1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. Dismiss Notice

Question about bringing pre-ban rifles into CT

Discussion in 'Connecticut Laws' started by Elkins45, Dec 5, 2018.

  1. Elkins45

    Elkins45

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Second try. First was deleted because I added some detail that made it look like I was trying to skirt the rules. I wasn't, but on a first post I understand you've gotta assume the new guy is being a jerk.

    I have two questions about the current state of CT law that I would appreciate some guidance on:

    1) Can a AR-type rifle that was built prior to 1993 and that is not on the list of banned firearms be purchased from someone in another state (through an FFL) or does 'grandfathering' only apply to guns that are already in CT?
    2) Do all of the parts of the gun have to be pre-ban, or just the assembled lower? IOW is it legal to bring in a pre-ban lower that haas a brand new upper assembly attached?
     
  2. Rob Boudrie

    Rob Boudrie NES Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    33,751
    Likes Received:
    10,106
    Removed since dmcdon provided much more accurate info.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018
  3. dcmdon

    dcmdon NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes Received:
    1,583
    Location:
    Southeastern CT and Boston Metro West
    A pre-94 ban gun is exempted from the restrictions on assault weapons transfers and possessions. It is 100% legal for you to acquire said gun
    1) from an out of state dealer, since its a long gun
    2) in state from a dealer after its been shipped from out of state.

    The law has no requirement that the gun be in CT by any certain date.

    The only thing that has to be pre-ban is the receiver.

    Please note, that its still an AW in CT. So the transport restrictions specific to AWs still apply. Locked in trunk, or in a locked container if no trunk. For non-AWs, CT has no transport restrictions.

    What's interesting is that there are no restrictions on the transport of machine guns. Ha.

    This is a copy of a pdf that the DESPP sent me when I asked about this several years ago.

    pre-ban_assault_weapons can be transferred.jpg
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018
    Mass-diver and Rob Boudrie like this.
  4. Elkins45

    Elkins45

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Thanks. This was very helpful.
     
  5. MAJoe

    MAJoe NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    206
    Does CT still enforce the old banned by name list for pre-bans?
     
  6. mu2bdriver

    mu2bdriver NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    380
    Location:
    Central CT
    Yes, no, and maybe. At a recent (last week) meeting with the SLFU and ATF the State essentially said that they were aware of prebans on the BBN list being transferred and were not actively pursuing them (yet) but they also made it clear that they were not legally transferred and if you were caught with one, would be prosecuted. I know some FFL’s who won’t go near them and others who still transfer them. The safest bet, as of tonight, if you were looking at acquiring a preban, would be to look for one not on the BBN list. The laws in this State continue to be a moving target.
     
  7. MAJoe

    MAJoe NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    206
    Makes sense and thanks. Sounds similar to AG guidance in MA where people are still building and registering ARs, which they are not pursuing.

    I wonder the discussion if as an out-of-stater you're stopped with a pre-ban on the BBN list. No state paperwork obviously since you didn't purchase in CT, but wonder if local/state PD would try to jam you up for it.
     
  8. dcmdon

    dcmdon NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes Received:
    1,583
    Location:
    Southeastern CT and Boston Metro West
    They aren't going to so anything. For 3 years after PA13-3 was passed, up until about 18 months ago, the DESPP had a guidance letter saying that even pre-ban named AWs were now legal.

    Our attorney at CT Carry disagreed. Her read was that named were still banned. But the DESPP said it was fine. So people bought and sold them and lots of them came into the state from other states.
     
  9. dcmdon

    dcmdon NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes Received:
    1,583
    Location:
    Southeastern CT and Boston Metro West
    The difference is that the DESPP for years said it was fine. I'd like to see them try something.

    If you are out of state, you are covered by FOPA. Remember?? As long as you transport per FOPA. Which means the gun is legal at your origin and destination. It is irrelevant if its illegal in CT.
     
    MAJoe likes this.
  10. MAJoe

    MAJoe NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    206
    Agreed. Should have clarified and meant coming in from out of state and going to the range in CT, so not covered under FOPA.
     
  11. dcmdon

    dcmdon NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes Received:
    1,583
    Location:
    Southeastern CT and Boston Metro West
    Yup. Gun wouldn't be covered by FOPA, so it has to be legal to possess in CT. Which means if its a semi-auto, detachable mag AR in anything other than .22 LR, it needs to be pre-94 ban to be legal.
     
  12. dcmdon

    dcmdon NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    12,033
    Likes Received:
    1,583
    Location:
    Southeastern CT and Boston Metro West
    I was drawing a blank on this legal principal. It just came to me: Entrapment by Estoppel

    from this site: Entrapment by estoppel

    "is affirmative defense known as entrapment by estoppel. Such a defense is available when a government official has actively misled a defendant into a reasonable belief that his or her charged conduct is legal. United States v. Neville, 82 F.3d 750, 761 (7th Cir. 1996)."
     
  13. mu2bdriver

    mu2bdriver NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    380
    Location:
    Central CT
    I’d be careful what you wish for. You don’t think that a Lamont administration will determine that the Bradford letter was issued in error or enforce the Kaminsky memorandum? The MA AG reinterpreted a law without recourse, and essentially tacit approval from the Legislature, and I have no doubt that Tong would do the same. I concur with RB’s view that BBN prebans were/are/will be a problem. Last week’s meeting proved that they would be toxic for FFL’s to possess. Other than electing other politicians, which after these two cycles have proven to be fruitless for CT, I don’t know what our best hope for clarity on this issue will be.
     
  14. dynotime

    dynotime

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is NO AR-15 TYPE right now, There Maybe at a hometown near you very soon. There is a AK-47 TYPE that is why you cannot own one in the State of Connecticut. When Type is Added to the AR platform it will be a new Standard for gun owners and the state police to follow. My Thoughts only.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2018
  15. dynotime

    dynotime

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    2
    mudbdriver you are Correct, We just have to wait and see what happens and I feel it will not be good for Gun Owners. Ned Ran on Gun Control, and he will Sign any and all new Gun Control Laws. Even a Full Ban on Semi Auto ( all will be listed as AW)

    My Thoughts only. What are yours
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2018

Share This Page