Assult Rifle Law.

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by manta, Apr 2, 2013.

  1. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,022
    41
    48
    I was reading a post on a UK forum regards the law on assault rifles.



    Maybe someone on the forum could say if the above statement is true regards the assault rifle law in Connecticut. PS Was the rifle legally owned. ?
     
  2. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0
    I don't know the specifics of CT's many gun laws, but the firearms possessed by Lanza's parents were legally owned and registered.
     

  3. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    1,633
    51
    48
    they were living in NJ if memory serves
     
  4. Jags93

    Jags93 New Member

    15
    0
    0
    The bushmaster was legal. I think the Colt is not because the 1994 law banned it by name.
     
  5. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,921
    42
    48
    His parents were divorced. His father and brother lived in NJ.

    Bushmasters were legal as long as they complied with the restricions on features.

    Colt is banned by name in CT unless it was in the state prior to their AWB. (Odd since Colt is a Connecticut business).
     
  6. duddie10

    duddie10 New Member

    517
    0
    0
    You can own a colt it cant be stampes a colt ar15 colt called it somthing else. Ive seen 3 at my lgs besides the 4 prebans.
     
  7. Jags93

    Jags93 New Member

    15
    0
    0
    They should have used "Colte"
     
  8. FrontierTCB

    FrontierTCB Active Member

    1,146
    3
    38
    Sad thing is the Libs would have probably been perfectly fine with that. It makes as much sense as the rest of the ban guidelines.
     
  9. longunner

    longunner New Member

    1,176
    0
    0
    Pretty sure having an AR in CT is still legal even though its not in New York :rolleyes::mad:
     
  10. duddie10

    duddie10 New Member

    517
    0
    0
    Its legal. all rifles that people own and the 20 30 rd mags, on the ban are grandfathered in. They need to be registered. No one after 4-3-13 can buy one, gift, trade, or tranfer one. Its stupid but it could be worse. Like i said before im out of this state friday and my guns have already been sent to family near my new house.
     
  11. ClemsonSCJ

    ClemsonSCJ New Member

    137
    0
    0
    An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is an assault weapon by definition of the gov't, but not an assault rifle. AR stands for Armalite Rifle, not assault rifle. Don't sound like a democrat when you're discussing these issues.
     
  12. hockeyjr1

    hockeyjr1 New Member

    505
    0
    0
    CT like many other states, MA NY NJ... Have an assault weapons ban.. They basically took in the bill Clinton ban back in 04 but with no sunset provision.. Us in ny were allowed to buy ar15 but the stock needed to be pinned, no threads or flash hider that wasn't welded on etc...

    The gun was legal, but dumb mom didn't lock the guns up with an autistic child around..
     
  13. ClemsonSCJ

    ClemsonSCJ New Member

    137
    0
    0
    I don't see how states have the right to dictate that certain guns are illegal when federal law doesn't prohibit them.
     
  14. longunner

    longunner New Member

    1,176
    0
    0
    There is no grandfather clause included in the New York laws. Lucky you btw I wish I was in your shoes, getting out of this crap state I can't wait to move to a state with legislation that actually makes sense :rolleyes:
     
  15. ClemsonSCJ

    ClemsonSCJ New Member

    137
    0
    0
    How does Connecticut or New York get away with banning AR-15's or hi-cap magazines when the federal government doesn't ban those things?
     
  16. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,921
    42
    48
    They consider it to fall under the 10th amendment.
     
  17. ClemsonSCJ

    ClemsonSCJ New Member

    137
    0
    0
    But the 10th amendment basically says that anything not covered in the Constitution, then the states have the power to rule themselves on those issues. But if it is covered under the Constitution then the states cannot contradict it. This is again reaffirmed in the 14th amendment which basically states that the Bill of Rights unconditionally applies to the states as well as the federal government. So the Supreme Court has ruled on their interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means, and "assault weapons" are not excluded from that definition, obviously considering they currently are not banned. So then how is it that the states can then turn around and contradict this by banning these firearms themselves?

    When the Supreme Court rules on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the states cannot contradict it by making an even stricter definition of what they think the 2nd amendment really means.
     
  18. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    The people of each state chooses the form of government they want. They elect the candidates that most reflect their views. The Federal Government really has no business dictating gun laws to American citizens.
    Gun laws are a states rights issue. I really expect with the failure of Federal laws the states will pass their own laws. The Bill of Rights are clearly not for the Federal Government to abridge. :mad:
     
  19. F4U

    F4U Well-Known Member Supporter

    2,557
    65
    48
    In modern day practice you are right, but the first and some of the other amendments state that "congress shall make no law with respect to speech religion etc" The second amendment states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". To my non legally trained mind that means nobody gets to infringe not just U.S. Congress can't infringe.

    In modern day reality the only right left to state governments under the 10th amendment is the ability to write stricter gun laws than the feds have, but never more lenient ones.
     
  20. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    And thats a bastardized way of how its been done. The way the constitution sets up the federal government is it does only a few things:

    regulate trade between the states. This was meant to have the us congress act as mediator in disagreements between the states in trade disputes.

    Conduct treaties with foreign nations.

    Conduct warfare as needed.

    Mediate issues of laws that, here is the important thing, may be unconstitutional.

    The house of rep and the senate were only meant to meet one or two months a year at most, more if at war. They were meant to have very little to do with the states running everything and them only intervening when states couldnt agrree on issues.