Seeking Advice re: AR-15 in CT

[win-lose]

Tell me again why the odds are that this guy will get pulled over?

I never said the odds are that he would get pulled over. Just that it is more likely than his house burning down.

It does us no good as a community under attack to recommend breaking the law on public forums.

[Al Norris]

What you can't seem to see is that the law was broke, long before the gentleman knew he broke it, by the simple act of possession inside his house! Taking the firearm to another State (only 10 minutes down the road), entails no more risk than keeping it.

Now, the rifle is on consignment in a State that is lawful for possession and the sale.

No harm. No foul.

STA: We are not advocating that the gentleman break the law. We are using facts that the law was already, if inadvertently, broken and merely recommending perfectly acceptable procedures to save the firearm short of a melt-down.

[win-lose]

What you can't seem to see is that the law was broke, long before the gentleman knew he broke it, by the simple act of possession inside his house! Taking the firearm to another State (only 10 minutes down the road), entails no more risk than keeping it.

I never recommended that he keep it.

I really think that this person needs to either turn in the gun or hire an attorney and hope that there is something left over after the attorney fees.

The fact that he was 10 minutes away from the sanctuary wasn't mentioned till we received the update that the situation was resolved.

Perhaps we are all a bit testy with the current state of affairs.... I don't wish to argue. More importantly, I don't want to see fellow enthusiasts made an example of...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by win-lose

It does us no good as a community under attack to recommend breaking the law on public forums.

Nobody here was recommending breaking any law, and it's against the rules of this site to do so. The owner broke the law two decades ago, when he failed to register the firearm as required by the then-new Connecticut AWB law. Moving the already-illegal firearm from his house to the trunk of his car does not constitute a new violation, nor does it add any counts to the existing violation. Driving the car (and the already illegal gun) from a place where the gun is illegal to a place where the gun is legal likewise does not constitute a new violation nor does it add any counts to the existing violation.

Ritz, I'm delighted that the problem has been solved and that your elderly relative has not been brainwashed into destroying a nice firearm that's potentially worth a couple of thousand dollars.

[wayneinFL]

You guys probably drive like my dad. I was riding with him about 10 years ago when he was pulled over. The deputy asked him, "When was the last time you were pulled over?"

Dad said he couldn't remember for sure, but he was driving a '39 Chevrolet.

That was an exaggeration, of course. But the last time I know of him getting pulled over was when I was riding with him on the back of a '68 Honda Super Sport.

It does us no good as a community under attack to recommend breaking the law on public forums.

He was breaking the law while it was sitting in his house, while consulting with an attorney. He would have been breaking the law to drive it to the police station.

All we were doing was trying to give him viable options to stop breaking the law.

[Al Norris]

One of the reasons we have "threads," is so that folks can read what is going on before they reply.

The fact that he was 10 minutes away from the sanctuary wasn't mentioned till we received the update that the situation was resolved.

It may not have been said it was a short drive, but come-on! East Coast? Everything is a short drive, compared to the West!

Back in post #11, Ritz told us that his friend was probably going to sell the firearm in RI. That was well before your post in this thread.

[Niantician]

Deleted post

[44 AMP]

Before doing anything else (other than contacting a firearms attorney), I suggest a careful reading of the CT law.

IS he, in fact, in violation? Several of the assault weapon laws passed back in 94 were virtually direct copies of the Federal law, without the sunset provision.

You need to check the wording carefully, to see if he is actually in violation. Some of the laws ban certain guns by name, from the date of passage of the law, or require registration from the date of enactment. Others are different.

I don't know which way CT law goes, sorry. He me be legal to own the gun, the gun may have been grandfathered, he may be only in violation of the registration timetable, there are several possibilitites.

THere are really only two courses of action, though. OK, three if surrendering the gun is an option.
1) continue to risk getting caught, and try to get the gun out of the state (not recommended)
2) Contact a qualified firearms lawyer (the NRA might be of some help locating one), and follow their advice. (recommended)
3) Do as the nice policeman says, and give it to him, so he can have it destroyed. Bow and scrape enough, and they might not even charge you with the crime, if they are feeling generous.....

Seriously, to stay within the law, get a lawyer, and let them represent you.
anything else is a risk, of one degree, or another.

After you get it resolved, be sure to thank those politicians, and your friends and neighbors who elected them, in an appropriate manner for bringing such joy into your life.

[therealdeal]

great thread, sorry to jump in late.

I grew up in new england(mass near RI border). from what I understand RI just passed some new laws which might change this scenario....I could be wrong but I could've sworn I saw it on the news about their legislative reps

[Niantician]

The vague language in our gun laws make this a touchy subject, and I wouldn't do what I'm about to suggest without researching it a little. But I believe the lower reciever is what counts as the illegal rifle in this case. You could bring the stripped lower to one of the many amnesty gun buybacks that have been popping up in the state and maybe get a some money for that. Then sell the rest of the rifle as parts online. The touchy part would be the upper with the bayonet lug. Whether or not that, in itself is illegal without the lower would be a question worth looking into.

[win-lose]

Al, you have done nothing but attack me in this thread. I do not know what I may have done to offend you, but I can assure you, whatever it was, it was not intentional.

As a moderator, you have an obligation to keep your responses respectful and to be tolerant of peoples opinions when they differ from yours.

In response to your last post.... I live about 2 minutes north of the Connecticut border and it is over an hour drive to RI. There a places west of me in Connecticut that can bring the drive to 1.5+ hours. "Short drive" could mean anything.

While I admit that @ 10 mins it becomes more tempting to take your recommended approach, I still would not take that drive. I need to raise my kids, and I'm not going to tempt Murphy with something like this, especially just for a few $'s.

[wayneinFL]

Yeah, but what happens on the 10 minute ride to the police station to "turn it in"? You're still illegal on the way there. For that matter, you're still illegal when you get there- you're actually walking in there and confessing to a crime and handing them the evidence to prosecute you if they wish.

[win-lose]

Yeah, but what happens on the 10 minute ride to the police station to "turn it in"? You're still illegal on the way there. For that matter, you're still illegal when you get there- you're actually walking in there and confessing to a crime and handing them the evidence to prosecute you if they wish.

No one would just hop in their car, firearm in tow, drive to the police station and show up unexpected. Prudence would dictate the action be researched, planned and coordinated.

[JimDandy]

Its long past relevant, but even FOPA wouldn't have helped him. One of the requisites of FOPA is legal in place of origin.

[Aguila Blanca]

win-lose stated in post #16:

While it is legal to sell the gun in another state, it is a felony to try and get it there.

When asked to cite what law would make it a felony, he could not. He back-tracked.

win-lose then said in post #26:

It does us no good as a community under attack to recommend breaking the law on public forums.

Again, when asked what law it was recommended be broken, he could not cite any law that had not already been broken.

And then win-lose complains that HE is being attacked, when it is he who has contributed the most misinforative and alarmist posts to the entire discussion.

Personally, outside of this one member's posts, I think this thread represents what a firearms community is all about. A potentially serious problem was identified, possible approaches (ALL legal) were thrown out for consideration, a plan was formed, and has apparently been executed.

Problem solved.

Well done, people.

[JimDandy]

IANAL, and I'm not sure what we suggested was legal. I'm also not sure what we suggested was illegal. What I am sure of, was that what we suggested was the most just- which is rarely legal

[wayneinFL]

We're all just expressing opinions, and none of us are lawyers, so it doesn't really count.

I think win-lose is trying to express his view as a matter of law when he is really addressing a matter of risk assessment. He really isn't addressing whether it is legal or not to have the AR in CT. It is illegal, and everyone agrees on that.

He is looking at risk, and he does have a point in that aspect. When you are in a vehicle on public roads, there is a lower threshold for search and seizure than in your home. So while it isn't any more illegal to have a AR in car than a home in CT there is a higher risk of getting caught.

Of course as a matter of law or risk, there still isn't any difference in whether you drive 10 minutes to a police station with an illegal gun or drive 10 minutes to a freer state with an illegal gun.

[win-lose]

win-lose stated in post #16:
Quote:
While it is legal to sell the gun in another state, it is a felony to try and get it there.
When asked to cite what law would make it a felony, he could not. He back-tracked.

win-lose then said in post #26:
Quote:
It does us no good as a community under attack to recommend breaking the law on public forums.
Again, when asked what law it was recommended be broken, he could not cite any law that had not already been broken.

And then win-lose complains that HE is being attacked, when it is he who has contributed the most misinforative and alarmist posts to the entire discussion.

Personally, outside of this one member's posts, I think this thread represents what a firearms community is all about. A potentially serious problem was identified, possible approaches (ALL legal) were thrown out for consideration, a plan was formed, and has apparently been executed.

Problem solved.

Well done, people.

So disent from you is alarmist.... gee where have I heard that argument before.

Let's take this one point at a time...
If the individual was caught with the gun in his car, while in CT, it would be a felony. Period. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU CONSIDER IT TO BE A NEW CRIME. At that point in time it is a felony, to be figured out later by the courts.

Recommending the individual to transport contraband CAN NOT be considered a legal solution. Because the individual was not caught does not validate your solution... only that the universe chose not to be a jerk to this poor guy.

You can argue the likelihood of being caught... to my mind, fender benders, traffic stops, checkpoints, mechanical failures are all reasonably possible events that represent real risk to being caught. Not being caught and being legal are 2 different things.

I am truly glad it worked out for this individual. I am not so glad at how differing opinion was handled in this thread.

Edit: Thank you Wayne.... I was mostly focusing on risk and that to my mind the reward was not worth the risk.

[Aguila Blanca]

[quote=win-lose]So disent from you is alarmist.... gee where have I heard that argument before.

Dissent from me isn't the issue. We share (purportedly) a common language so that we can communicate with one another. When one wishes to communicate an idea, one uses words to express that idea. Words have meaning. You posted the following words:

Originally Posted by win-lose

While it is legal to sell the gun in another state, it is a felony to try and get it there.

However, the only felony involved occurred roughly 18 years ago, whenever Connecticut's window for registering that firearm expired. From that day forward, possession of that firearm within Connecticut was illegal. No Connecticut or Federal law in any way prohibits transporting an object from a place where said object may not be legal to a place where said object IS legal.

If what you intended to say is that you would not choose to undertake the risk of transporting it because possession is illegal while within Connecticut, then you should have said that. But you didn't. You made a declarative statement that transporting it is a felony. That statement was incorrect, and it was alarmist.

Originally Posted by win-lose

If the individual was caught with the gun in his car, while in CT, it would be a felony. Period. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU CONSIDER IT TO BE A NEW CRIME. At that point in time it is a felony, to be figured out later by the courts.

Either you were less than clear in your writing, or you do not understand the law. If he were caught with the firearm in Connecticut, it would not be a felony "at that point in time." It became a felony on the date the registration window expired, and it has not changed since then. What you wrote is like saying if you robbed a bank in 2002 and were captured in 2012, your robbing the bank would become a felony in 2012 when you were caught.

When you are putting forth thoughts on a written forum, it is your responsibility to write what you mean in clear English. It's not my job to read your mind. I can only respond to what I see you put on the screen.

[win-lose]

Dissent from me isn't the issue. We share (purportedly) a common language so that we can communicate with one another. When one wishes to communicate an idea, one uses words to express that idea. Words have meaning. You posted the following words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by win-lose
While it is legal to sell the gun in another state, it is a felony to try and get it there.
However, the only felony involved occurred roughly 18 years ago, whenever Connecticut's window for registering that firearm expired. From that day forward, possession of that firearm within Connecticut was illegal. No Connecticut or Federal law in any way prohibits transporting an object from a place where said object may not be legal to a place where said object IS legal.

If what you intended to say is that you would not choose to undertake the risk of transporting it because possession is illegal while within Connecticut, then you should have said that. But you didn't. You made a declarative statement that transporting it is a felony. That statement was incorrect, and it was alarmist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by win-lose
If the individual was caught with the gun in his car, while in CT, it would be a felony. Period. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU CONSIDER IT TO BE A NEW CRIME. At that point in time it is a felony, to be figured out later by the courts.
Either you were less than clear in your writing, or you do not understand the law. If he were caught with the firearm in Connecticut, it would not be a felony "at that point in time." It became a felony on the date the registration window expired, and it has not changed since then. What you wrote is like saying if you robbed a bank in 2002 and were captured in 2012, your robbing the bank would become a felony in 2012 when you were caught.

When you are putting forth thoughts on a written forum, it is your responsibility to write what you mean in clear English. It's not my job to read your mind. I can only respond to what I see you put on the screen.

I tell ya what... you manage your risk, I will manage mine. Clearly neither of us will ever see a need to consult the other. I said my piece. For those who found some value in my posts I am glad to have had the opportunity to help... for those who did not, I hope I didn't waste too much of your time. I am done with this thread.

[wayneinFL]

Edit: Thank you Wayne.... I was mostly focusing on risk and that to my mind the reward was not worth the risk.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I still didn't say I agreed with your assessment of the risk. I hear of too many people in the Northeast states who try to "do the right thing" and tell law enforcement they're in possession of an illegal firearm, and too often it ends in an arrest.

I'm glad it worked out for the OP.

[Al Norris]

And with that, we are closed.