, because its the front sight rail that s threaded, not the barrel. But, like you said - can I argue that point with a CT judge if I had to. Thoughts???

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 1.jpg 
Views:	226 
Size:	59.6 KB 
ID:	11052Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 2.jpg 
Views:	204 
Size:	96.7 KB 
ID:	11053Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 3.jpg 
Views:	212 
Size:	84.5 KB 
ID:	11054

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical_Evo View Post
    Will they even let me own it if I declare it as an AW? The model name is specifically: "AK-47" by GSG. I purchased it in CT though in 2010 from a legal firearms shop.

    I've got some more pics here. It is a Rimfire .22LR with a detachable mag, and a pistol grip. The only thing that is a grey area would be the 2nd 'evil feature'... Would you classify this as a threaded barrel (see pics)? ...I would say no, because its the front sight rail that s threaded, not the barrel. But, like you said - can I argue that point with a CT judge if I had to. Thoughts???

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 1.jpg 
Views:	226 
Size:	59.6 KB 
ID:	11052Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 2.jpg 
Views:	204 
Size:	96.7 KB 
ID:	11053Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 3.jpg 
Views:	212 
Size:	84.5 KB 
ID:	11054
    What were your results from the tests we gave you?

    http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download...5-b007ef087558

    Be very careful who you are taking advice from on the internet.
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    What were your results from the tests we gave you?

    http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download...5-b007ef087558

    Be very careful who you are taking advice from on the internet.
    Taken from Page 10 of the Connecticut Carry December 2013 Newsletter (Found: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download...5-b007ef087558)
    "Semi-automatic rimfire rifle
    Accepts detachable magazines and at least two:
    • Folding or telescoping stock.
    • A pistol grip ‘that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon’.
    • A bayonet mount.
    • A flash suppressor or threaded barrel.
    • Grenade launcher"

    My rifle is a semi-auto rimfire with detachable magazine and pistol grip. However, I don't know if you would technically classify that as a threaded barrel... I wouldn't, but a LEO or judge may. However, I suppose the new 2013 Assault Weapons ban does specifically say "AK47" with no mention of caliber, so for safe reasoning, I would say that I should reg it - correct?
    Last edited by Tactical_Evo; 12-24-2013 at 12:37 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    40
    I've decided I am registering the rifle due to the fact that regardless of caliber, it meets name criteria "AK47" for the new 2013 AW Ban List. Thank You.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical_Evo View Post
    Will they even let me own it if I declare it as an AW? The model name is specifically: "AK-47" by GSG. I purchased it in CT though in 2010 from a legal firearms shop.

    I've got some more pics here. It is a Rimfire .22LR with a detachable mag, and a pistol grip. The only thing that is a grey area would be the 2nd 'evil feature'... Would you classify this as a threaded barrel (see pics)? ...I would say no, because its the front sight rail that s threaded, not the barrel. But, like you said - can I argue that point with a CT judge if I had to. Thoughts???

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 1.jpg 
Views:	226 
Size:	59.6 KB 
ID:	11052Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 2.jpg 
Views:	204 
Size:	96.7 KB 
ID:	11053Click image for larger version. 

Name:	photo 3.jpg 
Views:	212 
Size:	84.5 KB 
ID:	11054
    That which is pictured is not a threaded barrel.....so my opinion on that.

    Need to be registered? I don't think so. Just calling a tail a leg does not make it one ... Honest Abe.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical_Evo View Post
    I've decided I am registering the rifle due to the fact that regardless of caliber, it meets name criteria "AK47" for the new 2013 AW Ban List. Thank You.
    I would agree with your assessment based on features.
    Last edited by Rich B; 12-24-2013 at 01:36 PM.
    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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    There is no question that pro-gun people on a pro-gun website will push for a pro-gun assessment.

    The reality of the situation is that the law was written by and will be read, interpreted and applied by anti-gun police, prosecutors, judges and even juries.

    If GSG calls it an AK-47, you'd better believe their catalog will be the first exhibit at your trial. Your defense is then "it's rimfire, not centerfire." DO YOU THINK ANYONE CARES ABOUT THAT DISTINCTION????

    You're better off declaring the item then fighting them about the letter of the statute when they attempt to confiscate it...that way you maintain your credibility and the legal high ground throughout the process.

    The fact of the matter is that only centerfire AK47s are banned, but without a declaratory ruling from the state police, or the board of firearms permit examiners, one can expect a police officer to arrest and "let the courts sort it out" at the mere mention of an undeclared AK47.

    The statute bans:

    "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...


    Would you rather risk having ONLY this plinker confiscated later, or lose your RKBA altogether when you end up with a felony charge/conviction for failing to declare an "AK47"? Seems like a pretty clear choice.

    There is no gov't agency in CT that is concerned with getting things right...they are merely concerned with "making an example" of anyone who chooses to exercise their rights (which they only grudgingly allow) and happens to slip up. Look at this year's gun-related arrests in the news. They're even OK with arresting law abiding citizens and "letting the courts decide."

    Don't give them an easy way to nail you.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 12-24-2013 at 08:49 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Is this law constitutional?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    There is no question that pro-gun people on a pro-gun website will push for a pro-gun assessment.

    The reality of the situation is that the law was written by and will be read, interpreted and applied by anti-gun police, prosecutors, judges and even juries.

    If GSG calls it an AK-47, you'd better believe their catalog will be the first exhibit at your trial. Your defense is then "it's rimfire, not centerfire." DO YOU THINK ANYONE CARES ABOUT THAT DISTINCTION????

    You're better off declaring the item then fighting them about the letter of the statute when they attempt to confiscate it...that way you maintain your credibility and the legal high ground throughout the process.

    The fact of the matter is that only centerfire AK47s are banned, but without a declaratory ruling from the state police, or the board of firearms permit examiners, one can expect a police officer to arrest and "let the courts sort it out" at the mere mention of an undeclared AK47.

    The statute bans:

    "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...


    Would you rather risk having ONLY this plinker confiscated later, or lose your RKBA altogether when you end up with a felony charge/conviction for failing to declare an "AK47"? Seems like a pretty clear choice.

    There is no gov't agency in CT that is concerned with getting things right...they are merely concerned with "making an example" of anyone who chooses to exercise their rights (which they only grudgingly allow) and happens to slip up. Look at this year's gun-related arrests in the news. They're even OK with arresting law abiding citizens and "letting the courts decide."

    Don't give them an easy way to nail you.
    If fails being similar in capabilities to an AK47 .. my a mile. If one is worried about cops trampling over you for owning a gun, then get rid of you guns & switch to other types of weapon systems.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If fails being similar in capabilities to an AK47 .. my a mile. If one is worried about cops trampling over you for owning a gun, then get rid of you guns & switch to other types of weapon systems.
    The notion that some guns are more dangerous than others is precisely how the anti-gun folks hope to eradicate the 2A. One at a time.

    Also...

    "similar" does not equal "same."

    I hate to be the annoying "mr. thinks-he-knows-it-all"...but this is an important issue that deserves a conservative and cautious interpretation.

Posting Permissions

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