dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2702
share rss forum feed

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..

[SERIOUS] Any way to assure safe disposal of newly banned rifles

We own two "assault" style rifles, purchased before the Clinton assault rifle ban. We did submit to fingerprinting in the early 90's to own these (by whatever Connecticut law was in place at the time).

We own 2 10 round magazine clips, and 1 50 round clip, these appear to be illegal in the near future. Some rounds from the late 80's may also violate the new stat law, and I'd just as soon get rid of them.

At this point, I don't want any issue with my state. It isn't worth the hassle of owning these weapons.

Is there a safe way to legally dispose of these and assure they will be destroyed? It seems my state has decided to hate some of the rifles I own, and I no longer wish to be concerned about possibly accidentally violating any of the new laws or future laws which may be passed.

Do we have a way to bring in guns to be destroyed, and get a receipt that they were destroyed?
--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.

bennor
Premium
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT

Re: [SERIOUS] Any way to assure safe disposal of newly banned ri

What kind of rifles do you own that you are seeking to get rid of? How do you know they're "assault" style rifles when you bought them prior to the first CT AWB? And why in the world would you want your personal property that holds monetary value destroyed?

See this link for a general FAQ on the new law.
»wr2a.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/ct···st-read/

Prior to the new law signed on 4/4/2013 any firearm that wasn't banned by name and was manufactured prior to 1994 was perfectly legal to own and was NOT an "assault weapon" no matter how much some claim it was. The term "assault weapon" is merely a made up arbitrary classification of a firearm that has cosmetic features the state now deems banned.

With the new poorly written law, if you have a firearm that is now classified as an "assault weapon" you can apply for a "certificate of possession". There is no cost to do so. As of now the state (DESPP) has NOT released the registration process or the new form for registration. One has until January 1st, 2014 to apply for the certificate of possession.

As to magazines, any firearm magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is called a "large capacity magazine" If such a magazine was possessed before 4/4/2013 they can still be possessed and used under certain circumstances. One will need to register them by January 1, 2014. But as of now there is no process to do so.

Starting on October 1, 2013 one will need to pay the state for one of the valid permits or certificates that will allow you to purchase ammunition or ammunition magazines (10 rounds or less) within the state of CT.

Bottom line is that any firearm or magazine you own before the new law went into effect you can still own and possess, just the ones classified as "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" need to be registered.

If you really want to roll over and give up your guns, which is exactly what the politicians who voted for S.B. No. 1160 want you to do, then contact a gun shop. They will be more than happy to buy your firearms/magazines from you and sell them to others who choose to exercise and value their 2nd Amendment rights.

If you have more questions, please ask them. Some of us firearm owners have spent hours reading the new law and are trying to help others understand the new law abiding civilian disarmament law. We do not plan on simply rolling over and abdicate our rights simply because some hoplophobic politician/citizen wants us to.

On a side note it is depressing that so many in this state are willing to simply roll over and let their rights and their personal property be taken from them out of fear, ignorance and propaganda. Please remember that when you go to vote. Elections do have consequences.


yj4x4
Still in love with Obama?
Premium
join:2002-09-18
Whittier, CA
reply to pandora
My condolences. I was seriously considering moving to your state until I found out about it's draconian gun laws. Almost every gun I own would be illegal there!
Any way, back to your question. Most Police Departments that I know of will accept guns being turned in. Just call them and make arrangements first, DON'T walk in cold carrying a gun!

bennor
Premium
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT
said by yj4x4:

My condolences. I was seriously considering moving to your state until I found out about it's draconian gun laws. Almost every gun I own would be illegal there!
Any way, back to your question. Most Police Departments that I know of will accept guns being turned in. Just call them and make arrangements first, DON'T walk in cold carrying a gun!

Yep, anyone who values their 2A rights I tell them to avoid moving into this state until the stupid new law can be struck down in court. Funny how CT used to be the cradle of the firearms industry envied by the world. Now this state is doing everything it can to demonize them and drive them (and their employees/tax dollars) out.

While you can take them to a police department or turn them in during a "gun buyback" some towns hold. If one is really dead set on giving up their guns, they can make much more money selling or consigning them to a gun shop or selling them to others, through a gun shop or FFL, outside of CT.


yj4x4
Still in love with Obama?
Premium
join:2002-09-18
Whittier, CA
Yes, but when the OP asked "Is there a safe way to legally dispose of these and assure they will be destroyed?", I assumed they had no interest in selling them, hence the local P.D. suggestion.

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to bennor
The two rifles are an AR15 and AK47. Both purchased prior to the Clinton era assault rifle ban. Two clips are 10 round, I'd rather not specify the size of the other clip or the rounds I'm concerned about (until I understand the new law more and can assure proper and safe disposal without doing anything illegal). The other clip is somewhat largish, but was legal at time of purchase.
--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to yj4x4
said by yj4x4:

Yes, but when the OP asked "Is there a safe way to legally dispose of these and assure they will be destroyed?", I assumed they had no interest in selling them, hence the local P.D. suggestion.

You are correct. My spouse and I were fingerprinted when registering the assault rifles under an older Connecticut law that may no longer be in effect. However as the state has my name, fingerprints and rifle serial numbers on file, I don't want to risk that the weapons could be used for anything unlawful. It's easier to just have a receipt that they were handed in for destruction.
--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.

Zo

join:2011-02-22
Trumbull, CT
First off, not sure why you are asking here versus a CT Gun Forum

Second, you can legally sell them to a legal FFL out of state and have the paper work that shows that you sold them legally. In this way, you can get some money for your guns. You can find an FFL online that will purchase them, then you can take them to a local gun shop they can ship them for you.

Why would you just automatically assume that these guns be used for some unlawful purpose? Maybe you are listening to, to much TV News. If you do just a little research you will find that even the FBI says that rifles of ANY KIND are used in 0.1% of all crimes.

You should take the time to get more knowledgeable for making an emotional decisions that make no sense.

It seems silly in this economy to not sell them and get some money for them.

I have been a gun owner for 27yrs, I have used my AR-15 for hunting deer, hogs and elk as well as for target shooting.

bennor
Premium
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to pandora
Pandora there is NOTHING illegal in saying you have large capacity magazines so long as you possessed them on or prior to 4/4/2013. It is perfectly legal to have both lawfully possessed "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" and even talk about them. Only after January 1, 2014 must they be registered if they were not previously registered.

Why would you assume that selling/transferring the firearms to a gun shop or FFL would lead to them being used for anything "unlawful"? If you sell your car or any other personal property do you worry about it being used for anything "unlawful"?

If you previously registered your firearms as "assault weapons", they are STILL registered under the new law. Nothing in the new law would affect previously registered "assault weapons".

I've been seeing a few people loosing their minds over this new law. People need to take a step back, check their emotions, take a deep breath, and realize that they can still keep their lawfully possessed firearms and magazines. More than a few people have been, unfortunately, brainwashed by the media and politicians on what this new law abiding civilian disarmament law does, and doesn't do. (Edit to add: I use the term "law abiding civilian disarmament" here since ALL "gun control" laws are ultimately aimed at removing guns from ONLY those who follow the law.)

{rant on}Despite the cries from certain politicians and their enablers in media; we gun owners are not evil, we are not some fringe minority, we are not all Republicans, we do not all belong to the NRA, we are not crazy, more than 100,000 of us in CT have passed FBI and state background checks to obtain pistol permits. Despite what the media and politicians say 99.99% of gun owners use their guns responsibly for sport, collecting, enjoyment, and self defense. We law abiding gun owners are your; sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, bosses and anyone else who freely chooses to exercise their right own a firearm and use it responsibly. But unfortunately emotions and political agendas are fast at work in trying to capitalize on the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook to demonize all of us law abiding gun owners, disarm the law abiding, and leave us at the mercy of the criminals who don't obey the law.{/rant off}


Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
DFW
kudos:2
bennor is correct. You can keep those firearms and the magazines. You will only need to register those 'assault weapons' and the 11+ capacity magazines when the State finally puts the infrastructure in place to do so. So do nothing for a few months. You own items that are legal. If you do not believe me, call an FFL (or local gun store). They have been forced to learn and abide by the new laws. Do not call the local PD. They will only try to twist the law into their favor. Email to Media: "We had someone come by and give us two assault weapons today with high cap mags. Your children and the community are safer now."
If you really want to get rid of them, call a place called Delta Arsenal and talk to them. They will help you and you'll make a good bit of money off of selling the rifles.
--
"The level of sacrifice that you give is beyond my comprehension. If the rest of us in the Country showed the level sacrifice that you do on a daily basis, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have." – Comedian Lewis Black speaking to the US troops.


yj4x4
Still in love with Obama?
Premium
join:2002-09-18
Whittier, CA
said by Harddrive:

Do not call the local PD. They will only try to twist the law into their favor. Email to Media: "We had someone come by and give us two assault weapons today with high cap mags. Your children and the community are safer now."

Wow. I'd really hate to live in your town if your police are like that.


Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
DFW
kudos:2
You've got it much worse. You have Dianne Feinstein in your State. The biggest gun grabber there is. *shudder*
Remember, the State and local police support the current legislation. With a Dem led one, you get pro-gun grabbing police.


Grumpy
Premium
join:2001-07-28
NW CT
Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T Yahoo
reply to pandora
Off topic logic - don't hear of too many mass shootings / car jacks / home invasions / street muggings in open carry states. These incidents occur primarily where chances are law abiders are un-armed.

If our society is de-evolving back to a wild west status, taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't make sense. It is counter intuitive.

Am I suggesting grandma should get a gun and learn how to safely shoot?

Yes.


Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
DFW
kudos:2
3 out of 5 felons polled said they wouldn't mess with an armed victim.
Seems like a good idea to arm yourself when you can. Nothing says "Get the hell outta my house" or "Leave me and my family alone" quite like 9mm, .40S&W, .45, .223, 12ga, etc coming at someone that wants to take your stuff or hurt you and yours.
Sure wish I would have been home the day back in Sept of 2007 when those bastards broke into my house and stole $4k+ of my stuff. I would have gone all 'To Catch a Predator' on their ass and said, "Why don't you have a seat right over there for me."


--
"The level of sacrifice that you give is beyond my comprehension. If the rest of us in the Country showed the level sacrifice that you do on a daily basis, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have." – Comedian Lewis Black speaking to the US troops.


Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
DFW
kudos:2
reply to pandora
Mr. Pandora, please look at both of the following PDF files as they are relevant to your dilemma.

downloadNew gun laws···egal.pdf 151033 bytes


downloadGun Facts.pdf 114757 bytes


If you have any questions, please ask.

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
said by Harddrive:

Mr. Pandora, please look at both of the following PDF files as they are relevant to your dilemma.

[att=1]

[att=2]

If you have any questions, please ask.

Anything about steel rounds?
--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.


Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
DFW
kudos:2
I'm not too sure where you live but there are a couple of knowledgable guys at The Freedom Shoppe in New Milford (860)350-3502. Give them a call and see what they say. And I would specifically ask them about your AK47. I know there is something out there about a specific caliber making them illegal but I don't know off hand.
--
"The level of sacrifice that you give is beyond my comprehension. If the rest of us in the Country showed the level sacrifice that you do on a daily basis, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have." – Comedian Lewis Black speaking to the US troops.

bennor
Premium
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT
reply to pandora
said by pandora:

Anything about steel rounds?

Are the steel round ammunition for a rifle or for a handgun?

The new armor piercing ammunition language goes into effect starting October 1, 2013. It appears, if I read it right, the new language covers only .50 caliber ammunition and pistol/revolver ammunition. Here is the text of the new armor piercing ammunition statute.

Public Act No. 13-3
»www.cga.ct.gov/2013/ACT/PA/2013P···0-PA.htm

Sec. 32. Section 53-202l of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2013):

(a) For the purposes of this section:

(1) "Armor piercing bullet" means (A) any . 50 caliber bullet that (i) is designed for the purpose of, (ii) is held out by the manufacturer or distributor as, or (iii) is generally recognized as having a specialized capability to penetrate armor or bulletproof glass, including, but not limited to, such bullets commonly designated as "M2 Armor-Piercing" or "AP", "M8 Armor-Piercing Incendiary" or "API", "M20 Armor-Piercing Incendiary Tracer" or "APIT", "M903 Caliber . 50 Saboted Light Armor Penetrator" or "SLAP", or "M962 Saboted Light Armor Penetrator Tracer" or "SLAPT", or (B) any bullet that can be fired from a pistol or revolver that (i) has projectiles or projectile cores constructed entirely, excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium, or (ii) is fully jacketed with a jacket weight of more than twenty-five per cent of the total weight of the projectile, is larger than .22 caliber and is designed and intended for use in a firearm, and (iii) does not have projectiles whose cores are composed of soft materials such as lead or lead alloys, zinc or zinc alloys, frangible projectiles designed primarily for sporting purposes, or any other projectiles or projectile cores that the Attorney General of the United States finds to be primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes or industrial purposes or that otherwise does not constitute "armor piercing ammunition" as defined in federal law. "Armor piercing bullet" does not include a shotgun shell.

(2) "Incendiary . 50 caliber bullet" means any . 50 caliber bullet that (A) is designed for the purpose of, (B) is held out by the manufacturer or distributor as, or (C) is generally recognized as having a specialized capability to ignite upon impact, including, but not limited to, such bullets commonly designated as "M1 Incendiary", "M23 Incendiary", "M8 Armor-Piercing Incendiary" or "API", or "M20 Armor-Piercing Incendiary Tracer" or "APIT".

(b) Any person who knowingly distributes, transports or imports into the state, keeps for sale or offers or exposes for sale or gives to any person any ammunition that is an armor piercing bullet or an incendiary. 50 caliber bullet shall be guilty of a class D felony, except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who knowingly transports or carries a firearm with an armor piercing bullet or incendiary .50 caliber bullet loaded shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(d) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section shall not apply to the following:

(1) The sale of such ammunition to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties;

(2) A person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes such ammunition that is disposed of as authorized by the Probate Court; or

(3) The transfer by bequest or intestate succession of such ammunition.

(e) If the court finds that a violation of this section is not of a serious nature and that the person charged with such violation (1) will probably not offend in the future, (2) has not previously been convicted of a violation of this section, and (3) has not previously had a prosecution under this section suspended pursuant to this subsection, it may order suspension of prosecution in accordance with the provisions of subsection (h) of section 29-33.

bennor
Premium
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT
reply to Harddrive
said by Harddrive:

I'm not too sure where you live but there are a couple of knowledgable guys at The Freedom Shoppe in New Milford (860)350-3502. Give them a call and see what they say. And I would specifically ask them about your AK47. I know there is something out there about a specific caliber making them illegal but I don't know off hand.

For AK-47 type firearms, if it is chambered for 7.62X39, it was banned back in the 90's. Supposedly if you registered it at the time the ban went into effect I think you could still keep it. Most other AK style firearms chambered in calibers other than 7.62X39 were legal to buy and own prior to 4/4/13. Those firearms would still be legal to own one just has to register them before January 1, 2014 since the state now classifies them as "assault weapons".

For those who fear the new law and or have questions, ask them here, or call your local gun shop. Gun stores like The Freedom Shoppe and others, will be glad to assist you in determining the legality of your firearms and ammunition and will assist with selling/transferring your firearms if you decide to get rid of them. There are many other law abiding gun owners, both here in CT and around the nation, who would be willing to buy any firearm or ammunition (providing the new law doesn't prohibit the sales of it) that you no longer wish to own.


hamrez

@comcast.net
reply to bennor
Kinda hard to fight city hall when they make the laws...


Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
DFW
kudos:2
Call a realtor like I did and move out of this State.

bennor
Premium
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT
said by hamrez :

Kinda hard to fight city hall when they make the laws...

Yep. Its just another typical day in CT when emotions, hoplophobia, and political ideology lead to another ineffective poorly conceived and written law that accomplish little other than punishing law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights, and restricts or ban's their personal lawfully purchased and owned property.

Some slightly good news (if you can call it that) is Public Act No. 13-3 is so poorly written that even the politicians who passed it, lawyers, and at those in the Office of Legal Research are confused about what the law actually says. They are offering opinions on the law that differ from what the actual law's language says. And DESPP is taking months to issue the forms and the processes to register the reclassified "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines". All of this makes challenging this poorly conceived, rights restricting law so much easier.

said by Harddrive:

Call a realtor like I did and move out of this State.

That thought has crossed my mind. I'm sort of holding to see what the state comes up with when they release their initial opinions and procedures for this law on or around July 1st. For others this ridiculous law was the final straw and they are taking their tax dollars to another state where their rights and personal property are respected.

nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
reply to pandora
Why not just keep them if you trust yourself. Then later pass them on to a trusted family member (I think you have children?) .
I see keeping guns away from bad guys or crazy guys but if you are not either just go through the few hoops and pass them on to some one later who is also normal.

Plus if I remember you are not broke and could afford safe storage in say a gun safe or the like.

You almost sound like my elderly mom. Only gun i had was with my dad and was a daisy bb gun. That wore out and well mom said we didn't need a new one or a pellet gun or a 22 or anything else. Her way of saying guns bad.

I used my son now as an excuse for a youth 22 or him (aka me even though I may look silly with a small youth rifle).

She is afraid because of relatives in Connecticut and New York the government will kick in my door in AZ for a youth 22 rifle. Plus we will shoot our eyes out. You seem afraid the government will kick in your door. I am not saying they need to pry it from your cold dead hands. Just follow the rules and not throw them away just because.

Going to the range for the first time in a week or so. I should look good with a orange savage rascal. Well my son will his favorite color. If you really want to get rid of them send them my way. No money for extras lately and may not get chuckles on the range with a more manly rifle.


fphall
The Guardian
Premium
join:2003-11-01
Bristol, CT

1 recommendation

reply to bennor
The NRA just filed a lawsuit in District Court challenging the constitutionality of the new law.


Harddrive
Proud American and Infidel since 1968.
Premium
join:2000-09-20
DFW
kudos:2

bennor
Premium
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT
reply to fphall
said by fphall:

The NRA just filed a lawsuit in District Court challenging the constitutionality of the new law.

Not the NRA. As Harddrive linked it was the CCDL who filed suit.

A copy of the complaint filed in federal district court can be read here.
»www.ccdl.us/images/CCDL/filed-st···aint.pdf

Lots of good issues have been brought up in this suite.

Disabled Americans for Firearms Right previously filed their own suit against the new law.
»yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/04/1···lawsuit/


fphall
The Guardian
Premium
join:2003-11-01
Bristol, CT
I stand corrected. One of these days I'll learn how to read...

bennor
Premium
join:2006-07-22
New Haven, CT
said by fphall:

I stand corrected. One of these days I'll learn how to read...

Its all good. Everyone assumes the NRA has a significant lobbying presence in CT, they don't. Everyone assumes the NRA funds these challenges to infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. For the most part they are one of many who fund various groups that are trying to save the 2nd Amendment from further infringements. In CT, CCDL and other local groups are the ones driving the challenges to this new law and other issues related to firearms. On the other side there is CAVG that is now bragging about "their" law. Which seems to indicate that they may have had a hand in writing some or all of the new gun control portion of SB 1160/PA 13-3.

It's hilarious to see the hate against and the demonization of the NRA. There are apparently fewer than 6 million paying members. Which is less than 8% of the estimated 45 million firearm owners.


fphall
The Guardian
Premium
join:2003-11-01
Bristol, CT

1 recommendation

reply to Harddrive
said by Harddrive:

»ccdl.us/

Thanks for the CCDL link. I joined and made a donation. Gotta give the money to the people that actually do the work.