AW Registraton Forms and LCM Declaration forms up on DESPP Web Site

[dcmdon]

Pretty straight forward.

A couple of initial thoughts.

1) The AW form can accomodate only one AW. So you have to do one form per AW.
2) The AW form must be notarized with a thumb print. Major pain in the ass if you own multiple AWs.

3) The AW form asks for a SSN. I'd suggest leaving it blank.
4) The Large Capacity Magazine (LCM) form asks for receipts unless you are willing to do an affidavit attesting that all mags were acquired lawfully. I'd suggest doing the affidavit, since its easier, and frankly, I've got mags that I got when i was a teenager. I'm not going to dig around for receipts to something that was previously unregulated. Not even for 1.

4) The LCM declaration form at one point calls itself an application. It is NOT an application. They aren't approving anything. You are telling them what you have.

I am thinking of submitting an AW registration form with an Schedule A, listing all my AWs. I will be including things like pistol grips and mag release buttons. Since by statute, any part or combination of parts that can be used to turn a firearm into an AW is an AW. So it is only prudent to register every flash hider, mag release button, gas tube, and pistol grip I have kicking around as an AW. I suggest others do the same. I plan to be AGONIZINGLY compliant with the law and do my part to burry them in as much paperwork as I can find.

Here's a link to the page with the docs.

despp: Connecticut Firearms Dealers

 

[AR MR2]

I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.

You dime yourself out, and surrender the initiative all at the same time. With all the info, they can pick people off one by one at their leisure. Does CT have an "Armed Prohibited Persons" program similar to CA? If not, this will be their next logical move.

See NRA Vid: NRA News | "California's APPS Bonus Feature: DOJ Special Agent Greg Cameron" - YouTube

We're already witnessing cases in which an otherwise harmless prescription has led to an entry in the APP system, without notification to the owner. Luckily, SB755 died in the PSC in CA, which was going to cast a much larger net for entry into the system.

 

[second]

Dear Connecticut.......blow me

 

[travis]

At what point do people simply say nope sorry I ain't playin no more? When this like every other gun ban does nothing to curb crime what will the liberals wanna take then?

 

[dcmdon]

You have a few choices.

1) Civil disobedience - refuse to register banned firearms.

2) Convert banned firearms to unbanned firearms. The evil features portion of the new law applies to semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. So the easy way to make them legal without splitting hairs over the features is to either:
a. Make them no longer semi-auto. This could be done by removing the gas tube and replacing the gas block with an undrilled version. (available from CMMG for about
$25)
b. Make them so they have a fixed magazine. That is what the MR2 device does. It requires you to disassemble the action to remove the magazine, in compliance with
the new law.

3) Move the guns out of state.

4) Registration


To a large degree, the Government already knows you have the guns. So if confiscation ever happens, then not registering them does you no good. (All firearms bought through a dealer since '94 have required the use of a DPS-3 form, one of which is sent to the DESPP.

If you have a rifle that was purchased on the secondary market without an authorization number, then they don't know that you have it. You make your choices and take your chances. I'm not advocating this path.

I'm of the opinion that if confiscation ever comes, even if they don't know about a specific gun, they will have an idea of who the gun owners are based on other DPS-3s that have been filed.

I also don't believe that confiscation will happen. I do have a little, not much , but a little faith in our legislators. There are massive and obvious constitutional issues around confiscation.

Like I said, above, my intent is to register everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. Every mag button, pistol grip, every item that could be used to convert an otherwise legal rifle into an AW. I expect to have over 100 items. The notary process is a hassle. My plan is to go to the DESPP and use one of their staff to do the notary work.

Its kindof like paying your property taxes in pennies. Its a legal form of protest. The powers that be won't like it, they'll know exactly what you are doing. But to refuse you would be to deny you the ability to comply with the law.

 

[CTpatriot]

anybody have an opinion on someone registering their "assault weapon" colt sporter to stay legal, then you decide to make it a compliant with the non removable magazine(10 rounds). can you then travel and use it as a non assault rifle, even though it was registered as such. so at home, it is sporting all the goodies including the rail mounted nuclear death ray, but the next day, i want it in my truck unloaded, but not regulated as an assault rifle.

 

[dcmdon]

anybody have an opinion on someone registering their "assault weapon" colt sporter to stay legal, then you decide to make it a compliant with the non removable magazine(10 rounds). can you then travel and use it as a non assault rifle, even though it was registered as such. so at home, it is sporting all the goodies including the rail mounted nuclear death ray, but the next day, i want it in my truck unloaded, but not regulated as an assault rifle.

Nobody knows, including the state how that would be administered.

But I will tell you that based on the law, registering it, does not make it an AW. Having certain features makes it an AW.

Now, if its an AW because its named, thats different, and I don't know and don't have an opinion.

Another example is the fact that I own a couple of Glocks with threaded barrels. I intend to register them as AWs.
However, when the threaded bbl is removed from the gun, the gun is not an AW, even if it has been registered. So you should be able to carry it legally on your pistol permit.

Even though their opinion does not carry any weight of law, I intend to pose this question to the DESPP to see what they say.

Don

 

[CTpatriot]

Nobody knows, including the state how that would be administered.

But I will tell you that based on the law, registering it, does not make it an AW. Having certain features makes it an AW.

Now, if its an AW because its named, thats different, and I don't know and don't have an opinion.

Another example is the fact that I own a couple of Glocks with threaded barrels. I intend to register them as AWs.
However, when the threaded bbl is removed from the gun, the gun is not an AW, even if it has been registered. So you should be able to carry it legally on your pistol permit.

Even though their opinion does not carry any weight of law, I intend to pose this question to the DESPP to see what they say.

Don

your glock example mirrors my colt question. i have a preban colt sporter Hbar which was never a named assault rifle, but now is due to feature count. Also, the idiots put in language about a magazine that extends below the grip on a pistol, well most extend a little bit.

 

[dcmdon]

your glock example mirrors my colt question. i have a preban colt sporter Hbar which was never a named assault rifle, but now is due to feature count. Also, the idiots put in language about a magazine that extends below the grip on a pistol, well most extend a little bit.

I thought that the sporter was mentioned. But I'll take your word for it that it isn't. If thats the case, then when you make it a compliant firearm, it ceases to be an AW.

Re magazine extending, in the amendment passed last month, they clarified this.

The new text says:
(7) Pursuant to a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver, provided such large capacity magazine (A) is within a pistol or revolver that was lawfully possessed by the person prior to [the effective date of this section] April 5, 2013, (B) does not extend [beyond] more than one inch below the bottom of the pistol grip, and (C) contains not more than ten bullets.

If you want to find this yourself, and I suggest you do, its here. Just <ctrl> <F> and type part of the above text into the search box.

AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT.

Don

 

[CTpatriot]

I thought that the sporter was mentioned. But I'll take your word for it that it isn't. If thats the case, then when you make it a compliant firearm, it ceases to be an AW.

Re magazine extending, in the amendment passed last month, they clarified this.

The new text says:
(7) Pursuant to a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver, provided such large capacity magazine (A) is within a pistol or revolver that was lawfully possessed by the person prior to [the effective date of this section] April 5, 2013, (B) does not extend [beyond] more than one inch below the bottom of the pistol grip, and (C) contains not more than ten bullets.

If you want to find this yourself, and I suggest you do, its here. Just <ctrl> <F> and type part of the above text into the search box.

AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO THE GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT.

Don

the sporter Hbar was clarified to not be an "ar15"or a "sporter", in a letter from the state police. just like the rare "carbine" was not an ar15, even though it was really an ar15. so it was never a named assault weapon i the first ban, now it is due to feature count.

thanks for the ammendment info, i missed that, so now i can insert an extended six round mag in my cw40 and keep it safe for the children.

 

[CTpatriot]

.

 

[BossHarley]

I am a little bit confused, as I hear the state is as well. I have a Benelli M2 tactical shotgun with an extended tube. It has a straight stock, so no pistol grip issue. If the new law supersedes the previous law, then a pistol grip etc should make no difference - it isn't a revolving cylinder nor removable magazine shotgun. I am on the fence about declaring it anyway.

Of course I will need to declare my Pardini SP - a true AW

 

[dcmdon]

the sporter Hbar was clarified to not be an "ar15"or a "sporter", in a letter from the state police. just like the rare "carbine" was not an ar15, even though it was really an ar15. so it was never a named assault weapon i the first ban, now it is due to feature count.

thanks for the ammendment info, i missed that, so now i can insert an extended six round mag in my cw40 and keep it safe for the children.

I didn't know that. So you mean the AR15 A2 H-Bar that I'd been storing out of state since 1994 has been legal to bring to CT all along?

Huh. Not that it matters now, but do you have a link to any documentation. Even on-line discussions of the issue would be great.

Of course, now I can bring it in if I want to register it by the 1st. Which I'll probably end up doing.

Don

 

[CTpatriot]

I didn't know that. So you mean the AR15 A2 H-Bar that I'd been storing out of state since 1994 has been legal to bring to CT all along?

Huh. Not that it matters now, but do you have a link to any documentation. Even on-line discussions of the issue would be great.

Of course, now I can bring it in if I want to register it by the 1st. Which I'll probably end up doing.

Don

letter is dated about a year or two ago, also addressed some silencer issues, pm me your email and i will send you the pdf tonight.

 

[dcmdon]

pm sent.

 

[Hustler One]

CTpatriot, you should post this letter for all to see if it's an opinion from the state police. I've never heard of this. Omit any personal information of course, but if it's just a general letter I'd vote for a sticky in the section.

 

[dcmdon]

Absolutely

Sent from Samsung Note 2

 

[CTpatriot]

CTpatriot, you should post this letter for all to see if it's an opinion from the state police. I've never heard of this. Omit any personal information of course, but if it's just a general letter I'd vote for a sticky in the section.

I have contacted DCMDON by email to see if he could get the personal info removed from the letters/emails. i am sure he will get the ball rolling on this. I just dont have the software to do this kind of stuff. There is some good info on compensators/brakes not being flash supressors, and probably moot info on which colts were really banned. Hbars, ar15a2, lightweights, carbines were all good according to the letter.

 

[dcmdon]

I've got the letter and have blacked out all of the citizen's personally identifiable information. Just to be safe, I'm having someone else review it prior to posting it here. Nothing that I've blacked out is relevant to the conversation. Its just personal info. All info relating to the state employee has been retained. This is appropriate because he is acting as an agent of OUR government in answering these questions.

Don

p.s. for the geeks, I've literally blacked the stuff out with a sharpie. Adobe's redacting tools are notoriously insecure.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Just a FYI - Spoke to Ms. Plourde of DESPP just before Labor Day ... they are re-writing the new forms; when they will re-issue is a mystery DESPP won't say that.

 

[dcmdon]

Just a FYI - Spoke to Ms. Plourde of DESPP just before Labor Day ... they are re-writing the new forms; when they will re-issue is a mystery DESPP won't say that.

Are they changing the LCM form or the AW form? What are the changes? The AW form really needs to be set up so you can attach a schedule rather than do a separate form for each item. I'm registering everything that has ever been purchased through a dealer, since the state already knows about those items anyway. I may register more, but that is my base line. Considering all the handguns for which I've got threaded bbls, semi-auto shot guns for which I've got mag extension tubes as well as semi-auto rifles, its more than I want to deal with by doing a form for every item.

Don

 

[davidmcbeth]

Are they changing the LCM form or the AW form? What are the changes? The AW form really needs to be set up so you can attach a schedule rather than do a separate form for each item. I'm registering everything that has ever been purchased through a dealer, since the state already knows about those items anyway. I may register more, but that is my base line. Considering all the handguns for which I've got threaded bbls, semi-auto shot guns for which I've got mag extension tubes as well as semi-auto rifles, its more than I want to deal with by doing a form for every item.

Don

Well I was over there today & they still had just the original forms they put on in early July. I asked exactly what was mandatory on these forms and what was directory .. and spoke about needing to agree that "I understand...52-157b.." (as all other agency forms that have this specifically have it in the statue that created the forms). Like deer in headlights, they had no idea what to say.

So I just point out ... hey, SS# is no longer required, right? (yea) Well, what else is no longer required..deer, headlights.

Lt. Cooke came out and I told him the issues I have with the forms (like his boss just wrote multiple letters admitted in to evidence stating that giving out this information constituted a safety risk for the person who discloses the information). He said "I see your point but you'll have to speak to legal about that ... when I zipped over to the legal dept. they were all "In a meeting...".

So, off the the commissioner's office across the hallway...asked for an appointment to meet with the commissioner (by now they had a cop following me...I said I would be his body guard if anything happened) but no one there could help me at the time. I'll call back later.

I was initially there to discuss outstanding FOI requests ... no help today.

I know I was pushing their buttons today..but Lt. Cooke lost it though and just started ranting about "file a lawsuit" blah blah blah. You know when they start talking like that they are lost.

They asked me if I had any assault weapons .. I told them its none of their business. People in line chuckled.

 

[dcmdon]

There is a part of me that feels bad for them.

In the past, most of CT's firearms related laws were reasonably well written. PA 13-3 is a massive cluster Eff. Whether you like the law or not, it is a very very poorly written law because they made an end run around the legislative process designed to avoid the kinds of problems with the way this law was written.

With hearings and a comment period, unintended consequences as a result of these kinds of laws are for the most part mitigated as part of the process.
A typically overlooked problem with these kinds of laws is LE exemptions. NY and CT both made those mistakes in their overnight passage of their unconstitutional laws.

But back to my point. The DESPP didn't write this law, but they have to enforce this turd of a piece of legislation. Its poorly written. They don't understand it. The AG doesn't understand it. The gun Manufacturers don't understand it.

I got into a discussion with a magazine manufacturer last week who said he would not ship mags to CT. Even to 07 manufacturers because their legal dept said the exemption was not explicit enough. He said it was explicit if you make the mags in CT. But not if you make them out of CT and ship them to an 07 for use with their firearms.

This despite the "Large Capacity Magazine Monthly Report" that the DESPP requires all dealers to complete now, which catalogs all the LCMs they take in during the month.
http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/despp-416-c_lcm_declaration.pdf

David, I'm glad you are on our side. Between you, Rich and Ed Peruta, there will be no peace for the DESPP.

 

[xtry51]

Serious question. In regards to the "bury them in paperwork" route.

If you register everything as an AW, hypothetically they could later ask you to prove they are all still in your possession. They must all be accounted for because you can no longer transfer AWs to anyone else.

That means if you register a grip you can Never sell it or have it unaccounted for.

I see this becoming exactly like how the ATF harasses FFLs and others with documentation inspections.

Thoughts?

ETA: as a disclaimer I don't have a dog in this fight. My CT born and raised family uprooted moved to NH specifically because of this legislation.

 

[dcmdon]

You can transfer an AW out of state.

Very simple, and there is no requirement to notify them when you sell out of state. So register your flash hiders and pistol grips.

 

[davidmcbeth]

David, I'm glad you are on our side. Between you, Rich and Ed Peruta, there will be no peace for the DESPP.

Well Ed was recently complaining about DESPP's lack of compliance with FOIA requests ~ I just filed a complaint regarding a foia request that I caught them sitting on for no apparent reason..I complained that DESPP Legal Affairs unit lies to requesters and relies on rules that are in violation of the FOI Act.


But I did get forwarded a letter written to Sampson from Bradford, DESPP commish...a 4 SEP 13 response to a set of queries that Sampson sent the commish. But honestly, I think it raises more questions than it answers. Posted it here (no can post here):
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...m-Sampson-still-leaves-unanswered-(of-course)

 

[xtry51]

You can transfer an AW out of state.

Very simple, and there is no requirement to notify them when you sell out of state. So register your flash hiders and pistol grips.

My question isn't about duty to notify per se. I'm more wondering what happens if they literally start having mandatory audits. As in they show up at your house. You're then going to have to prove, like an FFL does with its bound book, where the missing items are. So even without duty to notify you're still on the hook to prove your innocence.

They created this registry for a reason. It will be abused further.

 

[davidmcbeth]

My question isn't about duty to notify per se. I'm more wondering what happens if they literally start having mandatory audits. As in they show up at your house. You're then going to have to prove, like an FFL does with its bound book, where the missing items are. So even without duty to notify you're still on the hook to prove your innocence.

They created this registry for a reason. It will be abused further.

Hmmm..has this occurred anywhere else? I think it creates is safety risk that is intolerable where one discloses his firearms to another. And the state has said the same thing...but yet insists on knowing...

 

[xtry51]

I recall the ATF doing NFA, etc audits to confirm their documents were accurate quite a few years ago. This involved visiting larger collectors.

Either way, ATF already audits all FFLs. There's nothing in the law I see that prevents them from mandating audits.

 

[dcmdon]

My question isn't about duty to notify per se. I'm more wondering what happens if they literally start having mandatory audits. As in they show up at your house. You're then going to have to prove, like an FFL does with its bound book, where the missing items are. So even without duty to notify you're still on the hook to prove your innocence.

They created this registry for a reason. It will be abused further.

Show me where in the statute that is allowed.

You are getting a bit paranoid.

The reality is that the DESPP has been given no money for this stuff. There won't suddenly be a gestapo mentality. They can barely keep up with all the DPS-3s being filed.

- - - Updated - - -

I recall the ATF doing NFA, etc audits to confirm their documents were accurate quite a few years ago. This involved visiting larger collectors.

Either way, ATF already audits all FFLs. There's nothing in the law I see that prevents them from mandating audits.

The law is the 4th Amendment.