• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

sks

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
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.....
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
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)
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
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:

Afragu

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
33
Location
connecticut
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 ?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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_c...76824&q=Benjamin+v.+Bailey&hl=en&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:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA

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.
 

Afragu

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
33
Location
connecticut
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:
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I dont own one but i did want to,smh.:cuss:

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;
 

forhumans

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
41
Location
CT
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:
Top