Pre-Second-Ban lower Question

[EMitch]

I have an interesting question, and I couldn't see anything regarding the answer among the legalese. For the (new) ban list, there is a grandfather clause, as such, all current AR-15 style weapons would become registered "assault weapons" and therefore be considered pre-ban. Yes?

Does that mean we can then put any banned style accessory (i.e. collapsible stock) onto these "new" pre-ban rifles as if they were "old" pre-bans?

Also, did anyone notice that they removed the bayonet lugs as a feature?

 

[Kyarno]

I honestly don't even know.

I don't think anyone does.

Its just too soon to know. Time to call a lawyer.

Maybe someone here (paging Don) who has heavy experience with CT law would be able to help more. But all the laws I knew of were just chucked out the window.

 

[neum69]

None of these new bans would enable you to treat a pre second ban gun like a pre first ban gun. I.e. you won't magically have the right to add evil features to your pre second ban guns.

 

[Hustler One]

I have no idea what's going to happen with regard to pre sep. 13th 94' stuff. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on it still being fine, but you would need to prove you owned it prior to that date. No if's and's or but's.

Edit: Honestly, it's waaaay to early to tell anything. They don't even know how long it's going to take to implement these brilliant new ideas, fees, permits et cetera. Hopefully, this is fought in the courts and an injunction is issued post haste.

 

[dcmdon]

None of these new bans would enable you to treat a pre second ban gun like a pre first ban gun. I.e. you won't magically have the right to add evil features to your pre second ban guns.

I'm not sure. Ha. I'm still parsing through it. It sure would be great if it did. Frankly, even if I found that loop hole, I'd keep my mouth shut until this session was done, lest they slip an amendment into some unrelated piece of legislation.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no idea what's going to happen with regard to pre sep. 13th 94' stuff. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on it still being fine, but you would need to prove you owned it prior to that date. No if's and's or but's.

Edit: Honestly, it's waaaay to early to tell anything. They don't even know how long it's going to take to implement these brilliant new ideas, fees, permits et cetera. Hopefully, this is fought in the courts and an injunction is issued post haste.

You don't have to prove anything. They have to prove otherwise. Nothing has changed with pre-ban guns, other than the fact that you will have to register them now. Just like follks with Colts and AKs who had preban named guns had to do in 96.

Don

 

[BeastlyAdams]

i say yes and some class 3 dealers say yes too.

2 ways a rifle can become an assault weapon in the commiee state of Connecticut

1. Its on the list

2. It has the evil features

With the passage of the new AWB the state has declared that any AR15 is an assault weapon and is forcing you to register it as such...

So you can't make an assault weapon more of an assault weapon, there are no tiers of assault weapons, its either assault or not assault...you're either pregnant or you're not...

All post ban AR15s by definition due to 2 evil features are assault weapons...law doesn't say 3 4 5 ...just anything over 1.

Of course im not a lawyer and to be honest the state will most likely say no, but it has to play out in court...

If they really wanted to address it they had 138 pages full of toilet paper to get it done...but they didn't.

 

[dcmdon]

None of these new bans would enable you to treat a pre second ban gun like a pre first ban gun. I.e. you won't magically have the right to add evil features to your pre second ban guns.

Can you please provide a citation?

I believe that you are incorrect. If you read the statute the new law replaces the old law. It really does look like that old pre-ban guns will be able to be built with evil features if you register them.

There also seems to be a growing consensus of knowledgeable people who believe this to be the case.

This is what happens whan you rush a bill through without giving the citizens or even the legislators ample opportunity to read and discuss it.

 

[fiddly_foo]

If so I can put on a suppressor on mine that would be nice and have a stock that moves.. Will see so much up in the air ...

 

[dcmdon]

If so I can put on a suppressor on mine that would be nice and have a stock that moves.. Will see so much up in the air ...

You could have put a suppressor on yours before this happened. Easily accomplished by doing one of 2 things:

1) pre-ban lower with pre-ban upper. Prior to Newtown, this would have cost you an extra $500. Small change when you are talking about allowing entry into the wonderful world of NFA items.

2) Permanently affix a flash hider to your post ban gun that uses some kind of proprietary quick attach method for that brand's suppressor.

For example, this Surefire muzzle brake serves as a non-threaded mount for a Surefire suppressor.

SureFire MB556K Muzzle Brake / Suppressor Adapter

 

[fiddly_foo]

I know I could of before but I didnt have a pre 94 gun. But know I can since all ar's are AW ..

 

[dcmdon]

The consensus seems to be solidifying around the idea that anything that was made prior to 4/4/13 and registered, can have all the evil features.

 

[dcmdon]

dup

 

[fiddly_foo]

So I can knock that damn pin out of my stock... and have it be more comfortable to shoot..

 

[drgrant]

Dcmdon, will pre 4/13 guns still be importable into CT, or is there a "blockade" on sale/transfer?


-Mike

 

[BossHarley]

As I understand it no further sale or transfers in the state - except to dealers who must sell out of state.

 

[EMitch]

Or if it was on order before then, from what I've read.

 

[dcmdon]

Mike - think of it as a prohibition on any future transfers.

If you register it, you can keep it.
If you don't want to register it, you must sell it out of state or to a dealer or manufacturer

The law says you must have "constructively possessed" the firearm. Which the 2 attorneys I spoke to said that it meant that if the item was purchased but not delivered, you can complete the transactions.

A couple of days after I got this guidance, the DEPSS put a message on the dealer section of their web site saying that this was how they interpreted the law:

Link: despp: Connecticut Firearms Dealers

Specific language:
Newly defined Assault Weapons:

Any newly defined assault weapon that was lawfully purchased on or before April 4, 2013, but was not transferred by that date, may be transferred pursuant to such lawful purchase and a sales authorization number may be obtained for such transfer. Sellers are required to verify that a lawful purchase occurred on or before April 4, 2013 prior to transferring such firearm.

Proof of lawful possession will also be required by DESPP from the owner of the firearm with the Application for Certificate of Possession of Assault Weapon. Forms are currently being developed for this purpose.

The law does have provisions allowing AWs to be passed on upon the owner's death.

It doesn't really matter though in some cases. Many legally savvy gun owners transferred their AWs into trusts originally intended for NFA items prior to the law being passed. Its a simple process. You just write a dated bill of sale to yourself and add the items to your schedule A. By putting the items in the trust, they can be "possessed" by any trustee.

I actually thought this might present an interesting business opportunity. A time-share for AWs. For a fee you put the person's name on as a trustee with appropriate legal safeguards and they get to use the gun for X number of days. I didn't get it sorted out legally in time to set this up, but it would have been interesting. **Note to any LEOs trolling these boards. This was just mental exercise. No action was taken on the time share AW idea.



Don

- - - Updated - - -

So I can knock that damn pin out of my stock... and have it be more comfortable to shoot..

Yes. If Scott Hoffman is willing to sell pre ban M&P 15/22s, I feel comfortable. He's got a huge operation over there and would not risk it unless he had run it by both his Attys and the State's.

 

[AR MR2]

It seems you guys are going through the same thing we are in California, but CT was first to adopt the redefinition of "detachable magazine" to revolve around disassembly of the firearm action.

If it has features, and a detachable magazine, then it's an assault weapon and must be registered. Once registered, it can't be sold or passed down to your kids, only handed over to LEO or a permitted FFL to be sold out of state.

Here in CA, we have similar bans in the works. These bans prompted me to create AR MR2: http://www.facebook.com/AR15MR2

In short, defeat the "detachable magazine" portion and you can avoid registration and assault weapon definition.
Here's a link to my demo video: Introducing AR MR2 - Magazine Lock for your AR-15 Rifle/Pistol for "Ban" States (CA CT NY) - YouTube

Spread the word.

-MR2

 

[dcmdon]

You are wrong on one thing. The current law does allow AWs to be passed to heirs upon the original owners death.

Sent from Samsung Note 2

 

[AR MR2]

How so? Through an NFA trust?

 

[EJFudd]

Dcmdon, will pre 4/13 guns still be importable into CT, or is there a "blockade" on sale/transfer?

As I understand it no further sale or transfers in the state - except to dealers who must sell out of state.

Mike - think of it as a prohibition on any future transfers.

If you register it, you can keep it.
If you don't want to register it, you must sell it out of state or to a dealer or manufacturer

Question: If a MA gun owner were stupid enough to consider moving to CT in the middle of this madness, what guns could he bring with him and what guns couldn't he bring?

I think I know the answer, but I could use a sanity check. I also recognize that there are certain guns that the MA gun owner would be foolish (and even selfish) not to sell off within MA before moving to any other state (not just CT). Of course, this only works if the guns could be replaced, if desired, in the new state of residence.

For those guns not sold off within MA and not allowed into CT, what would be one's best option? Transfer them to a trusted, licensed friend or relative within MA? Store them with someone in a free state? Any other legal options other than giving up and capitulating to the tyranny?

Lastly, would establishing a gun trust help in this sorry situation in any way?

 

[EMitch]

Question: If a MA gun owner were stupid enough to consider moving to CT in the middle of this madness, what guns could he bring with him and what guns couldn't he bring?

I think I know the answer, but I could use a sanity check. I also recognize that there are certain guns that the MA gun owner would be foolish (and even selfish) not to sell off within MA before moving to any other state (not just CT). Of course, this only works if the guns could be replaced, if desired, in the new state of residence.

For those guns not sold off within MA and not allowed into CT, what would be one's best option? Transfer them to a trusted, licensed friend or relative within MA? Store them with someone in a free state? Any other legal options other than giving up and capitulating to the tyranny?

Lastly, would establishing a gun trust help in this sorry situation in any way?

As long as they were owned before the ban took effect, I believe that you would be fine as long as they are registered during the open period (January). They aren't "not allowed into CT" they just can't be purchased/transferred between owners in the state now. Moving into the state you have 90 days to register it, sell it, move it out of state, etc.

If anyone has a correction, please let me know, the DPS website has some wrong information still.

 

[EJFudd]

As long as they were owned before the ban took effect, I believe that you would be fine as long as they are registered during the open period (January). They aren't "not allowed into CT" they just can't be purchased/transferred between owners in the state now. Moving into the state you have 90 days to register it, sell it, move it out of state, etc.

If anyone has a correction, please let me know, the DPS website has some wrong information still.

Thanks for the reply. I was unaware that there was a mechanism in the new law whereby folks moving into CT from another state could bring their pre-second CT assault weapons ban guns with them.

What about the status of previously banned 7.62x39 AK's? Does the second ban now allow for them to be grandfathered in?

 

[dcmdon]

EMitch - you are mistaken.

A person who moves to CT any time after 4/4/13 can not lawfully keep an AW in the state. They can bring it in and have time to dispose of it legally. But it can not stay.

Now remember, you could make your AW into a Firearm prior to moving by putting something like an MR2 on it.

If you had a 7.62x39 AK and were a resident of CT, you can now register it. You will have to go through some mental gymnastics to craft a story that keeps you legal. For example, you kept the AK out of state, so you possessed it prior to 4/4/13. And are now bringing it into the state to be registered.

If you registered a 7.62x39 AK back in 94 then you don't need to register it again.

Don

(d) Any person who moves into the state in lawful possession of an assault weapon, shall, within ninety days, either render the assault weapon permanently inoperable, sell the assault weapon to a licensed gun dealer or remove the assault weapon from this state, except that any person who is a member of the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, is in lawful possession of an assault weapon and has been transferred into the state after October 1, 1994, may, within ninety days of arriving in the state, apply to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection for a certificate of possession with respect to such assault weapon.

 

[EJFudd]

EMitch - you are mistaken.

A person who moves to CT any time after 4/4/13 can not lawfully keep an AW in the state. They can bring it in and have time to dispose of it legally. But it can not stay.

Now remember, you could make your AW into a Firearm prior to moving by putting something like an MR2 on it.

If you had a 7.62x39 AK and were a resident of CT, you can now register it. You will have to go through some mental gymnastics to craft a story that keeps you legal. For example, you kept the AK out of state, so you possessed it prior to 4/4/13. And are now bringing it into the state to be registered.

If you registered a 7.62x39 AK back in 94 then you don't need to register it again.

Don

(d) Any person who moves into the state in lawful possession of an assault weapon, shall, within ninety days, either render the assault weapon permanently inoperable, sell the assault weapon to a licensed gun dealer or remove the assault weapon from this state, except that any person who is a member of the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, is in lawful possession of an assault weapon and has been transferred into the state after October 1, 1994, may, within ninety days of arriving in the state, apply to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection for a certificate of possession with respect to such assault weapon.

Thanks for clarifying that. Interesting that the new law could actually be a minor "win" for certain CT residents wishing to upgrade their neutered guns to pre-ban status and even slip in a 7.62x39 AK possibly. That, of course, assumes that they are okay with the new registration requirement... otherwise it is nothing but bad news.

But as an out of state gun owner possibly considering a move into CT, unless one is apparently active military, it looks worse than bleak. That is pretty much what I had understood. I appreciate the sanity check.

 

[mardoy]

It doesn't really matter though in some cases. Many legally savvy gun owners transferred their AWs into trusts originally intended for NFA items prior to the law being passed. Its a simple process. You just write a dated bill of sale to yourself and add the items to your schedule A. By putting the items in the trust, they can be "possessed" by any trustee.


Great food for thought as always Don. Also interesting in this thread is the effective legalization of once banned "Assault Weapons" like Colt ARs. If a Ct. resident had bought and stored these out of state prior to 4/4/13 - at an often visited in-laws home for example - they may now be brought into Ct. & registered as only a sworn affidavit is required as proof that the weapon was owned before 4/4/13 i.e. NO DPS-3 if bought in another state, and NO bill of sale actually required as per DPS-414-C. This is how I read the law. I am interpreting this correctly?

Where I'm not fully following though is the NFA trust. If I'm keeping up with the hypotheticals mentioned here it is my understanding that as long as an assault weapon which is assigned to a trust is registered by 1/1/14 all laws will have been observed. If that is true it means that AWs may basically be procured or constructed by whatever legal means available to an individual as long as they were effectively transferred into the trust prior to 4/4/13 & registered prior to 1/1/14. Those means would seem to include purchasing out of state (if a long gun) and/or constructing an AW from parts lying around in one's basement. If acquisition after 4/4/13 could not be proven there would be no infraction. Crazy & interesting hypothetical indeed, but still risky if you ask me. If one did do this what is the advantage? Just that the list of trustees can be amended indefinitely so virtually anyone (who is written in as a trustee) can possess/use firearms assigned to that trust?

Finally, SB1160 doesn't mention trusts at all, but I'm guessing any AWs in a trust would still have to be registered regardless of who owns them. Would the settlor of a trust register the AWs as being owned by him/herself, by the trust, or both? Tough to leave one's name off the form since the trust can own weapons but doesn't have the fingerprint required on DPS-414-C. Hmmm.

 

[dcmdon]

I don't know about putting an AW into a trust by 1/1/14. That does not seem to be right. Although my confidence on my opinion on this is not more than 60%. Find a citation and you may be right.

Trusts are never mentioned in legislation. A trust, like a corporation is a "person". Remember all the trouble Mitt got in for that statement. If Colt wants to do some research on Sig's new Assault Rifle, do you think the CEO of colt has to sign for it? I'm oversimplifying. But a corporation or trust is its own entity and can own firearms.

This has been done in the NFA world for years. The responsible party still has to do a 4473 and get a background check if you aren't also a FFL/SOT.

Just one other point. Prior to 4/4/13. Most long arms could be transferred between individuals with no paperwork whatsoever. This included AKs and ARs. So many of us don't have receipts or DPS-3s and will simply be completing an affidavit attesting to the legality of the "assault weapon's" acquisition.