De-Ban selectfire, make C&R FFLs as useful as they should be

[tmitney]

I contacted Sen. Doyle on January 7th on two changes that I would like to propose to the state statutes; on Jan 11th a bill was proposed (wow!). I cannot tell you how excited I am to see this, but I’m sure there is a long way to go. I have to find out what can be done to gain momentum with this bill. I assume I’d get support and cooperation from my fellows on this site and across our state. I hope we can get this to work!

http://cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-00547-R00-SB.htm

 

[Twinsen]

The state is run by Democrats again, right? Good luck.

Not likely for any individual freedom to go uninfringed under their watch.

 

[buketduder]

On the same note though..if it was not for Democrats..our guns laws would look like Mass....They might suck on lots of issues..but there are many D's that are against gun control....Good luck with your bill..I saw it was up for discussion today at the PS&S meeting..unless it got canceled due to the global warming falling from sky...

As an example..Jim Amann was the house speaker..a Democrat...who helped block anti gun bills from reaching the house floor..and also a supporter of repealing the income tax...

 

[tmitney]

There is a public hearing on this issue that needs the participation of interested parties:

Thursday, February 10, 2011
10:00 AM Public Safety & Security Committee, Public Hearing, Legislative Office Building Room 2A , Capitol Ave., Hartford.

 

[stephen]

I contacted Sen. Doyle on January 7th on two changes that I would like to propose to the state statutes; on Jan 11th a bill was proposed (wow!). I cannot tell you how excited I am to see this, but I’m sure there is a long way to go. I have to find out what can be done to gain momentum with this bill. I assume I’d get support and cooperation from my fellows on this site and across our state. I hope we can get this to work!

http://cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-00547-R00-SB.htm

I apologize for not noticing this when I posted my thread about C&R transfers in CT. Here is the link to my thread under CT Gun Laws:

C&R Pistol Transfer in CT

I have contacted Senator Witkos on the issue and am awaiting a response. I will follow-up that this bill has been proposed. Thanks, it's good to see that others in the state are taking a proactive approach. I posted my thread a few days ago and although there are 73 views, there has only been one reply. I find that a bit disappointing.

 

[fiddly_foo]

yea it would be nice to have select fire here .....

 

[dcmdon]

It would be nice to be able to have a select fire AR. If it was available, I might be tempted to sell all my pre-ban and SBR lowers for a single real machine gun lower.

Don

 

[tmitney]

The C&R portion of the bill is dead and gone at this point; but the select fire portion has made it to the senate. So far, so good. Next stop is the House, then the Gov. Malloy. I'm cautiously optimistic that this might actually happen.

 

[stephen]

The C&R portion of the bill is dead and gone at this point; but the select fire portion has made it to the senate. So far, so good. Next stop is the House, then the Gov. Malloy. I'm cautiously optimistic that this might actually happen.

I spoke to Bob Crook today about the removal of the 03 classification language. He did this to push along the AR definition modification. This is just as important so no need to try and add the 03 exemption language back in.

I would like to push for this next session. I will be in contact with Bob and my Senator this coming December.

 

[tmitney]

Ok, great. The problem that I encountered with the C&R portion was a misunderstanding (by the Chiefs of Police, DPS, and subsequently the PS committee) of what the law actually says now, and what the change would mean to current law(s). The misunderstanding is stated in the Chief of Police Assoc. testimony and that of the DPS under my bill, #547. I took a proactive approach and contacted the Chiefs about the select fire provision; once explained, it was understood and they said they had no problem with that - they left that part of the bill unchallenged in their testimony. The DPS rep said that C&R holders are already exempt as dealers. We know that this is not exactly accurate. So, I highly recommend contacting the Chiefs legislative liaisons and the DPS equivalent before the hearing during the next go-round. Misunderstanding is taken as being controversial, and controversy has resulted in the death of that portion of the bill. I thought the select fire aspect would be a hard sell, and the C&R portion would be easy; not the case. I admittedly worked harder on the select fire portion for that reason, and it so far has paid off. Good luck, God speed!

P.S. I would be happy to help in any way. I do have the means (an "in") to present the Chiefs of Police with your information so it will be taken as well as possible.

 

[dcmdon]

What exactly would the C&R portion have done? I looked at the link and it referenced a statute I couldn't find.

Thanks,
Don

 

[stephen]

Ok, great. The problem that I encountered with the C&R portion was a misunderstanding (by the Chiefs of Police, DPS, and subsequently the PS committee) of what the law actually says now, and what the change would mean to current law(s). The misunderstanding is stated in the Chief of Police Assoc. testimony and that of the DPS under my bill, #547. I took a proactive approach and contacted the Chiefs about the select fire provision; once explained, it was understood and they said they had no problem with that - they left that part of the bill unchallenged in their testimony. The DPS rep said that C&R holders are already exempt as dealers. We know that this is not exactly accurate. So, I highly recommend contacting the Chiefs legislative liaisons and the DPS equivalent before the hearing during the next go-round. Misunderstanding is taken as being controversial, and controversy has resulted in the death of that portion of the bill. I thought the select fire aspect would be a hard sell, and the C&R portion would be easy; not the case. I admittedly worked harder on the select fire portion for that reason, and it so far has paid off. Good luck, God speed!

P.S. I would be happy to help in any way. I do have the means (an "in") to present the Chiefs of Police with your information so it will be taken as well as possible.

Between now and December, we need to muster up the support of all the 03 licensees we can find. Bob Crook is willing to help and is in agreement to submit language that only addresses adding and exemption for federal 03 C&R licensees to Sec. 29-33. Bob stated that Bruce Canfield had tried this a couple times but failed. The reason is that it was always coupled with language relating to other statutes and that the 03 classification is misunderstood by legislators and law enforcement. We need to put together a plan to educate everyone, in testimony, to the fact that 03 licensees are held to the same standards as any other federal class. Further, we need to educate that the record keeping is the same for all classes of federal licensees. Bob agreed that if we focus on only the 03 classification that we may finally have a chance at this and recitify what I believe, was merely an oversight to begin with.

 

[dcmdon]

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE LAW WOULD DO???

Don
p.s. I'm an 03. (soon to be an 07)

p.p.s. The quote that "C&R holders are already exempt as dealers" tells me of the DPS reps ignorance. A 03 is a licensed collector, not a dealer.

 

[tmitney]

p.p.s. The quote that "C&R holders are already exempt as dealers" tells me of the DPS reps ignorance. A 03 is a licensed collector, not a dealer.

Exactly. Misunderstanding and the inability or unwillingness to listen to the testimony presented verbally and in writing resulted in the untimely death of that portion of SB547. I should have worked harder at it, but 3 minutes of time for testimony was not enough for a quality presentation of both issues during the hearing. I thought the "select fire" issue was going to be the harder sell....

 

[dcmdon]

I still don't understand exactly what the portion that affects C&R holders would have changed. Can you fill me in?

Thanks.

 

[stephen]

I still don't understand exactly what the portion that affects C&R holders would have changed. Can you fill me in? Thanks.

Per Chapter 529 Sec. 29-33, CT strictly regulates the sale or transfer of pistols and revolvers. All sales/transfers require application forms DPS-67-C, DPS-3-C, a call to DPS, NICS check and a sale authorization number. This is clearly stated in the following section:

(c) No person, firm or corporation shall sell, deliver or otherwise transfer any pistol or revolver except upon written application on a form prescribed and furnished by the Commissioner of Public Safety.

This includes all transfers including those from out of state. The following language exempts certain federal licensees from the requirements as log books are kept per federal regulations:

(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the sale, delivery or transfer of pistols or revolvers between (1) a federally-licensed firearm manufacturer and a federally-licensed firearm dealer, (2) a federally-licensed firearm importer and a federally-licensed firearm dealer, or (3) federally-licensed firearm dealers.

Note that 03 licensees are not included in the exemption clause. Because of this, 03 C&R classified pistols and revolvers cannot be transferred directly to 03 licensees. ALL pistols and revolvers must be transferred through one of the exempted licensee classes.

In laymans terms, if you want to buy a C&R classified pistol or revolver from someone out of state, you must have the pistol transferred to an in-state 01 or 07 FFL, then in turn they can transfer it to you (on a pistol permit) after completing forms DPS-67-C, DPS-3-C, a call to DPS for NICS check and a sale authorization number. For in state transfers (on a pistol permit) you need to complete forms DPS-67-C, DPS-3-C, call DPS for NICS check and a sale authorization number.

If the 03 was added to the exempted list of classes, you would merely have to log the C&R pistol or revolver into your log book like all the other classes do.

 

[dcmdon]

Thank you very much.

But please clarify one thing for me. A friend of mine with an 03 bought a Nagant revolver from Aimsurplus about a year ago. It shipped straight to his house and he logged it per federal requirements.

Are you saying that per current CT law this was an illegal xfer?

A quick check of the AIM surplus sales terms mentions CT restrictions for WASR, Cetme or FAL rifles, but nothing about C&R handguns.

Thoughts

 

[stephen]

Thank you very much.

But please clarify one thing for me. A friend of mine with an 03 bought a Nagant revolver from Aimsurplus about a year ago. It shipped straight to his house and he logged it per federal requirements.

Are you saying that per current CT law this was an illegal xfer?

A quick check of the AIM surplus sales terms mentions CT restrictions for WASR, Cetme or FAL rifles, but nothing about C&R handguns.

Thoughts

Per CT law, the transaction you described constitutes an illegal transfer. It is the sole responsibility of the individual who receives the item to know their state and local laws. Sorry for the bad news.

 

[Hustler One]

Can someone explain to me in laymans terms what getting rid of the term "selective fire" is going to do for us in CT?

The CT AWB states:

" "Assault weapon" means any one of the following:

1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: .... et all."

So, we get "selective fire" taken out and then it becomes "any firearm." What's the difference and/or the point, or am I missing something here?

 

[Kevlar]

So, we get "selective fire" taken out and then it becomes "any firearm." What's the difference and/or the point, or am I missing something here?

Yes. You are mistakenly interpreting it to mean they are only seeking to remove the words "selective fire".

In fact, they are seeking to remove a large portion of that sentence...

AN ACT MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF ASSAULT WEAPON.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. Subsection (a) of section 53-202a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2011):

(a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

(1) Any [selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any] of the following specified semiautomatic firearms:...

Can someone explain to me in laymans terms what getting rid of the term "selective fire" is going to do for us in CT?

Sure, here ya go...

This bill allows people to possess and carry selective-fire firearms capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the user's option by eliminating selective-fire firearms from the definition of assault weapons.

Under current law, selective-fire firearms are included in the definition of assault weapons, which, with some exceptions, are banned. But, because of their automatic function, they also fall within the definition of machine guns, which are legal. By removing selective-fire firearms from the definition of assault weapons, the bill eliminates the legal ambiguity, thereby making it legal for people to possess these weapons as machine guns.

All of the above information can be found here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/FC/2011SB-00547-R000256-FC.htm

 

[drgrant]

Per CT law, the transaction you described constitutes an illegal transfer. It is the sole responsibility of the individual who receives the item to know their state and local laws. Sorry for the bad news.

So if a CT resident brings in a pistol from out of state (lets say, hypothetically, that they inherit it via the BATFE/fed/USC succession clause, which is a legal transfer federally) you're telling me that the owner would still have to have that gun transferred through a CT FFL?

Maybe its me but it smells like CT law is contradicting interstate commerce things here, like FOB, etc.

-Mike

 

[dcmdon]

In truly laymans terms here it is:

If you have a gun that is capable of automatic fire and semi-automatic fire, it has to be modified to be capable of ONLY fully automatic fire for it to be legal in CT.

For example. If you buy a select fire M16 (which is classified as a machine gun by the ATF and by CT), the class 3 dealer you get it from must disable the semi-auto function before they transfer it to you.

Ridiculous huh? Thats why its a no-brainer.

The conversation with a rep would go like this: CT allows machine guns. They are highly regulated by both the fed and the state. Did you know that my machine gun, which is fully automatic can't be semiautomatic? Stupid huh?

Don

 

[tmitney]

I have another point that I have presented to support SB 547, this may help get it over the bumps in the road that it is currently facing in the Senate:
(a repost of mine from another forum)
Currently, if a criminal has an illegal auto-only machine gun, he or she violates the machine gun statute (53-202), he / she is subject to a minimum 5 year jail sentence; if he / she uses the gun in a crime, make it a 10 year minimum sentence. If, however, the machine gun is select fire, one could argue that it would be properly prosecuted under the assault weapon statute (as the "select fire" definition is more fitting). This crime yields only a 1 year minimum sentence for possession with an 8 year minimum sentence for its illegal use. The current select fire terminology weakens our penal code for this reason.

 

[mardoy]

Sorry to drop by so late, just found this thread while searching select fire.

Just wanted to say excellent work on this so far.

Is there any update in the status of this bill?

 

[dcmdon]

I didn't happen, that I know.

I believe it never made it out of committee. I don't think there was anyone set against it, its just not that important to the powers that be.

 

[tmitney]

It passed committee and made it through all of the next phases up to the Senate for a final vote. The bill came under fire from anti-gun ignorants who were saying that the bill was going to legalize machine guns. [!] It was not voted favorably for that reason (the controversy brought by those who have no idea what they are talking about). Something else is being worked up by someone I know for the next session. Stay tuned....

 

[MisterHappy]

Don't for a second think that the Antis "Don't know what they're talking about." They're talking about an especially icky type of guns.

just because they're aginst us, doesn't mean that they're stupid. They have their adgenda, and will do what it takes to see it advanced.