Will 6-Position Tactical Stock ever be legal in CT?

If you buy a preban rifle (MUST NOT BE A COLT AR-15 or SPORTER), you can have all the evil features you want. Give Newington Gun Exchange a call. They usually have a few prebans in stock

No way.

Connecticut

CT - I am so happy that I left that place.

You're crazy for leaving! What's not to love about corrupt politicians, crumbling ancient infrastructures, high cost of living, high taxes, high energy costs, abundant decrepit abandoned structures, crime, etc???

I hear ya. Tryin' to escape myself... About the only thing I enjoy is the nice fall weather and beautiful leaves. But even then you have to clean those damned buggers up...

Edited to add: I see you moved to MN so I removed my pansy beyotching about cold winters.

If you buy a preban rifle (MUST NOT BE A COLT AR-15 or SPORTER), you can have all the evil features you want. Give Newington Gun Exchange a call. They usually have a few prebans in stock

Click to expand...

Hmm is that true? I'm unsure of the CT laws but if they are anything like the 94 AWB (or the unending MA AWB ban), why would a pre-ban Colt AR-15 or Sporter not be allowed? Pre-ban is pre-ban, no?

Dope

Dope, pre/post ban, doesn't matter. CT specifically lists the banned firearms by type/make and it doesn't matter when they were made. For example, ALL AK's in 7.62 are completely banned, regardless of manufacture date, unless they were registered in the narrow time frame when the AWB was enacted in the 90's. No AK-47s in 7.62 can be bought/sold/imported/etc into CT anymore. Strange, because I bought an AK in 5.45 at a CT gunshow and that was perfectly legal. So are full auto 7.62 AKs if you have the Class III stuff. A converted SKS in 7.62 that can take AK mags is also perfectly legal. Hmmm...same exact caliber/capacity/firepower as the evil AK, though...

mp510, I thought you could only have ONE "evil" feature on a rifle that uses detachable magazines. In the case of my AK, it's the pistol grip. So, no flash suppressor, folding/collapsible stock, bayonet lug, etc... At least that's how it was explained to me. I have no idea when my AK was built so maybe it's the pre-ban stuff only?

My folks still live in CT and want me to come back. Happily, I've been corrupted by Washington. I'll only visit CT, I'll live in the Pacific Northwest.

Even though there are some New England states with pretty pro gun attitudes, especially Maine and Vermont, you couldn't pay me enough to go back after I finally leave. One thing that's universal about ALL of NE is the high cost of living, high energy costs, and frickin' TAXES, TAXES, TAXES!!! Not sure about all of NE, but some states have a lot of high crime areas and VERY corrupt politics/politicians. Idiot politicians, too. Uncle Ted, anyone? Not technically NE, but Gov Spitzer of the fine state of NY? The list goes on and CT has it's wonderful share of "players", too. Heck our current Gov is only in office because the last one was jailed for federal charges.

Not technically NE, but Gov Spitzer of the fine state of NY?

Click to expand...

We gun owners here in the great state of NY cannot tell you how overjoyed we are to see Spitzer eat crow.

What if it is not an AK, and say, a Saiga in 7.62?

My complex is acting up again... Thank God for worse States, so I a can feel better about mine.

Hopefully one day we'll all be free.

I wonder just how the whole assault weapon ban in CT got rolling. I mean, I just don't ever recall that it was that big of a problem. The urban areas always had their problems but exactly how did the whole assault weapon ban thing roll around?
Some guys I have talked to say that it is easy to get an illegal AK-47 if you really wanted one. You just have to know the right people.

Politicians scoring easy points instead of addressing the hard perennial problems.
I agree that CT puts the screws of taxes on you hard. The state has some of the most overpaid government workers out there. I say start slashing salaries in state government. How about that for a start?

k_dawg, Saigas had to be registered in 2003. Maybe CONN AK will chime in as I was discussing this with him on an AK forum and he's a member here, too.

If Heller goes our way, how about going after it via a combined 14th Amendment challenge? For example, you could find a petite woman, short guy, and possibly a dwarf for plaintiffs, then file a suit stating that it's discriminatory to prohibit stocks which can be adjusted to a length they can easily use.

Add a wheelchair-bound plaintiff to the roster (or anyone else with a medical condition where a full-length stock might be unusable) and stack an Americans with Disabilities Act challenge on top. Likewise, someone with advanced carpal tunnel/RSI or arthritis may have standing against the ban on ergonomic pistol grips.

The antis have been thinking outside the box to come up with creative excuses to ban things for too long. Perhaps it's time we turn the tables on them?

Perhaps it's time we turn the tables on them?

Click to expand...

I agree, it's time to start banning all the damn bans.

I say start slashing salaries in state government. How about that for a start?

Click to expand...

I'm on it! I'll make sure when I cut the paychecks this week, everybody in CT gets less...

Seriously, we are outnumbered here. I want a 6 position stock on my Bushy as well... I want a lot of laws here repealed. Now they are going after microstamping.

I call and I write, and none of these elected officials return letters or calls.

I wonder just how the whole assault weapon ban in CT got rolling. I mean, I just don't ever recall that it was that big of a problem. The urban areas always had their problems but exactly how did the whole assault weapon ban thing roll around?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, CT likes to follow some of CA's bad laws. There is a core group of anti-gunners in the legislature that like to propose whatever the anti-gun groups are proposing at the time. Back in '93, 'assault weapons' were all the rage & finally led to the federal ban the next year. There are also too many ignorant gun owners who don't get involved.

Note that anti-gun representative Lawlor is trying to keep the proposed microstamping bill alive.

The pre-ban loophole was pointed out to me by a friend. There is a sticky posted over at arfcom in the New England section of the hometown forum that lists the details.

So... you have a question about assault weapons laws in CT. Read the following carefully. If you do, you'll likely come to the conclusion that there are some vague and inconsistent language in them, but like a lot of laws, that's the way they are written.

Some good info here:

http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&Q=294488&dpsNav=|

But on to the laws- they are quite wordy, but you can read the text using Google or another search engine to find the laws by the statute numbers:

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition

Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony.

Sec. 53-202d. Certificate of possession of assault weapon. Certificate of transfer of assault weapon to gun dealer. Circumstances where possession of assault weapon authorized.

Sec. 53-202e. Relinquishment of assault weapon to law enforcement agency.

Sec. 53-202f. Transportation of assault weapon. Authorized actions of gun dealer.

Sec. 53-202g. Report of theft of assault weapon.

Sec. 53-202h. Temporary transfer or possession of assault weapon for transport to out-of-state event

Sec. 53-202i. Circumstances in which manufacture or transportation of assault weapons not prohibited.

Sec. 53-202j. Commission of a class A, B or C felony with an assault weapon: Eight-year nonsuspendable sentence

Sec. 53-202l. Armor piercing and incendiary .50 caliber ammunition: Definition. Sale or transfer prohibited. Class D felony.

Sec. 53-202m. Circumstances when assault weapons exempt from limitations on transfers and registration requirements.

Sec. 53-202n. Possession of specified assault weapon permitted under certain circumstances. Notice requirement.

Sec. 53-202o. Affirmative defense in prosecution for possession of specified assault weapon.

Ugly set of laws, isn't it?

I don't see the laws allowing an adjustable stock. Just my interpretation, but then again, I'm not too anxious to get hit with a felony. According to the letter I saw that the state police gave to their troopers who own their own patrol rifle which the state police allow them to use on duty, the answer is "No". Likewise, I think they closed any loophole allowing new assault weapons from coming in to the state. There may be something that allows someone to register a pre-ban rifle, but I don't see it.

If Heller goes our way, how about going after it via a combined 14th Amendment challenge? For example, you could find a petite woman, short guy, and possibly a dwarf for plaintiffs, then file a suit stating that it's discriminatory to prohibit stocks which can be adjusted to a length they can easily use.

Add a wheelchair-bound plaintiff to the roster (or anyone else with a medical condition where a full-length stock might be unusable) and stack an Americans with Disabilities Act challenge on top. Likewise, someone with advanced carpal tunnel/RSI or arthritis may have standing against the ban on ergonomic pistol grips.

Click to expand...

There is no law that says stock must be a certain length, it just must be fixed (if you have any other AW features). You could use an RRA Entry Tactical stock, or buy a pre-pinned telestock, set to a LOP that fits you. You can have 1 feature- a pistol grip and detachable magazine is acceptable.

Dope, pre/post ban, doesn't matter. CT specifically lists the banned firearms by type/make and it doesn't matter when they were made.

Click to expand...

We have 2 bans- the name ban and the feature ban. The name ban bans the Colt AR-15 and Colt Sporter, and AK-47 type. The feature ban prohibits semi-automatic rifles made after
13 SEP 94 from being made with a detachable magazine and more than 1 AW feature. Non-Colts (and the "Colt Carbine") made before 13 SEP 94 can technically have all the evil feautres. They command a serious premium. Rifles made after 13 SEP 94 must comply with the feature ban requirement. Complicated, huh?

mp510 wrote

Non-Colts (and the "Colt Carbine") made before 13 SEP 94 can technically have all the evil feautres. They command a serious premium. Rifles made after 13 SEP 94 must comply with the feature ban requirement. Complicated, huh?

Click to expand...

They command no premium, because pre-bans may not be transferred to other mere serfs in CT. They may only be sold to a dealer, rendered inoperable or turned in to the police.

These rules may not protect anyone's life, liberty or property, but nonetheless, if we didn't have rules for the sake of having rules, we would instantly devolve into baboons and slake our hitherto latent bloodlust by sinking our ravenous teeth into the flesh of warm, freshly-killed kittens. All regulation exists for your safety or the furtherance of the State, and are prescribed by the wisdom of Those Who Know Better. Embrace all rules. Not because they actually protect people's lives or property. Nay, embrace them because they're the rules.

-Sans Authoritas

mp510 said:

There is no law that says stock must be a certain length, it just must be fixed (if you have any other AW features). You could use an RRA Entry Tactical stock, or buy a pre-pinned telestock, set to a LOP that fits you. You can have 1 feature- a pistol grip and detachable magazine is acceptable.

Click to expand...

I know, but this is where you start picking it apart with whichever test the Supreme Court decides on.

Being that the "reason" for the ban on adjustable stocks is that it makes them "easy to conceal," the fact that they allow such a stock to be pinned in its shortest configuration would hardly pass a rational basis test. Let alone strict scrutiny.

On top of that, you could challenge the law as being Constitutionally vague. If one is allowed to buy the stock then pin it, or buy a pre-pinned stock, how is any ordinary person ( in the strictly legalese sense) supposed to "understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement?" (Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)) Likewise, would an ordinary person be expected to realize that an adjustable stock stuck at any given length is legal when it's illegal to move it to that length after assembly?

And what exactly is pre-pinned? If a person separates the upper and lower, can they adjust the stock then? Or do they have to remove the buffer tube altogether before adjusting it? How exactly would one prove what state of assembly the receiver was in when they adjusted it? Would this not encourage arbitrary enforcement as per the void-for-vagueness doctrine?

because pre-bans may not be transferred to other mere serfs in CT. They may only be sold to a dealer, rendered inoperable or turned in to the police.

Click to expand...

WRONG! Named assault weapons (ie. The Colt AR-15 or Colt Sporter) may not be transferred. Weapons that were made prior to 13 SEP 94, and are banned only by features and not by name (or in the instance of Tommy's, Macs or AK's--> type), they may be transferred. Thus, non Colt prebans do command a lot of premium.

And what exactly is pre-pinned?

Click to expand...

Haveing the telestock pinned into a fixed position before you buy it. There is some dealers and stock mfgrs that will do it, and at least one CT manufacturer that will do it. You do need to make sure you don't ever have the parts to make an illegal AW on hand.

If a person separates the upper and lower, can they adjust the stock then? Or do they have to remove the buffer tube altogether before adjusting it? How exactly would one prove what state of assembly the receiver was in when they adjusted it? Would this not encourage arbitrary enforcement as per the void-for-vagueness doctrine?

Click to expand...

The law is pretty clear- you can not posess components to make an AW. You CAN NOT adjust the length on the stock- fixed is fixed- one position.

I know, but this is where you start picking it apart with whichever test the Supreme Court decides on.

Click to expand...

The Connecticut State Constitution is even clearer about the individual right concept than the Second Ammendment, and the State Supreme Court has ruled that the AWB is constitutional. (It says something to the effect of "every citizen has the right to bear arms for the defense of himself or the state")

If one is allowed to buy the stock then pin it

Click to expand...

To clarify, you can not buy, own, or posess the stock, unpinned, if you own or possess a weapon which it could be fitted to if coposession would be an assault weapon.

Silly. Sometimes, when I look at CT legislation, I feel like I am in a Twighlight Zone episode...