Connecticut Preparedness

[J]

Why is it that you can pay a tax stamp for a fully-automatic suppressed rifle that has a pistol grip, detachable mag, and a folding/collapsible stock, but its illegal to have the all of the above but instead of suppressed you have a flash suppressor? Reason why im asking is my SIG-556 with a flash suppressor and of course a detachable mag and pistol grip is sitting at my parents house in another state. I bought it in Hawaii and moved here and had to move it out to my parents house because of the state law. I was at a shooting range with a guy who had a fully-auto, suppressed "machine gun" with a folding stock and pistol grip. Then, I thought about it........whats the difference besides a $200.00 tax stamp?

[J]

My bad............"but its illegal to have the all of the above but instead of suppressed you have a flash suppressor?"..................I meant muzzle brake not flash suppressor.

[GreggAndrews]

The thing is, the only F/A you can own in CT is F/A ONLY... no selector switch, no happy button. Safe, or full. You have to pay the $200 tax on THAT to start with.


Then you want the suppressor? Pay another $200, and wait some more.

I still don't know about the whole collapsible stock/pistol grip/etc. thing though.

Flash suppressors are just... I don't know why they're illegal, but it makes me want to slam my head repeatedly, into the nearest solid object, EVERY time I think about it.

I think they figure someone that spends that much money JUST to have it... before even spending money on the gun itself, is someone who isn't prone to make trouble with it. Flawed logic, either way.


*This is the same State that thinks that a squeaky-clean 19yr. old, of good moral character (ask EVERYONE in my community) is criminally inclined, homicidal maniac for just wanting a single shot .22 pistol... but there is no problem with me purchasing a black powder revolver, with NO paperwork/restrictions. Either that, or I can go out and buy *any* CT compliant AR15, without so much as a peep. Welcome to CT... do yourself a favor and move.

[nvisn]

The CT AWB only applies to SA weapons.

[snakeeater332]

If you use a pre-ban lower, then you can have all the 'evil features' banned by CT's AWB that do not require a NFA tax stamp. Or you could try a thumb-hole stock and maintain your flash suppressor. Muzzle brakes are ok in CT.

In CT your only allowed a total no more than 2 'evil features' on post-ban assault rifles, usually with AR models you already have the detachable box magazine and the pistol grip, so anything else is a 'no go.'

[Erik]

If you use a pre-ban lower, then you can have all the 'evil features' banned by CT's AWB that do not require a NFA tax stamp.

Can you (or anybody) point me to the statute or rule that says pre-AWB assault weapons are allowed if purchased today? In looking at the relevant statutes on line I got the impression this only applies if I actually owned the weapon pre-ban and I got a certificate registering it in time. I can't find a source for the proposition that I can buy a pre-ban weapon now and be ok with more than two evil features. Thanks.

[JohnFH]

it's called the "G" law, I don't have the section in front of me, section G exempts firearms made before the eviel date in Sept of 94.

[ketel1]

Why is it that you can pay a tax stamp for a fully-automatic suppressed rifle that has a pistol grip, detachable mag, and a folding/collapsible stock, but its illegal to have the all of the above but instead of suppressed you have a flash suppressor? Reason why im asking is my SIG-556 with a flash suppressor and of course a detachable mag and pistol grip is sitting at my parents house in another state. I bought it in Hawaii and moved here and had to move it out to my parents house because of the state law. I was at a shooting range with a guy who had a fully-auto, suppressed "machine gun" with a folding stock and pistol grip. Then, I thought about it........whats the difference besides a $200.00 tax stamp?

The only thing i can think of is the the guy at the range next to had a pre-ban firearm. I was under the impression that reguardless of a NFA item tax stamp or not if it has a post ban lower the evil features are still a not go. I thought NFA and AWB were two separate things. The only way for him to have a fully auto supressed weapon with a collapsable stock is if he had a NFA stamp and it was a pre-ban. Someone please correct me if im wrong. Thanks.

[Erik]

OK - This looks to be the catch all that allows "assault weapons" with more than two evil features (but not select-fire weapons).

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.

For reference, 53-202a contains the definition of the term "assault weapon". Subsection (3) of 53-202a contains the list of evil features and subsection (4) essentially provides that an assemblage of parts that will quickly convert a firearm into a subsection (3) assault weapon is also an assault weapon.

I haven't done a survey of the rest of the statutes, rules or AG opinions, so no guaranty from me that there isn't something else out there that undercuts this.

[Erik]

These may also be of interest:

PA 01-130 (amended 53-202a to add the list of evil features and added what became 53-202m): http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/act/Pa/2001P ... 402-PA.htm

OLR Report on PA 01-130: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0576.htm

[Erik]

These may also be of interest:

PA 01-130 (amended 53-202a to add the list of evil features and added what became 53-202m): http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/act/Pa/2001P ... 402-PA.htm

OLR Report on PA 01-130: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0576.htm

[Erik]

BTW, I'm not sure why, but I can't edit or delete my own posts in this forum. Mods, feel free to delete this post and the first post I entered with the defective url tags. Sorry about the mess.

Erik

[GreggAndrews]

Can I just interject here?

We're all putting more thought into this, than our legislators did.