Registered NFA SBR/SBS immune to CT AWB?!

Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
49
Likes
1
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Hey guys, I've heard from reliable sources that in Massachusetts a registered SBR is immune to their state level Assault Weapons Ban. I've heard the same about CT law from a class 3 dealer that had a 5" barreled SBR that may or may not [wink] have been very obviously not AWB compliant. The dude said SBRs are immune to it. I didn't believe him until I heard it from a source that I knew from Mass. I just backed away slowly. Now I want to SBR everything. But... is it even true?

I understand the logic to thinking it isn't, because that's how I assumed it was. That a rifle is a rifle is a rifle and they all have to be ban complaint unless pre 1994. But it seems in Massachusetts that a SBR is not a rifle, it's an SBR. Aghhh, my brain hurts!
 
CTbuilder is refering to the CT AWB as far as select fire weapons go.

Thats right, in CT all select fire weapons, (Machineguns per NFA definition) must have their semi-auto disabled. Pretty funny huh? Only full-auto allowed in CT.
 
The AWB reads something like "unless the firearm was made before 1994", so that part it fails. But shit, I'm clueless as to whether an SBR is a "rifle". Maybe it's an SBR, and maybe it's a "pistol" if the barrel is under 12". If it is considered a "pistol" then you're still stuck with all the stupid rules.
 
The law exception reads ".............leaglly manufactured prior to September 13, 1994."

This only applies to weapons that are not banned by name.

NFA does not excempt you from the AWB. If you have a Benellli M1 SBS, it still has to be AWB compliant. If you have a postban AR15 SBR, it still has to be AWB compliant.
 
Wow, Twinsen, lots of bad info there.

First, here's a link to the statute, read it:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm

Second, you need to understand that the AWB is a state law and National Firearms Act (NFA) is a Federal law.

According to the NFA, any rifle with a stock that has a bbl under 16" long is a SBR.
A gun with no stock but a barrel of pretty much any length is a handgun and is not covered by the NFA.

So you could have a 15 " handgun (Thompson Contender) and a 10 inch rifle (AR 15 with any number of 10.5" uppers.

Your comment about a pistol and "all the stupid rules", is confusing. What rules?? The state process for transfering a handgun? Yes, you are right.

An SBR is a rifle, the R stands for Rifle. So an SBR is subject to all the STATE laws regarding transfer and ownership of rifles, AND all federal statutes regarding the transfer of Short Barreled Rifles as defined by the NFA. (You need to complete an ATF Form 4 and send it in with $200)

Finally, before you get the idea that you will just build yourself an AR pistol with 10" barrel and avoid the NFA hassles, be aware that the State of CT statute also has an evil features section that essentially bans the ownership of any AR based handgun.

The only loophole is to build it up on a pre-ban non-colt(with 1 exception) lower.

Don

p.s.
Sec. 53-202a
(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; or
 
Last edited:
Yeah bud, I know the laws. I just didn't know if an SBR was considered a "rifle". I know people with a brain consider it one, I was talking about the government.


Also, you might not have known, but anything with a barrel under 12" is considered a pistol by our state. The buttstock isn't important. That's only important with the federal definition of a rifle or pistol.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-27.htm

A rifle is any gun meant to be fired from the shoulder that has a rifled barrel.
http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/title53a/sec53a-3.html

So if you have an SBR with a barrel under 12", you'd have to comply with both the pistol and rifle sections of the AWB. That is, unless "SBR" magically isn't considered a rifle or pistol somehow OR if being a pistol trumps being a rifle. But there's no law that explains if either is true.
 
You are right. I stand corrected on the pistol definition.

Either way, again, you say "the government" leaving it ambiguous. You need to define what government you are refering to (State, Local, Federal?).

But back to your correction of my incorrect info and its ramifications.

The 12" bbl definition of a handgun in state of CT law means that if you were to build an otherwise compliant SBR on a post ban AR lower receiver it would be illegal in CT because it would be considered a pistol and would weigh enough to be considered an AW by state law. It would therefore be illegal.

Wow. I bet there are a lot of accidental felons out there.
By sheer dumb luck, my SBR ARs are built on pre-ban (non-colt) lowers so no issues for me.

Thanks again for setting me straight. PLEASE if you have good information, take the time to wordsmith it properly.
 
Once again. NFA does not exclude you from the AWB.

The pistol definition for CT is pretty rediculous though. CT should have adopted federal definitions for pistols and rifles.
 
The combination of the AWB and CT's non-standard definition of a pistol is a trap that many people could fall into.

It would be interesting to have my 10.5" SBR loaded in my car with me and see what happens.

Can you see it now?? "Honest officer, this is a pistol, ignore the Vltor stock!!!"

This is considered to be a handgun in CT!!!!! Crazy.

Don

A Handgun in the eyes of CT!!!!
DSC_2119.jpg
 
Another interesting twist. According to CGS, then if you were to sell a rifle with a bbl of less than 12" in CT, you would need to follow the procedure for the transfer of a handgun.

That means the buyer must posses a valid CT permit, and you need to call for an approval.

Hmm. I wonder how many LEO's even know this law.

Don
 
It's pretty funny stuff.

And to clarify to anybody that thinks I think NFA trumps CT AWB, I do not think that. What I am wondering is, does an SBR qualify as a "Rifle" in Connecticut. I always figured it would, and it looks like it would, but shit if I know. I'm not doing it, because there's no way to find out if it's legal. Still on the look for a pre-ban lower. Everybody builds them up for sale in this state as super custom guns that only one person somewhere is interested in, I just want to buy one to SBR for 9mm.
 
Last edited:
Not according to the law you sent me to.

The law is very clear. Any firearm with a bbl of 12" or less is considered to be a handgun.

Re pre-ban - look on sturmgewehr.com (I may have misspelled, google it)
 
Hey guys, I've heard from reliable sources that in Massachusetts a registered SBR is immune to their state level Assault Weapons Ban...

I know this is the CT section and don't want to confuse matters more... but your "reliable sources" in MA aren't that reliable...the MA AW ban is a copy of the old fed ban...if your sources were correct every gun store in the country would have had SBR's on their shelfs from 94-04 instead of "post ban" neutered guns, and every gun store in MA would still have SBR's on their shelfs instead of "post ban" neutered guns...
 
Hey guys, I've heard from reliable sources that in Massachusetts a registered SBR is immune to their state level Assault Weapons Ban.

That may or may not be true. That statement is based off a theory about a very narrow legal loophole/greyhole (based on definitions MA uses to describe different firearms) which may or may not pan out in a court of law... it's never really been tested. Hell, in MA even the AWB has never really been tested, either.

securityboy said:
I know this is the CT section and don't want to confuse matters more... but your "reliable sources" in MA aren't that reliable...the MA AW ban is a copy of the old fed ban...if your sources were correct every gun store in the country would have had SBR's on their shelfs from 94-04 instead of "post ban" neutered guns, and every gun store in MA would still have SBR's on their shelfs instead of "post ban" neutered guns...

Couple of pointers....

The MA ban only copies the core portion of the old Federal AWB. It doesn't implicitly attach all the other chunks of US code that functionally made up the AWB. (For example, legal position wise, it doesn't reference the magazine provenance standard specified in federal law. )

The real difference is that in the case of MA, how the state defines different classes of firearms somewhat conflicts with the federal definitions. That's what the MA loophole theory is based on. Doesn't mean it will pass a sniff test, though. (Assuming, of course, it will ever be tested at all, which is doubtful. )

-Mike
 
Last edited:
It's pretty funny stuff.

And to clarify to anybody that thinks I think NFA trumps CT AWB, I do not think that. What I am wondering is, does an SBR qualify as a "Rifle" in Connecticut. I always figured it would, and it looks like it would, but shit if I know. I'm not doing it, because there's no way to find out if it's legal. Still on the look for a pre-ban lower. Everybody builds them up for sale in this state as super custom guns that only one person somewhere is interested in, I just want to buy one to SBR for 9mm.


Of course an SBR counts as a rifle in CT. An SBR has a barrel length of less than 16." So from 15.99" all the way to 12.1" would be a rifle by full definition. Less than that is open to further interpretation. Possible that is would fall under both definitions. I think the argument can be made that if it has a stock it is a rifle, though. The only way a definitive answer will be issued is in court.

Easy solution - buy preban lowers.
 
I know this is the CT section and don't want to confuse matters more... but your "reliable sources" in MA aren't that reliable...the MA AW ban is a copy of the old fed ban...if your sources were correct every gun store in the country would have had SBR's on their shelfs from 94-04 instead of "post ban" neutered guns, and every gun store in MA would still have SBR's on their shelfs instead of "post ban" neutered guns...

Well, they wouldn't, because it's a lot more expensive. You can build a pre-ban gun on a $400 lower, or you can assemble an SBR just for the purpose of having pre-ban features. That's the cost of a lower, say $100, plus the $200 stamp, plus having to be Class 3 (ignore that), the cost of the upper, and having to keep that upper forever. With an SBR, you have to register an overall length and barrel length. So you keep the original stock and upper that were on it. You don't have to have them on the gun, but you have to have them on it. So instead of buying a $400 upper, you have to assemble a $1000 rifle with a $200 tax. People don't go around throwing $800 in the air.
 
Twinsen,
Agreed. The $200 you spend on a stamp is flushed down the toilet. You will never get it back. The $500 you spend on a pre-ban lower you will be able to get back on a sale, whereas a SBR'd post-ban lower is nearly valueless. (Who wants a used lower with someone else's name engraved on it for $300 (with stamp) when you can have a brand new one for $325)

The hassles you raised about taking a SBR out of state are also valid.

Your comments about having to keep the same upper and stock on a SBR greatly overstate the issue. When you do a form 1 you provide a bbl length and total length. There are varying thoughts about how to submit, but there is a general consensus that you submit at the shortest length you anticipate. Even still, if youwant to let the ATF know of a bbl or stock change, its simply a letter notifying them of the change. You are not asking their permission, merely notifying. Hand written with a first class stamp is fine.

But that doesn't change the fact that even if its legal, SBRing an AR lower is an ass backwards way of having evil features.
I've got my 3 pre-ban lowers, thats enough for me . . . for now.
 
wow! this is more than a bit confusing to a new Ct. resident but it's great stuff, thanks to all.

Just to confirm, if I have a non-colt, preban AR lower; I CAN LEGALLY put a 15.99"-12.1" barrel, full of evil features on it as long as it's SBR registered with the feds? Below 12" the same would apply as long as the buyer (me) has a valid pistol permit? Basically the state of Ct. doesn't care if I have a preban SBR with all the evil features, just the feds?
 
wow! this is more than a bit confusing to a new Ct. resident but it's great stuff, thanks to all.

Just to confirm, if I have a non-colt, preban AR lower; I CAN LEGALLY put a 15.99"-12.1" barrel, full of evil features on it as long as it's SBR registered with the feds? Below 12" the same would apply as long as the buyer (me) has a valid pistol permit? Basically the state of Ct. doesn't care if I have a preban SBR with all the evil features, just the feds?

That is not how I interpret it.

If it has a stock so it can be fired while held to the shoulder it is considered a rifle as best I can tell from reading all of the CT firearm laws.
 
wow! this is more than a bit confusing to a new Ct. resident but it's great stuff, thanks to all.

Just to confirm, if I have a non-colt, preban AR lower; I CAN LEGALLY put a 15.99"-12.1" barrel, full of evil features on it as long as it's SBR registered with the feds? Below 12" the same would apply as long as the buyer (me) has a valid pistol permit? Basically the state of Ct. doesn't care if I have a preban SBR with all the evil features, just the feds?

You are semi-right.

Your interpretation around bbl length is correct. Although nobody seems to know about the law that treats rifles under 12" as handguns. But you are technically correct.
Your interpretation that you need a pistol permit to own a rifle of less than 12" is also correct. It doesn't matter if you build a 10" gun with post ban or pre-ban features, you legally need to have a pistol permit to own a 10" gun.
Again, nobody pays attention to that law, but it IS the law.

BUT you will be illegal if you build a post ban SBR under 12". Follow me here. The state will then consider it to be a handgun. As a handgun it will most definitely weigh more than is allowed for a semi-auto handgun under the state of CT AWB. Again the chances of it every being enforced are nearly zero. But it is the law.

The feds do NOT care about evil features. The Federal AWB is over. The state of CT cares about evil features. This problem goes away with a pre-ban non-Colt lower.

In summary, just buy a pre-ban lower and stop worrying.
Get a pistol permit if you don't have one.

One other thing. I've gotten into pissing contests with LEOs asking for a copy of my "stamp". There is no law saying that I have to carry my form 1 or form 4, so I don't. If I go out of state I bring my 5320 , which is a federal approval to bring an NFA weapon out of state, as required by law. BUT , I've had friends questioned by LEOs about their NFA weapons. The second they pulled out their form 1 or form 4, the LEO backed right off. When they see the federal paperwork, they stop worrying. So, practically speaking, you could probably build a SBR under 10" on a postban lower and never get called on it. But why bother. Pay your money and do it right.

The thing to remember is to separate the legal from the practical discussion. By law I can carry my 10" AR around in my car loaded. Practically speaking, I don't intend to test that law.

Don
 
Last edited:
That is not how I interpret it.

If it has a stock so it can be fired while held to the shoulder it is considered a rifle as best I can tell from reading all of the CT firearm laws.

You are wrong. CT statutes SPECIFICALLY say that any firearm with a bbl less than 12 inches in length is legally considered to be a handgun.

This has other ramifications. You can't carry a loaded rifle in your car. But build yourself a 10.5" AR and you can (according to statute) carry it loaded, legally in your car.
I don't intend to test this, but it IS the law.

Don

Sec. 29-27. "Pistol" and "revolver" defined. The term "pistol" and the term "revolver", as used in sections 29-28 to 29-38, inclusive, mean any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches in length. (emphasis added by me)


Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. Except where different meanings are expressly specified, the following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:
(18) "Pistol" or "revolver" means any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches;
 
Last edited:
I'm chiming in a little late here, but there is a LOT of incorrect info here...

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a police sergeant in CT with more than 14 years of LE experience, a former US Army NCO with experience in Military Intelligence and Special Operations, and a self-proclaimed 'gun nut'...

I've recently acquired my first NFA purchase, a SBS (14" brl. 12ga. Mossberg 590A1), and I have officially been bitten by the 'NFA bug'! Now I'm interested in getting a SBR in 6.8 SPC, so I've been doing some research and came across this thread a few days ago...

I wanted to get the correct info from the proverbial horse's mouth, so I called the guys with the specialized criminal firearms law knowledge, the guys we CT LEOs call if we've got firearms questions...the CT Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) Special Permits and Firearms Unit (860-685-8290). I spoke with one if the State Troopers from the unit, I identified myself as a fellow LEO, and asked for clarification regarding SBRs and the CT AWB.

I was told that the barrel length of a SBR is irrelevant, that all SBRs no matter barrel length are considered rifles because they are designed and meant to be fired from the shoulder. Furthermore, I was told that it did not matter if a SBR was on a preban or postban lower, the only difference regarding preban and postban lowers is that postban lowered SBRs must be CT AWB compliant in that they must conform to the limits on 'evil features', whereas the preban lowered SBRs do not to conform. Otherwise SBRs if any barrel length are GTG in CT. So much for all that convoluted legalese bullshit language in the related statutes.
 
Snake eater,

First, let me say welcome aboard. This is a great forum with a lot of good people. Your broad knowledge base will be an asset here.

But . . I have to disagree with you.

Cops don't make the law. They enforce the law. CT statutes explicitly say that any firearm with a bbl less than 12" in length is considered a pistol or revolver.
I'm not trying to be combative, I'd like to have a civilized disagreement/debate on this. But the officer you got your info from is wrong. He may be right as to how things are enforced. But the law is not how the CSP chooses to enforce the statutes. Its whats written in the statutes.

I would be REALLY interested in what he says after you present him with a copy of the statute.

( Sec. 29-27. "Pistol" and "revolver" defined. The term "pistol" and the term "revolver", as used in sections 29-28 to 29-38, inclusive, mean any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches in length.)

Further, I've run this by Deputy Attorney General Steve Sarnoski and he felt that the law was pretty unambiguous in that it was all encompassing with respect to all firearms with a bbl of less than 12".

I agree completely (and my posts support this) with your pre/post ban analysis.

Don

p.s. I can't remember the guys name but there was a Great trooper in the Special Permits group. He had a polish last name. His sister also worked with the trafficking group out of Brainerd airport.
 
Last edited:
Don,

I've read all the pertinent statutes and this and many other posts on various forums about this topic and agree that the language of law is often a bit confusing.

Lawyers and politicians (not my favorite classes of people) are by nature an ambiguous, annoying, and confusing bunch, so it makes complete sense that they use legal language instead of plain speak and muck things up with complicated, confusing, and often half thought out ideas (the recent attempt to pass the hi-cap magazine ban is a good example). Other examples of ambiguous statutory language: CGS 53a-181 Breach of Peace states "actor engages in fighting or tumultuous behavior" and CGS 53a-167c Assault on Police Officer states "actor throws or hurls... any type of offensive or noxious liquids" - this legalese could be open to interpretation and has been 'stretched' at times to suit our needs.

It is the beat cop and local state's attorneys that end up interpreting these laws based upon the given situation, statutory language, case law, and sometimes common sense. When a police officer has a question regarding the application of a particular law, he consults another LE officer or agency with more specified knowledge of said area of law (ie: DEA - narcotics, FBI - terrorism, ICE - immigration, etc) and/or the prosecutor from his jurisdiction to determine how the State wishes to interpret said law and what deems a violation.

That being said, I spoke with a supervisor (sergeant) at the CT DPS Firearms Unit and obtained this info. I did bring up the various statutory language regarding the definitions of rifle vs pistol and the intricacies of CT's AWB and was advised of the above. As a police officer myself, if I had a firearms question to which I did not have a clear understanding or answer, I would call their unit for advice and utilize their specific knowledge in these matters. I strongly believe that most LEOs in CT would do the same. Therefore, I trust the info I was given.

There is always a chance that an overzealous prosecutor or an uninformed police officer may prosecute a case or make an arrest based upon their interpretation of the law. I agree that only case law would further clarify this issue. But in the meantime, I personally feel comfortable that if I buy a SBR with a barrel length less than 12" in CT, that I likely won't be arrested and prosecuted because the leading LE firearms experts in CT do not deem this as a violation of law. I appreciate that others may not feel the same.
 
And Don, thanks for the welcome. I look forward to some great debates and discussions on the forum and maybe someday meeting you and others in a training class or at a range for a competition or otherwise.
 
I wouldn't be willing to take a chance on the 12" rule myself. I handle my short barrel SBRs and MGs as pistols. The statutory language is very clear in my opinion.. but to each his own.
 
Snake,

I agree with everything you said. Except that this law relating to the definition of pistols and revolvers is totally unambiguous. It is however (upon further reading) modified with the statement "as used in sections 29-28 to 29-38".

So I need to go read those statutes. I'll report back here. **Done, see following post for how those statutes are affected by this definition**

What you have described above is a fairly common disconnect between what LEOs think the law is and what the statute actually reads.
When this happens the chain of events is typically that the person is arrested and then charges are dropped.

Go onto the web site opencarry.org and go to the CT forum. Its pretty interesting. As I'm guessing you know, there is no law in CT prohibiting open carry. People used to get arrested for this. Now they rarely even get hassled. Its clear that since the Goldberg case, which could end up costing the local PD hundreds of thousands of dollars, PDs have made sure that the rank and file know not to arrest someone for open carry.

Check this audio out: http://subtlehustle.org/NewHavenRudeOfficer/New Haven OC incident 4-2-2011.mp3
In it the NH cop aggressively confronts an open carrier. The OCer replies in a way that suggests he knows the law. The NH cop immediately backs down, with almost a pleading tone.
This would not have happened 2 years ago. The guy would have been face down on the sidewalk.

I'm not interested in a debate on OC. I'm just using this to illustrate that this disconnect between the actual statute and what most LEOs believe the statute to be can be corrected.

At various times I've been told by LEOs that:
1) It is illegal to carry a loaded handgun on my person in a car. Even with a pistol permit.
2) I need to show ID if requested by a LEO if I'm shooting rifles on private property in the company of the property owner.


This disconnect between what LEOs think and what the statute says happens all the time in CT.

Many LEOs understandably just want to "keep the peace" even if it means infringing on my rights.
I've had LEOs come onto a friends private property and tell us to stop shooting, that we were frightening neighbors. I've politely refused and told them that we were in compliance with all laws.
When threatened with arrest for breach of peace, I've essentially said that they were welcome to arrest me if they felt it necessary (I have permission from my wife to get arrested for this reason. Yes, I fear my wife), then reminded them that their right to trespass ended when they saw that that there was no unlawful activity going on, so please leave.

These days, when I'm going to shoot my submachine gun at a friends private land, I will call our local PD dispatch and give them a general time and location. The response is always "if someone calls, we have to respond". But its gone better since then because the cops at least know that they are not walking into an active shooter situation. In most cases the cops were courteous. Once one of them asked for "my paperwork" on the sub gun. I told him I wasn't required by law to carry it. It ended there.

Another time the officer immediately called dispatch and told them that "The lady is just going to have to deal with it". Nice guy.

Don

p.s. I don't want to give the impression that I'm anti LEO. I've had many positive encounters with LEOs. The local resident trooper was a godsend when I was divorcing my psycho ex-wife. But I always follow the law. If the law says I can't do something, I don't. Then I work to change the law if I don't like it. But I also expect to be left alone if I am in compliance with the law.
 
Last edited:
One other thing. If I ever make a statement regarding the law, I try to give citations.

This is a great resource for all CT firearms laws: http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm

Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents.
This, when combined with the above definition of a pistol or revolver means that someone must possess a valid CT Pistol permit if I want to sell them my 10.5" AR15. Further, I must follow all the other additional requirements associated with transferring a handgun when transferring a SBR with a bbl of less than 12".

Sec. 29-38. Weapons in vehicles. Penalty. Exceptions - In this an exception is given to pistols and revolvers if you have a permit to carry pistols and revolvers.
So this unambiguously says, when combined with the above definition that I can carry a loaded 10.5" AR15 in my car.

I don't intend to test this. But this is the law.

I think the intent of the less than 12" definition was to require additional oversight when transferring certain SBRs. It had the unintended consequence of allowing those same SBRs to be kept loaded in a motor vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't think we'll know what the law is until a judge tells us when somebody goes to jail or gets off. I plan on not going under 12" because there's no way to know if it's legal. If you're a cop, go ahead and do it, nobody will ever even ask you if it's legal because in reality it's a gun law and nobody actually cares. It's just an excuse to 'get somebody' that somebody else feels needs 'getting'. I recently had a man that I'd never met and who didn't introduce himself admit in detail to having an illegal machine gun bringback. Not with a 10 mile long pole, sir. People really pretend to care about illegal MGs because it sounds GREAT on the news.

I'm gonna go 16.5 inches and be done with it. If/when I leave CT I will buy the guns I want to buy.
 
Back
Top Bottom