Preban Question

[Ctelectrician]

Ok. I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death but I've been trying to get clarification on whether or not preban (1994 or earlier) rifles are ok to bring into the state of Connecticut. I found a Colt Sporter Target for sale and would like to purchase it. Before I take the plunge, I just want to make sure it's still ok to do.

I would also like to know what my options are as far as building the rifle. I have heard differing opinions regarding the accessories that I can put on this. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
tim

 

[bozzman3]

Yes a prepan can be brought in.needs to be called in litany other long gun.A prepan can have anything you want on it.

 

[Cabinetman]

Hi fellas. Allow me to put some things in order here. First, the legislature and police both agree that pre-bans are exempt from registration. Allow me to link this here which should put your minds at ease:

http://ccdl.us/blog/2013/10/17/preban-assault-weapons/

There is a "however" coming. "However", the Colt Sporter you are looking at may be specifically banned on the Assault Weapon List here in CT. Yes, I know, it's the same exact rifle as literally hundreds of other models out there but for some reason the original AWB specifically banned the "Colt Sporter". Now, there has been a lot of discussion about similar but not exactly named Colt models being allowed since they don't 100% comport to the named banned rifle. That's open for discussion. Here's the list that the State of CT has posted:

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/assault_weapons.pdf

Be sure of what you are buying and be sure it comports to the very onerous laws of this super liberal State.

Just trying to help.

Rome

 

[Squire]

CT is doing a great job of punishing everyone EXCEPT the two people responsible for Sandy Hook.

 

[dcmdon]

Cabinetman,

I agree with everything that Cabinetman said except for his uncertainty on the sporter.

The law specified "Colt AR-15 and Sporter"

The DESPP later clarified with a letter that any pre-ban colt that did not EXACTLY say those things was not an AW.

That includes such common AR variants as "AR15 HBar Sporter" and "Target HBar Sporter" and yes, the Colter "Sporter Target"

I am looking at the letter now. It is from Det Shawn Musial and is dated April 12, 2012. I am 100% certainly sure that these variants are legal.

I will post the pdf as soon as I can extract this one page from the larger PDF that I have. In the mean time, here is the text of the letter as copied from an OCR'd copy of the PDF

Don

p.s. For what its worth, Shawn Musial was/is a straight shooter. He did not seem to have an anti-gun agenda. Strange that after Newtown, he was no longer the person who would give opinions. It was a guy named Keneth Damato. And all he would do is say "No opinion". I would send him an email asking for an opinion, and he would call me back to say "no comment". I'd then ask him to put his No comment in an email, he'd piss and moan and then would do it.

From: Musial, Shawn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: sday, April 17, 2012 1:05 PM To:
Subject: RE: Question


No need to apologize. I've been called Shawn, Sean and even Stan.
The State Statute is specific regarding Colts. The Colt AR-15 and the Colt Sporter are specifically named however Colt did manufacture several variants fie. Colt Sporter Match H-Bar, Sporter Lightweight, Sporter Match Target or even the AR15 A2). As long as any of these variants were manufactured prior to October 1,1993 (pre-ban) they would be legal in CT even with the flash hider, bayonet lug or other components listed. If they were post ban, then they would likely be illegal if they still had the components.

If the firearm is only marked "Sporter" and there is no other designation (Match H-Bar, Lightweight, ect...) it would not he compliant.
I really can't answer the second question. I know that Colt was already manufacturing the Sporters prior to the federal ban and it unfortunately was of the named assault weapons. Once the federal ban expired, CT was one of the few states to maintain an assault weapon ban.
Hope this answers your questions, If there is anything else, please feel free to contact me.

Shawn

- - - Updated - - -

To the OP.

If you decide to buy this gun, let me know and I will gladly send you the ORIGINAL pdf of this letter for you to keep in your records.

Don

 

[DonKroob]

Cabinetman,

I agree with everything that Cabinetman said except for his uncertainty on the sporter.

The law specified "Colt AR-15 and Sporter"

The DESPP later clarified with a letter that any pre-ban colt that did not EXACTLY say those things was not an AW.

That includes such common AR variants as "AR15 HBar Sporter" and "Target HBar Sporter" and yes, the Colter "Sporter Target"

I am looking at the letter now. It is from Det Shawn Musial and is dated April 12, 2012. I am 100% certainly sure that these variants are legal.

I will post the pdf as soon as I can extract this one page from the larger PDF that I have. In the mean time, here is the text of the letter as copied from an OCR'd copy of the PDF

Don

p.s. For what its worth, Shawn Musial was/is a straight shooter. He did not seem to have an anti-gun agenda. Strange that after Newtown, he was no longer the person who would give opinions. It was a guy named Keneth Damato. And all he would do is say "No opinion". I would send him an email asking for an opinion, and he would call me back to say "no comment". I'd then ask him to put his No comment in an email, he'd piss and moan and then would do it.

From: Musial, Shawn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: sday, April 17, 2012 1:05 PM To:
Subject: RE: Question


No need to apologize. I've been called Shawn, Sean and even Stan.
The State Statute is specific regarding Colts. The Colt AR-15 and the Colt Sporter are specifically named however Colt did manufacture several variants fie. Colt Sporter Match H-Bar, Sporter Lightweight, Sporter Match Target or even the AR15 A2). As long as any of these variants were manufactured prior to October 1,1993 (pre-ban) they would be legal in CT even with the flash hider, bayonet lug or other components listed. If they were post ban, then they would likely be illegal if they still had the components.

If the firearm is only marked "Sporter" and there is no other designation (Match H-Bar, Lightweight, ect...) it would not he compliant.
I really can't answer the second question. I know that Colt was already manufacturing the Sporters prior to the federal ban and it unfortunately was of the named assault weapons. Once the federal ban expired, CT was one of the few states to maintain an assault weapon ban.
Hope this answers your questions, If there is anything else, please feel free to contact me.

Shawn

- - - Updated - - -

To the OP.

If you decide to buy this gun, let me know and I will gladly send you the ORIGINAL pdf of this letter for you to keep in your records.

Don

http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/f754e220-302a-4278-873a-aecbcc4063da

 

[Cabinetman]

Thanks for that clarification, Don. I knew there was an exception. Seeing that these posters both had single digit post numbers I decided that I would at least make them aware of the fact that Colts were listed. I didn't have the info you have to clarify more succinctly so they might know they were ok. I figured they would be able to investigate on their own and come to a decision.

Rome

 

[Carl in Ct]

Hello, I have a similar question but on pre-Sept. 1994 MAK-90's. I know a guy in another state that wants to sell his new in box pre-ban MAK-90 for $800 plus shipping (and FFL transfer fee of course) but I am a little confused.

I get that the current CT ban has an exemption for pre-ban guns unless they are specifically named. OK, not confusing yet. Now, I am not sure but it looks like the old ban before April 2013 did list the MAK-90 by name but it looks to me like it is not listed specifically in the new law. So I started to get excited until I saw the "AK-47 type" included in the so called specific list. Now, I would consider a MAK-90 an AK-47 type weapon I think. It's so vague, I mean an AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon. All of the "AK-47" versions/clones being bought/sold in free states, including the MAK-90, are semi-auto right? So what the heck is AK-47 type according to the state of CT? I have heard that it means that certain parts are interchangeable and/or the receiver is the same. I dunno.

Does anyone have any clarification on the "AK-47 type" part of the law and if the MAK-90 would be ok to buy in CT today as a pre-ban gun or not?

 

[spt_1955]

Thanks for that clarification, Don. I knew there was an exception. Seeing that these posters both had single digit post numbers I decided that I would at least make them aware of the fact that Colts were listed. I didn't have the info you have to clarify more succinctly so they might know they were ok. I figured they would be able to investigate on their own and come to a decision.

Rome

Guess I need to spend more time posting comments to get my score up.

 

[Woda]

There is case law defining "AK-47 type", try a search for that or wait for one of the experts to post a link here...

 

[Carl in Ct]

Hello, I have a similar question but on pre-Sept. 1994 MAK-90's. I know a guy in another state that wants to sell his new in box pre-ban MAK-90 for $800 plus shipping (and FFL transfer fee of course) but I am a little confused.

I get that the current CT ban has an exemption for pre-ban guns unless they are specifically named. OK, not confusing yet. Now, I am not sure but it looks like the old ban before April 2013 did list the MAK-90 by name but it looks to me like it is not listed specifically in the new law. So I started to get excited until I saw the "AK-47 type" included in the so called specific list. Now, I would consider a MAK-90 an AK-47 type weapon I think. It's so vague, I mean an AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon. All of the "AK-47" versions/clones being bought/sold in free states, including the MAK-90, are semi-auto right? So what the heck is AK-47 type according to the state of CT? I have heard that it means that certain parts are interchangeable and/or the receiver is the same. I dunno.

Does anyone have any clarification on the "AK-47 type" part of the law and if the MAK-90 would be ok to buy in CT today as a pre-ban gun or not?

You know, I just looked at the law again and I now see MAK-90 is listed specifically so that answers my question - it's a no go in CT. Don't know how I missed it before. Maybe I just got my wires crossed when looking back and forth from the old ban to the new one.

Still, the other part of the question remains. How does CT define "AK-47 type"? I will look up some of that case law as mentioned. I looked it up a little already and it looks like it may not be defined, it may be up to the judge's own interpretation. If that's the case I don't think I want to roll those kind of dice.

 

[Cabinetman]

You will find your answer here:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP93/93AP123.pdf

However, don't expect it to satisfy your wanting to understand the ruling. The case, as you'll read, is far from a clear-cut set of circumstances. The bottom line, however, is that none of the peripheral circumstances around this case matter. The bottom line is that the State decided to broaden their interpretation of what a banned AK47 would look like and they would know it when they saw it. So, they simply added the one-single word: type. Now that encompassed a bunch of AK look-a-likes. But, it did stop at the water's edge when it came to caliber.

When it went to the courts, they found that the State had the authority to ambiguously and after the fact redefine what them meant when banning this family of rifles. No, they are most decidedly NOT AWs and even the state admits that but because they look pretty much like them, they have included them in the ban.

Any of us owning them at the time had until October to register them, literally register them including a thumbprint. Non compliance would result in no fines or arrests but immediate confiscation. So, most of us did register them although I sold mine a year later.

That was the beginning of the end for us, I think. It proved to the state that they had the courts in their pockets and when push came to shove, they would prevail regardless of proper terminology, function, or technology. If it looked like an AK, it shot 762x39, and had the letters "AK" someplace, then it was an AK, period. Register it, sell it, or lose it.

Rome

 

[Woda]

Cabinetman - thanks for posting that, I've heard it referenced in the past but never had the text to read myself.

Also, is anyone else as disturbed as I am that the defendant was assaulted and robbed! Was Mr. Speransa or Mr. Giamette ever charged in this incident? Doubtful.

"Joshua Giamette, a patron at the restaurant, saw the defendant struggle with another patron, Tony Speransa. Speransa grabbed the end of the weapon with one hand and hit the defendant with his free hand, causing the weapon to fall to the deck. Giamette ran over, picked up the weapon and ran off into a wooded area to hide the weapon until the police could arrive."

 

[dcmdon]

You guys are all on the right path.

Since the Mak 90 is named in the original 94 ban, then its a no-go in CT.

There is case law where trooper explains that the bolt is like the "heart and lungs" of the firearm. From that the judge
ruled that because this AK clone could use the same bolt as a real AK, it was an AK.

This logic, by extension created a loop hole for any AK type firearm that did not use the same bolt as a real AK.

This is why AKs in any caliber other than 7.62 x 39 were legal in CT.

I own a pre-ban Norinco in .223 that has all the evil features. And has always been legal. I'm one of those weirdos who actually prefers an ak in .223. Mainly because I reload .223 and for the cost of AK ammo can make much better reloads.

 

[Carl in Ct]

Hmmm, I wonder. I have a SKS-Sporter that was supposedly made in 1992. No SKS's have ever been on the bans by name and this one has zero evil features besides the detachable AK mag. I didn't have to register it because it has no evil features but I wonder if I can have evil features on it since it is pre-ban of 1994.

When I got it a few years ago it had a thumbhole stock on it that I hated so I sold it and I modified a regular SKS stock to fit. I love it, handles great, lightweight, etc. That said, I am still curious if I could go back to the thumbhole stock or a Tapco or Archangel telescopic pistol grip stock, forward pistol grip, stuff like that if I ever wanted to go the mall ninja direction with it. I have a very nice all original 1952 Tula Russian SKS that I don't tinker with but this Sporter is kind of a fun bubba gun.

 

[EMitch]

I own a pre-ban Norinco in .223 that has all the evil features. And has always been legal. I'm one of those weirdos who actually prefers an ak in .223. Mainly because I reload .223 and for the cost of AK ammo can make much better reloads.

Before everything hit the fan I was planning on getting a Saiga 5.56 and modify it. Get it to use the same mags as my AR (adapters are available) and I wouldn't have to worry about the mag issue. One of my favorite rifles is the Galil, which is basically a 5.56 AK with improvements.

 

[dcmdon]

Hmmm, I wonder. I have a SKS-Sporter that was supposedly made in 1992. No SKS's have ever been on the bans by name and this one has zero evil features besides the detachable AK mag. I didn't have to register it because it has no evil features but I wonder if I can have evil features on it since it is pre-ban of 1994.

When I got it a few years ago it had a thumbhole stock on it that I hated so I sold it and I modified a regular SKS stock to fit. I love it, handles great, lightweight, etc. That said, I am still curious if I could go back to the thumbhole stock or a Tapco or Archangel telescopic pistol grip stock, forward pistol grip, stuff like that if I ever wanted to go the mall ninja direction with it. I have a very nice all original 1952 Tula Russian SKS that I don't tinker with but this Sporter is kind of a fun bubba gun.

SKS does not have a removable magazine. So a stock one did not even begin to fit the bill of an AW. Further, it didn't have a pistol grip.

Please all, realized that the basis for this discussion was the OLD awb.

The new law is such that most of these guns are now illegal in CT. Except for a fixed mag SKS.
A removable mag SKS would be good if it didn't have a FH or bayonet lug. I don't know the gun well enough to comment if it does or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Before everything hit the fan I was planning on getting a Saiga 5.56 and modify it. Get it to use the same mags as my AR (adapters are available) and I wouldn't have to worry about the mag issue. One of my favorite rifles is the Galil, which is basically a 5.56 AK with improvements.

Unless the Saiga is named in the new law, you can still do that. Just keep it in a traditional stock and leave the plain muzzle.

 

[Carl in Ct]

SKS does not have a removable magazine. So a stock one did not even begin to fit the bill of an AW. Further, it didn't have a pistol grip.

Please all, realized that the basis for this discussion was the OLD awb.

The new law is such that most of these guns are now illegal in CT. Except for a fixed mag SKS.
A removable mag SKS would be good if it didn't have a FH or bayonet lug. I don't know the gun well enough to comment if it does or not.

- - - Updated - - -



Unless the Saiga is named in the new law, you can still do that. Just keep it in a traditional stock and leave the plain muzzle.

The SKS M, Sporter and D models were all made to accept AK mags in China at the factory before being exported by Norinco. They were not SKS to AK mag conversions, they were made new to accept AK mags, complete with the AK style mag release. The Type 84 SKS's were done by Navy Arms I believe and they were sold with the AK mag capability but I think they were altered stateside after being imported, I think. The MC5D SKS's were also sold with the AK mag capability but they retained the old SKS mag release and are known to drop mags sometimes because of that. Those were made to take the AK mags in China at the factory but were really re-arsenaled SKS's and spare parts that were made into AK mag SKS's.

The common thread is they were all sold with AK mags and none of them are able to use the 10rd fixed mag the old school SKS's came with. There are permanent alterations made to the receiver, stock, etc. prior to sale. So none of these would be considered converted SKS's, they are all considered rifles made to accept AK mags and would be treated as such in any ban situation.

The fact that they share nothing but the caliber and mag with the AK and they aren't called an AK is what saves them from falling into the "AK Type" designation (for now, until they decide that the AK mag is enough). So for the pre-ban questions on SKS M's, Sporters, D's, type 84's and MC5D's we need to look at them just like any other semi-auto centerfire rifle that takes detachable mags that was imported into the U.S. Almost all of the M's and Sporters have no bayonet lug but a few do. The Type 84's, MC5D's and D's came with bayonets.

 

[jstarr427]

Hey guys- first time poster, long time lurker here. I've also got a preban question of my own. looking at an Olympic Arms CAR-AR built mid 1992. I know CT has the 'ban by name' list and the CAR by olympic is on that list, but the CAR-AR is not. However there is a little blurb off to the side that says 'all rifles'. Is this particular unit going to be legal in CT? I've had no luck looking for answers elsewhere, and I've used the search function, but nothing specific to this. Hopefully somebody more well versed in CT laws can help me out!

 

[dcmdon]

Carl - I did not know removable mag SKS were brought into the country.

Then as I'm sure you know, once its got a removable mag, its subject to the 1 evil feature portion of the law. So it can not have any of the following:

1) threaded bbl
2) FH
3) bayonet lug
4) folding or telescoping stock.
5) pistol grip.

So if it doesn't have any of those things its good to go.

Don

 

[dcmdon]

Hey guys- first time poster, long time lurker here. I've also got a preban question of my own. looking at an Olympic Arms CAR-AR built mid 1992. I know CT has the 'ban by name' list and the CAR by olympic is on that list, but the CAR-AR is not. However there is a little blurb off to the side that says 'all rifles'. Is this particular unit going to be legal in CT? I've had no luck looking for answers elsewhere, and I've used the search function, but nothing specific to this. Hopefully somebody more well versed in CT laws can help me out!

Jstarr,

The DESPP has always require the name to be a 100% match. For example, the Sporter is named. But the sporter-hbar is considered to be legal.

I say "considered to be" because this opinion exists in a letter sent from a DESPP trooper to a CT citizen. It has no actual weight of law, but does provide the owner of a Sporter-hbar with a "get out of jail free" card.

It also sets a precedent. The thing to remember is that any guidance given by the DESPP is only that, guidance. Nothing anybody says has any actual weight of law. Only case law is actual law.

In my mind, since that gun varies from the strict name "CAR", I'd say its fine. Others may disagree.
You can certainly ask the DESPP if you want. But they will most likely refuse to answer.
That in itself is useful, as a refusal to answer, shows that you exercised due diligence.

I would just buy the gun. If you are more risk averse than I am, I'd suggest sending an email to to:

Trooper Kennety Damato
[email protected]

Insist on a response in writing. He is a slippery one. He will respond to an email with a phone call. On that call he will tell yo uthat he can not give you an opinion. Ask him to tell you that he can not give you an opinion in writing.

Don

 

[Carl in Ct]

Carl - I did not know removable mag SKS were brought into the country.

Then as I'm sure you know, once its got a removable mag, its subject to the 1 evil feature portion of the law. So it can not have any of the following:

1) threaded bbl
2) FH
3) bayonet lug
4) folding or telescoping stock.
5) pistol grip.

So if it doesn't have any of those things its good to go.

Don

My SKS Sporter has no evil additional features, just the detachable mag. That said, I thought the bayo lug was removed from the new ban as an evil feature. Are you saying that in order for it to qualify as pre-ban it has to be manufactured prior to Sept 1994 and adhere to the old ban in which the bayo lug was counted as an evil feature? That doesn't make sense to me. I thought part of the idea of it being pre-ban was that it didn't have to adhere to either the new ban or the old ban rules. My gun qualifies either way as it is now if I can only find a way to prove the the "92" stamped on the barrel is the manufacture date. I wonder if I can get import records. I don't think any SKS's with detachable mags came in after 1994 but I'm not sure. That said, I was hoping I would be able to add a pistol grip stock and/or a forward pistol grip if I can prove it to be a pre 1994 gun.

 

[dcmdon]

My SKS Sporter has no evil additional features, just the detachable mag. That said, I thought the bayo lug was removed from the new ban as an evil feature. Are you saying that in order for it to qualify as pre-ban it has to be manufactured prior to Sept 1994 and adhere to the old ban in which the bayo lug was counted as an evil feature? That doesn't make sense to me. I thought part of the idea of it being pre-ban was that it didn't have to adhere to either the new ban or the old ban rules. My gun qualifies either way as it is now if I can only find a way to prove the the "92" stamped on the barrel is the manufacture date. I wonder if I can get import records. I don't think any SKS's with detachable mags came in after 1994 but I'm not sure. That said, I was hoping I would be able to add a pistol grip stock and/or a forward pistol grip if I can prove it to be a pre 1994 gun.

Carl - if its pre-94 ban, its good to go.

What I did a pretty bad job of trying to say is that even if its post 2013 ban. Its good to go, since it doesn't have any of those additional evil features. In other words, you should be able to buy one now.

Also, you are right. I'm so used to writing bayonet mount, that I didn't think that the new law subs "forward pistol grip". Either way you get my point.

Pre ban - no problem
post ban - as long as it doesn't have the evil feature count , also no problem. And as far as I can tell, a wood stocked SKS has none of the evil features.

Don

p.s. here's the relevant text. Items in brackets were removed from the law and replaced with items in parentheses.
[(A)] (i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least [two] one of the following:

[(i)] (I) A folding or telescoping stock;

[(ii) A] (II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, [that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon] a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;

[(iii)] (III) A [bayonet mount] forward pistol grip;

[(iv)] (IV) A flash suppressor; or [threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and]

[(v)] (V) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; or

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I say "considered to be" because this opinion exists in a letter sent from a DESPP trooper to a CT citizen. It has no actual weight of law

Read up on the concept of "entrapment by estoppel"