I have a question about the AR registration law passed in both CT and NY in 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
533
Location
Arkansas
Even though the title mentions law, this is really not a legal question, but if the mods disagree they can movie it.

We all know that after the New Town, CT school mass shooting that the state of Connecticut and subsequently New York state (SAFE act) passed laws banning the sale of what they term "AR's" and as part of the new law required all residents who already possessed such firearms to register them. The registrations had dead lines for meeting these requirements, which if not met could result in confiscation, possible felony charges, fines, and jail time.


Subsequent articles published in both local and national news print media gave the actual figures of both the number of people and the number of firearms that were registered around a year after the dead-lines to comply with the new laws. Below is the best info I could gather from several news sources for both states.

Connecticut registration as of 2015
Number of individuals---27,952*
Number of "AR's"---------51,763
Estimated AR's in circulation----350,000 (data compiled from NICS data and estimates)
*note: I could not find a number of individuals, so I estimated it using the New York ratio of individuals to guns. It was 54% or roughly an average of two firearms per person. One person owning 11 easily makes up for 9 other individuals only owning 1.

Source July 2015: https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/More-than-51-000-assault-rifles-registered-in-6487021.php


New York
registration under the SAFE act.
Number of individuals----23,847
Number of "AR's"----------44,485
Estimated AR's in circulation in NY state----1,000,000

Source from 2015-- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...s-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730


Essentially, if we are to believe the estimates of the total AR's in each state, then 85% of all the "AR:s" in Connecticut were not registered and 95,5% were not registered in N.Y. as if 2015,

Using the same 54% as the number of residents this represents--yields that approximately 161,000 CT and 516,000 NY residents did not comply with the law..

I simply could not find any pertinent news or info dated later than 2015.


Most information, which talks about both the bans and registry requirement--as seen in second article--state that local and state LEO's either have not been directed to, or are not inclined to
do anything about this--not that they could anyway since they essentially have no clue who
all of the non-compliant state residents are. There are other locality reasons mentioned in the article as to why no one is being prosecuted if discovered in New York state.

Of course the people who passed these unenforceable laws don't want to talk about the massive failure of compliance which may in turn show that the registration requirement or lack to comply with it had no effect what so ever on reducing crime. New York even had to be sued under the public information laws just to get the numbers released.

Anybody feel free to assess or criticize my methodology. I threw this together pretty quickly--mostly just to show the status as of 2015. The one real wild card is the estimated totals of AR's claimed to have possibly existed in each state at the time the laws were passed. Those numbers seemed high to me, having read some some of the totals estimated for the entire country. Unfortunately, the total number that exists presently seems to be a fairly big mystery.

However, anybody here from either of those states have any more current updates on the status of those registration figures ?
 
I pretty much found the same figures that you had. Just to throw in another variable, we have 'NY-compliant' 'AR's. I wonder how they are counted since they would not need to be turned in:

ar15ny12.jpg
 
I pretty much found the same figures that you had. Just to throw in another variable, we have 'NY-compliant' 'AR's. I wonder how they are counted since they would not need to be turned in:

View attachment 780738


Very valid variable.

In CA, tons of people neutered their ARs by either changing the stocks or making the mag comply with the "fixed mag" definition so they wouldn't have to register them as "AWs".
 
The NY safe act is a joke, We took the pistol grip off on his AR and installed a wedge, and we pinned the stock so it is fixed. It's not required to be registered now. Much safer than before??? And yes, the estimates are that under 10% were registered.
 
This is a very important point to remember -- "bans" don't really ban weapons, they just drive them underground. I think that even the antigunners realize this. They are playing the long game. They are ostensibly attacking the guns themselves, but in reality they are attacking the gun culture. (No advertising of guns, no retail outlets, no public ranges, no portrayal of guns in movies, etc.) Their hope is that after a couple of generations, interest in guns will diminish, so that only criminals will have guns (and they can be dealt with as found). I believe the antigunners are wrong in this assessment. It's been shown time and time again, that when gun ownership is threatened, people rush out and buy guns. If guns are entirely outlawed, there will be a thriving underground trade in them, much like what happened in alcohol Prohibition. This is an experiment that is bound to fail in the long run, because guns are ingrained in the American experience. This is not like Australia or Great Britain.
 
Kudos to the 90% that didn't register.
By registering them, does that not assure that the registered guns are grandfathered? (I assume that that's the case, although I'm not that familiar with the NY SAFE Act.)

The question is this -- do you not comply at the registration stage, or do you not comply at the confiscation stage (if and when that comes)?

I'm old enough to remember the 1968 MG amnesty. People did in fact have unregistered MGs then, particularly DEWATs. I recall some heated arguments by older folks at the local gun shop (including some WW2 veterans with bring-backs) about the wisdom of complying with the amnesty registration. Some were convinced that it was just a prelude to taking their guns, and so they refused to register. Others did so. In hindsight, we know the outcome. The registered MGs are worth a fortune, while the unregistered ones are worthless contraband. Something to consider going forward.
 
By registering them, does that not assure that the registered guns are grandfathered? (I assume that that's the case, although I'm not that familiar with the NY SAFE Act.)

The question is this -- do you not comply at the registration stage, or do you not comply at the confiscation stage (if and when that comes)?

I'm old enough to remember the 1968 MG amnesty. People did in fact have unregistered MGs then, particularly DEWATs. I recall some heated arguments by older folks at the local gun shop (including some WW2 veterans with bring-backs) about the wisdom of complying with the amnesty registration. Some were convinced that it was just a prelude to taking their guns, and so they refused to register. Others did so. In hindsight, we know the outcome. The registered MGs are worth a fortune, while the unregistered ones are worthless contraband. Something to consider going forward.

The registered guns are only worth a lot because there was not confiscation. If the government decided to confiscate, the registration would make it easy to raid each home and take them.

So while nothing happened THEN. Nothing is in place to say an anti-2nd Amendment administration such as the last one or such as the current Governor of Va, CA, etc from doing it.

Hence, I'm against registration and such laws as I've talked to too many anti gun folks over the last few years and they're getting bolder and bolder and won't stop until confiscation occurs. In fact, they feel it's their DUTY to take our guns away. But their alllies and some on our side spread the lie that this isn't so while they gain strength and support such as what's happening now. (we went from almost getting National Conceal carry, to being back on the defense following Vegas and Florida)
 
In CA, registered AW can not be sold or transferred in the state; only to outside the state.

That put a big crinkle in the value side of the argument of which the value side the arguement is not really relevant AT ALL to the main topic of 2A Rights.

I don't know about NY and the others.
 
Hence, I'm against registration and such laws as I've talked to too many anti gun folks over the last few years and they're getting bolder and bolder and won't stop until confiscation occurs.
You are right. I'm against registration too, but to me, the question will be what to do if and when a NY-style registration scheme is enacted. It's not as simple as just refusing to comply.

The anitgunners may want to confiscate, but they're going to be up against practical realities (such as paying compensation). Plus, they still have to deal with the 2nd Amendment (however that's interpreted). So, they may very well end up with something less than confiscation.
If the government decided to confiscate, the registration would make it easy to raid each home and take them.
What happens if they "raid each home" and find no guns to confiscate? Do they jail millions of people? Or, suppose people turn in their AR lower receivers, but then turn right around and finish the 80% lowers that they've been hoarding? Confiscation is easier said than done.
 
Picture the US military and/ or LE positioned rank and filed accross from a mass of armed dissidents; emergency lights flashing, loud speakers blaring, news cameras rolling, etc. Now take this scene and multiply it thousands of times across the country - principled Constitutional ugliness!
 
No one I know registered. Most folks just pinned the stock and put a spur grip on their gun making it compliant so they can take it to a public range,leaving all the "fun" stuff at home.

Also need to consider many cops don't support the safe act and turn a blind eye to things such as to a pistol grip on an ar15, or a fore grip,or adjustable stock. Im not saying people havent got busted for non compliants guns. But to be honestly is a complete joke. I could see them using it as an additional charge for someone they picked up breaking another law such as domestic problems or drugs.

I also don't think they would do a mass confiscation .That would take alot of man power and people would get hurt.

But honestly the safe act is a joke. Put into play by an idiot Governor. He's crooked, thinks that NYC IS New York state and doesnt see how much up here is different from down there. Its a different world up here, and even more so the further north and west you go from Albany.....That dude can go sit on a hammer.....
 
Last edited:
Picture the US military and/ or LE positioned rank and filed accross from a mass of armed dissidents; emergency lights flashing, loud speakers blaring, news cameras rolling, etc. Now take this scene and multiply it thousands of times across the country - principled Constitutional ugliness!
That would never happen in an antigunner's wildest dreams. Besides, that's not how it would go down even if it ever came to confiscation. People would be caught one at a time when they came to the attention of police for other, unrelated matters, etc. Kids would blab to their friends about "daddy's gun," neighbors would report gunfire at a neighboring farm, and so on. The effect, as I've said before, would be to drive guns underground. To the antis, if guns can't be seen, they may as well not exist. (That's exactly the pattern we see in Europe.)
 
Following a school shooting with a rifle in Canada, they passed a national registration law for rifle and shotguns.
It was in effect for 17 years, cost more than projected, and did not aid in crime control. Hint: criminals did not register their long guns.
During that time and at that expense, they could have fully funded 2,000 additional police (at a training, equipment, salary, benefits cost of $70,000 per officer per year).
Also during that time, less than half of the civilian rifles and shotguns were registered, and Canadian gun owners held rallies where they burned registration forms.
Finally a conservative administration repealed it as a useless expense, but the liberal minority lamented that the registration law was passed as a memorial to the victims of the school massacre and should have been kept for that reason.
 
So registered guns can be taken to the range and shot no? Unregistered have to remain hidden no? Seems to me .gov is legislating behavior first and foremost.
 
Confiscation is easier said than done.

True But they only have to do some confiscation. Raid some people, make big examples out of them, and scare most others to comply. Repeat raids, but make the punishment more severe and well known, repeat until most of the goal is achieved.

It's a technique that has been used for centuries.

It's one of the reasons the left doesn't want us to learn history, and why history is taught at such a cursory level now that students have no idea that things like this have happened in many civilizations.
 
True But they only have to do some confiscation. Raid some people, make big examples out of them, and scare most others to comply. Repeat raids, but make the punishment more severe and well known, repeat until most of the goal is achieved.

It's a technique that has been used for centuries.

It's one of the reasons the left doesn't want us to learn history, and why history is taught at such a cursory level now that students have no idea that things like this have happened in many civilizations.

I don't believe for a second it would ever go down like that. Just finding the people that are willing to violate The Constitution would be difficult and more than likely would end up creating a rift in the whole societal makeup that the actual act of trying to get the guns would never happen.

There isn't squat going underground and hidden like worms.
 
No one I know registered. Most folks just pinned the stock and put a spur grip on their gun making it compliant so they can take it to a public range,leaving all the "fun" stuff at home.

Also need to consider many cops don't support the safe act and turn a blind eye to things such as to a pistol grip on an ar15, or a fore grip,or adjustable stock. Im not saying people havent got busted for non compliants guns. But to be honestly is a complete joke. I could see them using it as an additional charge for someone they picked up breaking another law such as domestic problems or drugs.

I also don't think they would do a mass confiscation .That would take alot of man power and people would get hurt.

But honestly the safe act is a joke. Put into play by an idiot Governor. He's crooked, thinks that NYC IS New York state and doesnt see how much up here is different from down there. Its a different world up here, and even more so the further north and west you go from Albany.....That dude can go sit on a hammer.....

The NFA was a joke too, back in the 40s, 50s and early 60s.

They're playing the long (multi generational) game. These assault weapon bans won't be truly enforced until all the people who grew up with them are old and enfeebled or dead.
 
I lived in Ct until late 2016 when I moved to Florida.
I do not own an "AR" but I know several who do, some more than one.
Lets just say I do not doubt your figures.
 
The NFA was a joke too, back in the 40s, 50s and early 60s.

They're playing the long (multi generational) game. These assault weapon bans won't be truly enforced until all the people who grew up with them are old and enfeebled or dead.

If they are playing the long game, I don't know what current success would look since the AR platform is the small block chevy of guns and is at peak interest with no waning in sight. In fact it's the older generation that has the most dis-interest in the AR semi-auto style weapons.
Right now it's all academic at best.
 
@forward observer

Your original post is approximately correct. New York refused to release its' data until they were compelled to do so by court order in 2015. About 550,000 assault weapons were registered...and most of those were registered by police officers registering weapons they own "off the badge."

The vast majority of New York gun owners have AR-style rifles in some form; it's just that they either got NY-compliant rifles or didn't register what they already had.
 
True But they only have to do some confiscation. Raid some people, make big examples out of them, and scare most others to comply.
Smart confiscators would always leave some safety valves. They might make it very difficult to jump through all the hoops, but as long as there's a possibility of getting certain guns, the vast majority would comply. We see that clearly with the regulation of machine guns in this country. First there was registration, a tax on transfers, a "permission slip" from local law enforcement, and a fingerprint check. Then there was a moratorium on new machine guns, but existing ones could still be had, albeit at rapidly escalating prices. Still, paying thousands of dollars for a machine gun was preferable for many people to making an illegal one and risking going to prison. If there was no such "safety valve" a lot more people would just go ahead and risk an illegal one. (And, incidentally, if semiautomatics were banned, there would be no disincentive to make illegal fully automatic ones. This is just one more way in which the "gun problem" would actually be aggravated by such ill-advised tinkering.)
 
Thanks for the comments all, but if you have links to any other info, I would appreciate them

@forward observer

Your original post is approximately correct. New York refused to release its' data until they were compelled to do so by court order in 2015. About 550,000 assault weapons were registered...and most of those were registered by police officers registering weapons they own "off the badge."

The vast majority of New York gun owners have AR-style rifles in some form; it's just that they either got NY-compliant rifles or didn't register what they already had.

Are you sure about your number and if so what was it's source? It's not that I am disputing it, it's just that it's over 12 times the number reported in the article I linked.

Here's another article pertaining to the NY SAFE act dated 2016, which once again reports a figure of only 44,000 "AR's" registered.
https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top