I NEED HELP I do not know if my gun is legal SKS

[Needhelp23]

I have a norinco sks sold to my uncle in 91' and I recently aquired it. I have put on a full tapco stock system with a detachable 20 round mag. It does not have the bayonet on it, but it does have the mount still there, it also has a pistol grip. If it is not legal what can I do to make it legal in cause someone notices me shooting it at a range.

 

[Mike_Diako]

short answer is no.

Read this page http://home.comcast.net/~navy87guy/home/922r.html

 

[Kevlar]

As I see it, you have 2 problems. The first issue is 922 compliance, as Mike_Diako stated. Secondly, you should review the CT AWB statute (Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition.). Good luck.

 

[keepermike]

It can only have 1 evil feature. In your case you have 2, the grip and the bayo lug. 1 of the two has to go to be legal. I have heard of people cutting the bayo lug off and griding it down smooth, but I have never seen the final product. Also I dont think your gun is 922r compliant which is a federal law.

 

[keepermike]

A Tapco stock counts as 3 USA parts and a USA mag would could as 3 parts as well. I think you only need 6 USA to be 922 compliant with an sks, so you should be good.

 

[CTbuilder1]

SKS does not need to meet AWB complaince. Any gun manufactured before 9.13.94 is excempt from the AWB (unless banned by name). I'm pretty sure that all SKS rifles were made decades before the cut off date.

So as stated by others the only thing to worry about is 922r compliance.

 

[keepermike]

Im not sure, but I thought once you modify the weapon from its original setup, the pre-ban rules dont apply. There fore the gun would have to meet the AWB. If the gun was made originally with a pistol grip and a bayo lug you would be fine because it is pre-ban. However you modified the gun to have a pistol grip, so it is to my understanding that you would need to meet the terms of the AWB. I may be wrong.

 

[gene]

A Tapco stock counts as 3 USA parts and a USA mag would could as 3 parts as well. I think you only need 6 USA to be 922 compliant with an sks, so you should be good.

Just make sure the USA parts count is correct

 

[Kevlar]

SKS does not need to meet AWB complaince. Any gun manufactured before 9.13.94 is excempt from the AWB (unless banned by name). I'm pretty sure that all SKS rifles were made decades before the cut off date.

So as stated by others the only thing to worry about is 922r compliance.

Could you please provide a cite for this exemption? Thanks.

 

[CTbuilder1]

Could you please provide a cite for this exemption? Thanks.

Per CT General Statute:

Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

 

[CTbuilder1]

Im not sure, but I thought once you modify the weapon from its original setup, the pre-ban rules dont apply. There fore the gun would have to meet the AWB. If the gun was made originally with a pistol grip and a bayo lug you would be fine because it is pre-ban. However you modified the gun to have a pistol grip, so it is to my understanding that you would need to meet the terms of the AWB. I may be wrong.

You can take a preban Ruger 10/22 and throw it in a pistol grip stock with a folder if it is a pre 9.14.94 firearm. There is nothing in the statute that says you can't. Any of the "sporting" or "non-sporting" wording has to do with Federal law not CT.

 

[Kevlar]

Per CT General Statute:

Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

Thank you.

IANAL, but in reading that statute, it says "provided such firearm..." which clearly refers back to "an assault weapon as defined...". I agree with keepermike in that, regardless of its manufacture date, the OP's SKS was not manufactured as an "assault weapon", but rather he has "manufactured" an "assault weapon" by adding a pistol grip, collapsible stock and detachable mag.

 

[CTbuilder1]

Thank you.

IANAL, but in reading that statute, it says "provided such firearm..." which clearly refers back to "an assault weapon as defined...". I agree with keepermike in that, regardless of its manufacture date, the OP's SKS was not manufactured as an "assault weapon", but rather he has "manufactured" an "assault weapon" by adding a pistol grip, collapsible stock and detachable mag.

Nope. Not the case. It clearly states that the firearm has to be manufactured prior to the cuttoff date. By the logic you are using it would mean that a stripped AR lower that was never assembled could not be assembled in "assault weapon" configuration now. I know that is clearly not the case as does every FFL in the state that deals with preban weapons.

The operative words are "firearm" and "manufactured." "Provided such firearm was manufactured before 9.14.94." Not provided such firearm was assembled before 9.14.94." That is why a stripped lower reciever that was made before the ban and sat in a box since then can be assembled into a rifle with all "evil features" today. Those who think that it had to leave the factory as a complete rifle to be eligible as a true perban are dead wrong.

Just to be clear. This isn't even a grey area.

 

[Kevlar]

Well then, I stand corrected. That's what I love about this place. Always learning something new. Thank you.

 

[Twinsen]

Reading that law over myself, I agree that there is no way it can be read to mean that the gun had to be assembled in an assault weapon configuration before the cutoff date, it just had to have been a firearm before that date. Not an 80% lower, but a complete and serialized firearm. A stripped lower qualifies, as it is a "firearm" and until the day you destroy it, it will remain a "firearm." It cannot be considered an assault weapon if it was manufactured before the cutoff date.

Because guns made before 1994 never killed anybody, and every gun made after has gone on a murderous rampage. Right?

 

[keepermike]

Never thought of it like that, I agree. I am curious to know however if this law is the same in Ma??

 

[CTbuilder1]

Because guns made before 1994 never killed anybody, and every gun made after has gone on a murderous rampage. Right?

As far as I know this is correct. Otherwise the law wouldn't make any sense. And we all know our esteemed legislators would never implement a law that ddn't make any sense.