CT Assault Rifle Loophole...bullpups?


PDA






N003k
April 7, 2013, 03:31 PM
I'm undertaking the thrilling activity of reading through our new law...and discovered what loops like might end up being a loophole for bullpups IF they have barrels to bring them over 30"


EDIT TO ADD: Apparently never mind, I hadn't quite gotten to the definition of a 'Forward Pistol Grip' that pretty much covers anything that lets you hold the gun two handed. If that's modified, this might be applicable, until then though, it seems it's a moot point.

Assault Rifle Definition:

(i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
(I) A folding or telescoping stock;
(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, 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) A forward pistol grip;
(IV) A flash suppressor; or
(V) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; or

(ii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the ability to accept more than ten rounds; or

(iii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than thirty inches; or



The interesting part is how II is later described...

"(3) "Action of the weapon" means the part of the firearm that loads, fires and ejects a cartridge, which part includes, but is not limited to, the upper and lower receiver, charging handle, forward assist, magazine release and shell deflector;"

All of that is in Section 25 of the bill. It sounds like as long as the bullpup is at least 30" (The FS2000 is 29.29" stock, slightly extended "Muzzle break" should bring it over easily.) It seems like it should be legal...after all, the grip ISN'T directly below what they define as the action. Am I wrong here? Crazy? Desperate?

If you enjoyed reading about "CT Assault Rifle Loophole...bullpups?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Solo
April 7, 2013, 03:42 PM
What about violating the forward pistol grip clause?

N003k
April 7, 2013, 03:44 PM
Good point...hadn't quite gotten there yet. With any luck, they'll have to go back and rewrite that bit since it pretty much prevents a rifle from being a rifle if it's semi automatic...guess I got a bit too excited.

Solo
April 7, 2013, 03:47 PM
Well, how do they define it?

N003k
April 7, 2013, 03:55 PM
"(6) "Forward pistol grip" means any feature capable of functioning as a grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;" Hadn't quite gotten there yet...really is sounds like basically, if you can hold the gun two handed, it counts as having a forward pistol grip.

Solo
April 7, 2013, 04:06 PM
If it covers everything, it is time for a lawsuit. If it only applies to a pistol type forward grip, it may allow you to own a bullpup. Pity they seem so expensive.

Also, would not want to be the test case... if you know what I mean.

deadin
April 7, 2013, 04:29 PM
Actually, on a bull-pup the action is back by the buttplate. Wouldn't both hands and all of the fingers, including the trigger finger, be ahead of the action and not directly below it??:p

leadcounsel
April 7, 2013, 04:48 PM
Vote 'em out and change the laws, move, or give up your rights. Them's your choices.

razorback2003
April 7, 2013, 05:25 PM
Litigation seems to be your only option. Also encourage all the major gun makers to leave Conn. Conn is so heavily Dem with some R's joining in on gun control there does not seem to be any hope short of court action in front of a Constitutional leaning judge.

CTPistol
April 7, 2013, 05:57 PM
Both of my "Republican" reps voted FOR these laws. Total losers. I called him a traitor coward and assured him not only will I vote against him but I will actively campaign against him.

The one question I told him I want to hear back from him on is how does he think my kids are safer now? No answer.


Here he is:

Following the Thursday morning vote on legislation aimed at enhancing mental health services, gun violence prevention and school safety, I would like to explain why I ultimately supported the bill.

After reviewing the policies, I determined the provisions regarding gun purchase, possession and use are constitutional as they do not ban an entire class of weapons nor do they confiscate any weapons or ammunition lawfully purchased. The grandfather provision of the bill will allow everyone to keep and use their large capacity ammunition magazines and prospectively banned assault weapons provided they declare them by January 1.

Had Republicans not participated in the negotiation process, legislative Democrats would have included gun confiscation, egregious taxes on ammunition and universal weapon registration for law-abiding citizens to the bill. By entering the fight to protect the rights of citizens and balancing the discussion, we were able to agree on a much more sensible compromise.

For those of you who own firearms, I voted to protect your right to keep them under the grandfather provision. While this is not a perfect bill, it is a much more reasonable compromise than what legislative Democrats were proposing prior to bipartisan negotiations.

Representative Richard Smith (R???)

alsaqr
April 7, 2013, 08:22 PM
Had Republicans not participated in the negotiation process, legislative Democrats would have included gun confiscation, egregious taxes on ammunition and universal weapon registration for law-abiding citizens to the bill. By entering the fight to protect the rights of citizens and balancing the discussion, we were able to agree on a much more sensible compromise.

For those of you who own firearms, I voted to protect your right to keep them under the grandfather provision. While this is not a perfect bill, it is a much more reasonable compromise than what legislative Democrats were proposing prior to bipartisan negotiations.


Reminds me of a TV interview with an Army field grade officer during the Vietnam war. When asked why the village was destroyed the officer responded: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

F-111 John
April 7, 2013, 09:16 PM
For those of you who own firearms, I voted to protect your right to keep them under the grandfather provision. While this is not a perfect bill, it is a much more reasonable compromise than what legislative Democrats were proposing prior to bipartisan negotiations.
In other words, for those of you who own firearms, I voted to take away only most of your rights, not all of them.

The Democrats have become experts in demanding the moon and the stars, then expecting that "compromise" will give them half of what they asked for, which is the half they really wanted in the first place.

N003k
April 8, 2013, 09:27 AM
Compromise- We take some of your rights now while getting together a database of compliant individuals, and take away the rest later when we know there will be public fervor on our side again.

SKILCZ
April 8, 2013, 09:52 AM
Compromise- We take some of your rights now while getting together a database of compliant individuals, and take away the rest later when we know there will be public fervor on our side again.

And exploit the deaths of children to do so with a bunch of unconstitutional provisions that would not have stopped Newtown.

wildbilll
April 8, 2013, 09:55 AM
The rep's reasoning is flawed. There was a bill that was to be voted on. However it ended up with the language it had is irrelevant. Once it came to the floor for the final vote, he should have voted NO.

Plus, the guns are grandfathered. What about the NEW people coming of age that might want to exercise their rights? He threw them under the bus.

JRH6856
April 9, 2013, 06:55 PM
Actually, on a bull-pup the action is back by the buttplate. Wouldn't both hands and all of the fingers, including the trigger finger, be ahead of the action and not directly below it??:p
"(3) "Action of the weapon" means the part of the firearm that loads, fires and ejects a cartridge, which part includes, but is not limited to, the upper and lower receiver, charging handle, forward assist, magazine release and shell deflector;"

I'm guessing that would be construed to include the trigger and anything that connects it to the action to release the sear and "fires...a cartridge". These are all contained in what could be construed as the "lower receiver."

N003k
April 9, 2013, 07:14 PM
While that interpretation is possible...it really sounds like it's a stretch, by the same logic the barrel itself can be construed as the action...their definition really seems to center around the bolt, breach, and that small area. I suppose only time will tell though.

zoom6zoom
April 9, 2013, 08:54 PM
"(6) "Forward pistol grip" means any feature capable of functioning as a grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;"
Hell, I could interpret that to mean a wooden foreend or almost any rifle stock.If you can hold onto it, it's a grip.

JRH6856
April 9, 2013, 09:37 PM
Hell, I could interpret that to mean a wooden foreend or almost any rifle stock.If you can hold onto it, it's a grip.
That is the way it reads.

If you enjoyed reading about "CT Assault Rifle Loophole...bullpups?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!