Interesting Gap in CT "Assault Weapons" Law?

Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
53
Likes
5
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I've done a lot of searching, and I don't think this has been asked before...

In CT, a pistol is a firearm with barrel less than 12 inches. A rifle is a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder. So any firearm with barrel longer than 12 inches, but not designed to be fired from the shoulder, like many AR/AK pistols, are not affected by laws for pistols or rifles, correct?

From what I can tell, the CT AWB is one of these laws, so does that mean you can have all the "evil" features on an AR pistol with barrel longer than 12 inches? If this is not correct, then please help me understand by referencing the law that I'm missing.
 
May or may not be a gap. It sounds more like a gray area. While a pistol as you pointed out is any firearm with a barrel shorter than 12 inches, its entirely possible that a firearm without a stock and has a pistol grip might be treated or construed as a pistol. There is some language about pistols (part B) in the AWB including the weight of one and a "pistol" having a magazine outside of the pistol grip which, possibly, might affect a firearm with a barrel longer than 12 inches and no stock.

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition.
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
(i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
(iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
ETA: Here's a thought that just popped into my head. Can someone buy a pistol grip (no stock) pump shotgun without having a pistol permit in CT?
 
Last edited:
There's an older thread, http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/97321-Registered-NFA-SBR-SBS-immune-to-CT-AWB-!, discussing the short barreled rifle (SBR) and this state's AWB. I know next to nothing about SBR's but it appears that any rifle with a barrel length shorter than 16 inches is an SBR and needs to be a registered by the ATF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_barreled_rifle). Per the Wikipedia link:
Purchasing a short barreled rifle is accomplished by filing an ATF Form 4, Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm, and paying a $200 tax stamp. A short barreled rifle must be transferred by a Class 3 SOT dealer. When a citizen wishes to build a short barreled rifle, he or she must beforehand submit a completed ATF Form 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm, along with $200 for payment of the tax stamp.
The rub is that in addition to complying to ATF rules you would also have to make sure the rifle complies with CT's AWB. What this means is, if your SBR barrel is sorter than 12 inches it may be illegal in CT since it would then be considered a pistol and subject to the pistol evil features portion of the AWB. If the barrel length is between 12.1 inches and 15.9 inches and its post ban, than no threaded barrel, no flash hider, no bayo lug, and a fixed stock (if you use one).

ETA: And yes it would be nice to get rid of the AWB its simply a feel good law for the anti's that only drives up the cost of owning certain types rifles here. The actual functioning of the rifle is unchanged by the AWB. [angry]

ETA2: A closer reading of the CT definition of a rifle seems to imply, in conjunction with the CT definition of a pistol, that any AR that has a barrel longer than 12 inches is considered a rifle and as such would be subject to the AWB if its a post ban version. I make this logic leap (right or wrong [grin]) because most complete AR's tend to be shipped with some kind of a shoulder stock (or is capable of accepting a shoulder stock). And while I don't know the exact history of the AR, I do believe it was designed to have a shoulder stock (hence a rifle) from the outset. Same goes (I think) for the way the AK initially designed.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/rifle.htm
RIFLE
A "rifle" is a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
The question I guess should be; would a firearm with a barrel longer than 16 inches and which does not have (and was not designed for) a shoulder stock (only a pistol grip) be considered a rifle under our state's firearm statutes?
 
Last edited:
I've actually raised similar issues.

In CT it is illegal to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in a car.

But what about my 10.5" AR15. (Registered as an SBR with the feds)
By law, it is considered a handgun in CT.

Here is the rationale for the law: Handgun laws are generally more restrictive than long gun laws. This was an attempt by the state to make buyers of certain SBRs jump through the same hoops that handgun buyers need to jump through. The logic behind this was that these SBRs are easily concealed.

What they forgot was that you can carry a handgun loaded in a vehicle.

If I was 60 yrs old and my kids were out of college, I'd volunteer to get arrested for this one.
 
Concurring opinion with dcmon:
The definition of rifle vs pistol only references barrel length and says nothing about shoulder fired, stock, or anything else. A barrel shorter than 12 inches is not only not falling within a loophole, it actually makes things “worse” for you in terms of the AWB. The AWB pistol provisions are very strict and will eliminate most, if not all, [post ban] SBRs. (magazine outside of pistol grip, 50oz or more weight, hand guards… all bad.)
 
To add onto what tmitney said,

Semi-auto handguns in CT can not weigh more than 50 ounces and have a barrel shroud (front hand guard) or they are considered to be an AWB by CT law. (see text of statute below)
That means that any SBR with a bbl less than 12 inches long will be considered to be a handgun. And as a handgun it will be considered to be an AW based on weight, the presence of a barrel shroud and the fact that the mag is outside of the pistol grip.

That means that the only way to legally possess a SBR with a barrel less than 12" based on an AR, in CT is to do it with a pre-ban non-colt lower receiver.

This is my "toy" AR. Its SBR'd with the feds and is built on a pre-ban DPMS receiver. It is considered to be a handgun by the state of CT. It is NOT an AW according to CT law only because it was made before the law went into effect and DPMS was not mentioned by name in the law's original text.

Simple, huh?

Don

DSC_2119.jpg





(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
 
Last edited:
I was just reading this again, and although I really appreciate the thoughtful responses and discussion, I'm not sure that anyone has actually addressed my question directly. Among the replies are mention of SBRs, pistols with barrels shorter than 12 inches and longer than 16 inches, and even shotguns, but I was actually asking about something different.

Specifically, if I were to build an AR pistol with a 13 inch barrel, then I believe it would not meet CT's legal definition of a pistol, because the barrel is longer than 12 inches, nor would it meet the legal definition of a rifle, because it is not designed to fire from the shoulder (and barrel is shorter than 16 inches). If this is true, then what would prevent me from having all the AWB features present on a post-ban lower, including weight over 50 oz?
 
Last edited:
BRILLIANT. Now go test it out.

Don

p.s. Seriously, you should have been a lawyer. I just looked at the statutes ( 29-27 + the rifle one, I'll look it up and update this post) and it appears you are right. (I'm not an attorney, so take my opinion for what its worth) My guess is that if you were ever arrested for possession of this, you would be acquitted. On a practical level, the only reason to ever do this would be if you intended to get arrested to test the law. Otherwise, spend the extra $300 for a pre-ban lower.

p.p.s The other reality of this is that you could shoot this gun for your entire lifetime and never get challenged. I've got evil looking rifles built on pre-ban lowers and have never EVER had anyone question me about it. This includes several encounters with LEOs who came onto private property to investigate "shots fired". One asked me for "your paperwork" for my machine gun, which I refused. (I only have to provide it to ATF if requested) He then asked me for ID. I again refused. (we did not have any handguns, so no legal requirement). So this was a contentious encounter, and he never once paid attention to the 10.5" AR with the bayonet lug, threaded barrel, and flash hider, or the pre-ban AK in .223 with the same evil features.
84S3A.jpg

IMG_3836.jpg
 
Last edited:
AR and AWB pistol defined

BushMaster makes an AR pistol and they went to a great deal of trouble to use polymer receiver to meet the wt restriction. If Busy can sell it CT you can bet it is right. Maybe a good idea to get specs and use them as guidelines for your build. RRA may have one as well. And did the lower get registered as a rifle?
A lot of dealers write Rifle in Type of Weapon spot out of habit.
IANAL but if it is made for shoulder mount it has to have 16" + barrel. If it is not shoulder mount then barrel lenght may not be important, but the empty wt is critical. All it takes is one encounter with a LEO
and it goes bye-Bye and you do to.
Laws aside AR 5.56 or .223 pistol are a real waste powder. They make a cool flame when fired and are loud as hell but ballistics probably suck. A good conversation piece but not really practicle. Just my .02 cents worth.
 
If a post ban AR pistol is over the weight limit and has a bbl under 12", it's illegal in CT. PERIOD.

The Carbon 15 shown here is 46 oz so its legal in CT. Clever.

AZ-C15P97_l.jpg


btw - all the other Carbon 15 pistols are over 50 oz. and would be illegal in CT.
also, the Ruger Charger is illegal in CT because it is over 50 oz. I'm thinking of buying one (I'm an 07 FFL so this is legal) and seeing what I can do to get the weight down. At that point it would be legal in CT. Looks like a fun gun that may only require removing the bipod to make it legal. Its only over the limit by 6 oz.
 
Last edited:
I was just reading this again, and although I really appreciate the thoughtful responses and discussion, I'm not sure that anyone has actually addressed my question directly. Among the replies are mention of SBRs, pistols with barrels shorter than 12 inches and longer than 16 inches, and even shotguns, but I was actually asking about something different.

Specifically, if I were to build an AR pistol with a 13 inch barrel, then I believe it would not meet CT's legal definition of a pistol, because the barrel is longer than 12 inches, nor would it meet the legal definition of a rifle, because it is not designed to fire from the shoulder (and barrel is shorter than 16 inches). If this is true, then what would prevent me from having all the AWB features present on a post-ban lower, including weight over 50 oz?


Do you mean something like below, with a pistol buffer tube on the back?

You can't mount a stock to it therefore it is not shoulder-fired and not a rifle, and the barrel is 12.5" and therefore not a pistol. Keep the overall length greater than 26" and it isn't considered concealable by the feds, so it is doesn't fall into the "Any Other Weapon" category of the NFA.

This is simply a firearm, and therefore does not fall under our State's AWB

WhatWeapon.jpg


It is simply a "firearm"
 
I think thats it. Here's the reality. I've been shooting pre-ban ARs loaded with evil features for years.

Durring that time I've had multiple encounters with LEOs, some of whom were hostile to my shooting (on private property).
I've had them threaten to arrest me for breach of peace. I've refused to provide them with a Form 4 and ID while shooting a machine gun (Them:"we need to see your paperwork", me:"No you don't, un less you're with the ATF", Them: "and we'll need to se ID", me:"No you don't , now please leave, you are on private property".)

In no case did they ever even notice the 10.5" AR with the bayonet lug and the threaded bbl. (fixed stock, because I just like them better)

I don't think anyone has ever been arrested in CT while otherwise engaged in legal shooting activities, for having an AW.

So while there is some risk to the above approach, chances are you could shoot it your whole life and never have a problem.

With all that said, if I'm going to tweak LEOs in the process of exercising my legal rights, I'm going to make sure that i am 110% legal. So why not just buy a pre-ban lower and be done with it.
 
also, the Ruger Charger is illegal in CT because it is over 50 oz. I'm thinking of buying one (I'm an 07 FFL so this is legal) and seeing what I can do to get the weight down. At that point it would be legal in CT. Looks like a fun gun that may only require removing the bipod to make it legal. Its only over the limit by 6 oz.

Don,

I don't think that this would be too difficult. There are aluminum barrels out there (Whistle Pig, TacSol, etc) that weigh 1oz/inch. I'd buy the charger, get the lightest fiberglass or plastic stock I could find and then see how long of a barrel could be put on it.

I don't think optics are included in the weight limit, but either way, I'd throw a light red dot on it (Like a Bushnell TRS-25) and call it a day. I would bet you could easily get it under 50 oz.
 
Don,

I don't think that this would be too difficult. There are aluminum barrels out there (Whistle Pig, TacSol, etc) that weigh 1oz/inch. I'd buy the charger, get the lightest fiberglass or plastic stock I could find and then see how long of a barrel could be put on it.

I don't think optics are included in the weight limit, but either way, I'd throw a light red dot on it (Like a Bushnell TRS-25) and call it a day. I would bet you could easily get it under 50 oz.

WP actually makes an aluminum 10" fluted charger barrel - so it should be 10 oz, or maybe a touch less.
 
I'm sure its do-able.

I've lost interest in doing something like that. Although if a client wanted one, I'd certainly be happy to put one together for him.
I'd also look into Green Mountain bbls. I've used one of their bbls on a 10/22 and it shot so well, there wasn't much difference between it and my Shillen.
(I'm confident the shillen shot better, but the problem is that the mediocre shooter (me) was introducing more error into the shots than either bbl)

Also, the GM barrels can be had for about $100.

**edit, just checked whistle pig web site. Their charger bbls are very reasonably priced.

The actual statute says "a manufactured weight of 50 oz or more", which could technically muddy up the possibility of me (an 07 Manufacturer) buying a charger then lightening it, and then reselling it. The ATF says I am engaging in manufacturing if I speculatively buy a gun with the intention of modifying it for resale. But the ATF does not consider it manufacturing if a client commissions me to do the same work.

So if you wanted to stay squeaky clean, we could put it together an aftermarket receiver and I would register myself as the manufacturer with the ATF.

I'm just spit-balling here, but its an interesting mental exercise.
 
Last edited:
I always wanted to know why we did not jump on the Bullet Button Band Wagon?
They advertise it as rendering the mag FIXED, getting around the whole detachable thing.
Cal1fornia finally adopted it as law. See below:

Our Ban as stated:
" (3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:"

In cal1fornia the law stated prior to 2000:
"A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:"

They amended that to add:
" "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine."
 
Probably ignored what's been going on in California because it's California, which is unfortunate.

Kind of like you see plenty of "No sales to California" lines in gunbroker ads even though there are more gun owners in that state than any other except Texas. Just plain ignorance.
 
dmac82

We don't bother with the bullet button because not having a telescoping stock does not actually affect the function of the rifle, fixing the mag does.

Anyone who is willing to swap a telescoping stock for a detachable mag is an idiot more concerned with looks than function.

Humbly submitted,

Don
 
Last edited:
Probably ignored what's been going on in California because it's California, which is unfortunate.

Kind of like you see plenty of "No sales to California" lines in gunbroker ads even though there are more gun owners in that state than any other except Texas. Just plain ignorance.

Anyone who won't sell to CA is unfairly punishing the people of CA and doing the work of their AG in making access to firearms more difficult. I'm an FFL and it took me about 10 minutes to get set up in their system. On a sale to CA theres about 15 minutes of extra work. I'm always willing to sell to CA. On low margin items like glocks/rugers/kahrs, etc, I simply advertise an extra $20 fee for a CA purchase.
 
I always wanted to know why we did not jump on the Bullet Button Band Wagon?
...
Our Ban as stated:
...
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:"

In cal1fornia the law stated prior to 2000:
"A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:"

The reason for the bullet button is that California doesn't allow any evil features with detachable mag, even a pistol grip. And all prebans had to be registered before a certain date, so they are relatively rare. Whereas Connecticut at least allows pistol grips, and prebans are much more easily attained (even unregistered ones from California!), so a bullet button would be a waste.
 
It wouldn't be a total waste. It would allow the other evil features to an unlimited degree.

But it would be an ill informed trade off since a detachable magazine is more useful than all of the other "evil" features combined.

I'm not looking to challenge you, just point out that to someone it might be worth it. I can't imagine a scenario, but who knows.

Maybe if someone wanted a suppressed .308 AR with the ability to put on whatever muzzle devices he wanted. I'm thinking of this because there aren't any .308 pre-ban lowers.
If you want a .223 AR, you should just step up to the plate and get a pre-ban if you want evil features.

Don
 
And again, why anyone would create such an abortion just amazes me.

Unless you use a can, the post ban features don't hurt you.

Fixed stocks are actually better to shot.
Muzzle brakes are actually better to shoot.
And when was the last time you needed a bayonet?

I've got 3 pre-ban lowers and most of the time they exist in a form that would not be illegal if a post ban receiver was used. i.e. fixed stock with a muzzle brake.
I like suppressors, so I want the convenience of a threaded bbl. But if it weren't for that, they would simply be post ban, and I'd be giving up nothing.

DSC_2119.jpg


This gun wears a brake when its not being used with a suppressor. The fixed Vltor rifle stock is comfortable in a way that NO collapsible or pinned stock can be, simply because no matter what
telescoping stock you use, when your nose is on the charging handle, your cheek is on a bare buffer tube.

The bayonet lug is still there because there's no reason to remove it. But this gun with no lug and a brake would be AWB compliant.

I still believe that if you want evil features, you should just pony up the extra $400 and get a pre-ban. In the big scheme of things its nickels and dimes.

Don
 
Back
Top Bottom