Choice of evils

[Eye5600]

I was wondering to myself about the AWB, and the uselessness thereof.

I found myself wondering if the typical CT shooter would be willing to make the following trade: get rid of the AWB, but require a permit to own a semi-auto firearm. The permit could be an expansion of the current pistol permit, or it could be separate but similar. Classroom requirements would have to be modified to suit.

Assume that you would only have to get one permit so the bureaucracy would be about the same as it is for having a pistol permit now.

I can see that some, especially those with pistol permits, would welcome the ability to order up anything semi-auto without respect to features, but others would be very hostile to any permit requirement for a rifle.

But I don't have a feeling for which line of thinking would be more popular. Any opinions?

By the way, yes, I understand you don't want any state regulation at all, RKBA and all that. Understood. I'm taking incremental change and practical politics.

 

[JustinEMT990662]

I don't think that a permit for AW's would be a good idea... you specified 'semi-auto firearm' as the criteria ... that would allow for permits to use the following:

1. Multi-shot shotguns (IE, Browning Auto 5)
2. Internal magazine rifles (IE, Remington 700, SKS, etc...)
3. And any other gun which fits into that range.

They AWB should just go away. It serves no real purpose. You can get a gun just as deadly and easy to operate and not break the AWB ... all it does is make it harder to get specific customizations on AW's ...

For the record, I am opposed to registration and restriction. I think that background testing is good, and there should be some look into the persons medical history for mental illness, but I don't think I should have to tell the 'man' what guns I have. Just makes it easier for them if they decide to take em away.

 

[drgrant]

IMHO you'd just playing into the antis rhetoric with this- they will say that "even gun owners believe these guns should be regulated because
they are more dangerous" or some crap like that.

What you are suggesting would likely, even if it did work, result in the death of existing classes of guns being "legal by default" in CT, which is
a very bad situation. Up here in MA nearly everything is illegal without a permit.... (well, anything that's more than the lowest common denominator fudd gun, that is. )

-Mike

 

[buketduder]

Alot of things need to go away in CT...

1. AWB
2. Permit requirment to buy a handgun
3. Permit requirement to openly carry a handgun in public/car
4. "Safe" Storage Law
5. Lost Or Stolen Gun Crap
6. 14 Day Waiting Period on Long Gun Sales from FFL
7. Whatever that stupid law is about confiscatin guns from people deemed "a threat"

I probably missed something...

 

[Eye5600]

Justin, I'm not sure why you think that "semi-auto" would apply to a Remington 700, etc.

drgrant, I hear you. The CT situation is more or less livable, so why open the can of worms. The bottom line about the CT AWB is that the bad news is that it bans on cosmetic features, but the good news is that it bans on cosmetic features. Doing without a bayonet lug and flash hider is inconvenient, but not really a cause for tears. So the idea is to keep quiet and hope everyone is interested in something other than gun control. My guess is that 80% would be more opposed to any sort of permit, and 20% might let it go.

The question arose out of logic, not politics. If guns don't kill people, people kill people, the you should put the restriction on the people, not the gun. I'm sure most shooters don't accept the implication.

 

[kerismo]

Dude i hope the general assembly does not read this crap! DON'T GIVE'EM ANY IDEAS OK!

Yes! the situ is "livable" and let the sleeping dogs lie.

I don't live in MASS or NJ for a freakin reason


Keri

 

[buketduder]

they are not reading this..they are playing solitare..and either way..I don't think they can read..or calculate...have you seen the budget deficit?? have you seen our laws and read our constitution?? It does not add up....they are mentally ill and need to be medicated and/or institutionalized...

 

[kerismo]

yea, but the lobbyists are all about this and they are getting paid to dig it up.

 

[JustinEMT990662]

Justin, I'm not sure why you think that "semi-auto" would apply to a Remington 700, etc.

Yeah, in retrospect that was a bad example. What I essentially meant was semi-automatic would refer to any gun where multiple rounds could be store in the weapon (either internal or removable magazine), and was capable of firing multiple shots without manual recocking. The R700 would need a recock since it is bolt action, but any carbine model would fall into this.

 

[buketduder]

things could change..but CT's political climate is not very strong for new guns laws...they did get "lost of stolen firearms" passed 2 years ago after years of trying and switching the bill at the last minute....but they have been unable to EVEN bring gun bills (microstamping, one gun a month, etc) to a vote in the Judiciary Committee for years...because they don't have the votes...

 

[Du510]

Alot of things need to go away in CT...

1. AWB
2. Permit requirment to buy a handgun
3. Permit requirement to openly carry a handgun in public/car
4. "Safe" Storage Law
5. Lost Or Stolen Gun Crap
6. 14 Day Waiting Period on Long Gun Sales from FFL
7. Whatever that stupid law is about confiscatin guns from people deemed "a threat"

I probably missed something...

Few things here ---

- #4, what is this? The only one I know of is regarding assignment of liability if children get into your weapons and you did not secure them. Is there something further?

- #6, this only applies if you have no permits whatsoever. If you have a Pistol Permit, or even your Hunter's Safety Course, you're GTG. Just to clarify...

- #7, if you've been arrested for either a felony or one of the (I believe) nine listed misdemeanors, then you are subject to confiscation until your case is heard. If you're found guilty, then you are by definition not eligible for permit in any case, so you lose your weapons entirely. I don't think anyone can seize your weapons, legally, under any other case.

 

[buketduder]

#4--that is what i mean by "safe" storage law..and it was struck down as unconstitutional but the supreme court last year..

#6-- that is correct. (also you could by out of state from FFL with no waiting period, like it should be here)

#7- http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0306.htm

 

[Du510]

4/6 - Gotcha.

7 - Interesting... didn't know about this. Just for the purpose of posting info, here is some more on it:

Gun Seizure from People Posing Harm

By law, police, under limited circumstances and following specified procedures, may get warrants and seize firearms from anyone posing an imminent risk of harming himself or someone else (CGS § 29-38c). Police can seek the warrant only after (1) conducting an independent investigation to establish probable cause and (2) determining that no reasonable alternative exists to avert the risk of harm. A judge must hold a hearing within 14 days after the seizure and decide whether to return the firearms or order them held for up to one year (see OLR Report 2006-R-0330. HTM for a discussion of seizures under this law).

 

[dcmdon]

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Here's why. For an extra $400 you can buy a pre-ban AR lower and put anything you want on it.

If you like AKs, you can buy any AK so long as its not in 7.62x39.

Here is the best part about buying and selling non-banned ARs, AKs, mini-14s, etc. Its that they can be bought and sold with nothing more than a bill of sale.

If the buyer has a hunting license, Pistol permit, or s couple of other credentials, then all you need to do is a bill of sale. No calling for an approval number, no filing paperwork with the town or state.

I personally own 3 pre-ban AR 15 lowers. 2 have tax stamps as short barreled rifles. On those lowers I can put anything I want and still be legal in CT.

My best shooting AR is built on a post-ban lower. With a little savvy, a post ban AR can be a better shooter than a pre-ban gun.

First, lets get a couple of things clear.

1) unless you are climbing out of a tank folding/collapsing stocks suck. They serve no purpose other than the tactiCOOL factor. If you must have something that looks fancy, get yourself a fixed Vltor modstock. Its very comfy and looks sexy as hell.

2) what good is a bayonet mount?

Thats 2 of the 3 evil features down and we haven't lost any functionality.

The only one that matters is the ban on flash hiders and threaded muzzles. Put a brake on the gun and call it a day. You DO NOT have to weld and pin the brake onto the end of the bbl. The ATF considers silver soldering to be a permanent mount. The great thing about a silver solder joint is that its legal and it CAN be disassembled easily with a mapp gas torch.

The threaded muzzle can be worthwhile. I have several suppressors and the ability to thread one onto the muzzle is the main reason I keep pre-ban lowers. But even that is not really necessary any more since manufacturers like Yankee Hill started making muzzle brakes that quick attach to their cans.

I hope this helps.

Don

 

[buketduder]

I tell people in CT to get an AK-74...ammo is not that expensive for it..

http://ammoman.com/index.htm