Pre-Ban "Assault Weapons"

[director13]

"I just moved into Connecticut and I possess an Assault Weapon. May I keep the weapon or if not what are my options?

Within 90 days of moving to Connecticut, you may sell the weapon to any licensed gun dealer, or you must do one of the following;

1) render the weapon permanently inoperable,
2) sell it to an out of state dealer,
3) relinquish the weapon to a law enforcement agency.

If you choose to keep the weapon you risk felony arrest. "

http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&Q=294488&dpsNav=|

Ugh. That's worse than Massachusetts. Crazy.

EDIT:
Aha!
"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."

 

[clinotus]

There are a few states with the buggy gun laws but I think NJ, CA, MA and CT are in the top for inane laws.

 

[yeibitchai12]

Actually, I'm surprised the CT gun laws are as lax as they are for such a blue, liberal retarded state. No bans on handguns because they lack certain features, no magazine capacity restrictions, hollow points are legal, etc. Even the carry laws are lax. Can even carry into an actual bar, but the SFLU/BPFE frowns on it. Nothing in the law, though. It's mainly that stupid AWB that's still in place. I can't have an AK-47 in 7.62 because it's banned by type, but an SKS with removable mags in 7.62 is perfectly fine with the same capacity and caliber. Even open carry is technically legal because it's not prohibited by law, but I wouldn't recommend trying. Crazy...

 

[edirtyfour]

Now we just need some common sense gun laws to go with all of these uncommon sense ones.

 

[szaino]

I am not from CT nor do I have any idea what the law is.

I just followed the link above and...

Assault Weapons

Section 53-202a of the Connecticut General Statutes gives the definition, and an itemized list of what weapons are considered Assault Weapons.

Definition. (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: List of Assault Weapons​

It seems a run of the mill AR15 isn't an "Assault Weapon". Exactly what do you have, and are you sure it is an "Assault Weapon" per CT?

 

[jdubois]

It seems a run of the mill AR15 isn't an "Assault Weapon".

Keep reading 53-202a. Subdivision (3) says, "Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:" and lists the criteria from the federal ban that we all know and love.

Sec. 53-202m

Yes, for some reason CT seems to want to hide the pre-ban exemption statute. None of the state web pages dedicated to firearms, and specifically assault weapons, "bother" to mention that statute.

If your gun is pre-ban, you should be fine.

 

[drgrant]

I am not from CT nor do I have any idea what the law is.

I just followed the link above and...

Assault Weapons

Section 53-202a of the Connecticut General Statutes gives the definition, and an itemized list of what weapons are considered Assault Weapons.

Definition. (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: List of Assault Weapons​

Congratulations! You found the wonderful POS CT law that bans select fire machine guns, but allows ones that have full auto only.

-Mike

 

[director13]

It seems a run of the mill AR15 isn't an "Assault Weapon". Exactly what do you have, and are you sure it is an "Assault Weapon" per CT?

I have a Springfield SAR-48 which is explicitly listed on their list of Assault Weapons (but not MA), but wasn't made after the ban went into effect.

Maddening.

 

[director13]

There are a few states with the buggy gun laws but I think NJ, CA, MA and CT are in the top for inane laws.

Work might be shipping me down to NYC. Ideally, I'd live in PA and have a 15 minute commute, but that's not a supported confguration.

 

[Eye5600]

No bans on handguns because they lack certain features, no magazine capacity restrictions, hollow points are legal, etc.

It's not "anything goes" with handguns. Some handguns are banned under the AWB, for instance, a pistol with a fore-stock. The Ruger Charger, for example, is a no-no.

So far, we don't have too much trouble with the kind of law the requires some official's signature. That's a real nasty thing since Police Chiefs don't have to make nice to the public like elected representatives do. There are lots of complaints about Massachusetts carry permits, for example.

I think you can put RI on the list of over-regulated states.

 

[JustinEMT990662]

Congratulations! You found the wonderful POS CT law that bans select fire machine guns, but allows ones that have full auto only.

-Mike

Except the federal ban which requires a license for a full auto weapon LOL

 

[drgrant]

Except the federal ban which requires a license for a full auto weapon LOL

There is no such thing as a federal "license" for a machine gun. It's a tax stamp paid by the owner of the firearm, and every transferable machine gun requires its own individual NFA stamp/paperwork.

-Mike

 

[JustinEMT990662]

There is no such thing as a federal "license" for a machine gun. It's a tax stamp paid by the owner of the firearm, and every transferable machine gun requires its own individual NFA stamp/paperwork.

-Mike

I stand corrected. What are the requirements to obtain this tax stamp?

EDIT: Nevermind, found it ...
http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/caniown.html

You need a DOJ Form 4, which requires the approval of the local Chief Police Officer ... so unless you have a laid back chief, they won't sign off on it and you're SOL.

 

[drgrant]

I stand corrected. What are the requirements to obtain this tax stamp?

1- Find a transferable Pre-86 machinegun, pay large 4 or 5 digit sum of money for it. (typically through a dealer. )

2- Fill out appropriate forms with a check for $200, get required CLEO signoff (or use Corp or LLC wallhack if you have an anti gun chief in your town), send entire bundle of crap to BATFE NFA branch for processing.

3- Wait a really, really long time while BATFE processes it all and drags ass while doing so;

4- When you get your approved paperwork w/ tax stamp in the mail you can finally go pick up the gun from the dealer.

Note that all of the above may vary from state to state. In MA for example, you need a machinegun license from your local PD, which gets sent along with your stamp app.

More NFA info here:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=111


-Mike

 

[Dmac82]

jdubois, I disagree. Pre-ban weapons must have been registered back in 94. That is a very interesting law 53-202m BUT, it does not fall with in exemtions per the "Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony."

(a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of assault weapons by members or employees of the Department of Public Safety, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties; nor shall anything in sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons by sworn members of these agencies when on duty and the use is within the scope of their duties.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by any person prior to July 1, 1994, if all of the following are applicable:

(1) The person is eligible under sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a to apply for a certificate of possession for the assault weapon by July 1, 1994;

(2) The person lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993; and

(3) The person is otherwise in compliance with sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a.

(d) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to a person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d, if the assault weapon is possessed at a place set forth in subdivision (1) of subsection (d) of section 53-202d or as authorized by the Probate Court.

 

[Dmac82]

After RE-Reading the Pre-Ban exemption I would believe it to be legit.

Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements. Notwithstanding [IE without being prevented by] 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.

(P.A. 01-130, S. 3.)

So provision 53-202c does not apply. Nor would registry , rendering inoperable, or prohibited transfer.

 

[JustinEMT990662]

After RE-Reading the Pre-Ban exemption I would believe it to be legit.




So provision 53-202c does not apply. Nor would registry , rendering inoperable, or prohibited transfer.

But if you note, all the laws which make assault weapons illegal excepting those included under 53a-202a-k, exclude 202m ...

except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a

they seemed to have left out "m" which means that even under that law you could be in violation ... it looks like an end-run around which should be legal to me.

 

[Dmac82]

Yeah I'm not sure. I have always been told that assault weapons were a No No. I even called a couple local gun shops and they were like Pre ban or not, if it fall under the "Connecticut Definition" of a"assault Rifle" its a no go.

Even Though the OTHER provisions leave out provision M the ("M Law" as I will dub it) The M law clearly/ unclearly states that all provisions BEFORE it shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon ... provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.

 

[dcmdon]

Anything considered to be an AW would have needed to be registered in 94.

But don't forget that the law also has some very intersting loopholes. For example. If you want an AR with all the evil features, and want to do it legally, its simple.

Just find yourself a non-Colt lower made before 94 and you are good. You can build on it like any other resident of any other state.

The only problem is that these lowers go for about $650 rather than the $130 that a new lower costs.

Don