|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 20, 2013, 08:40 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
It does us no good as a community under attack to recommend breaking the law on public forums. |
|
January 20, 2013, 08:51 PM | #27 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
January 20, 2013, 09:01 PM | #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
Quote:
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... |
||
January 20, 2013, 09:51 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
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. |
|
January 20, 2013, 10:44 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
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. Quote:
All we were doing was trying to give him viable options to stop breaking the law. |
|
January 21, 2013, 12:08 AM | #31 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
One of the reasons we have "threads," is so that folks can read what is going on before they reply.
Quote:
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. |
|
January 21, 2013, 01:15 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2005
Location: Ct.
Posts: 546
|
Deleted post
__________________
There are many things in life that are out of my control. Recoil isn't one of them. Last edited by Niantician; January 21, 2013 at 01:20 AM. |
January 21, 2013, 01:31 AM | #33 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,818
|
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 21, 2013, 01:53 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
|
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
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member "Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan) |
January 21, 2013, 02:10 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 4, 2005
Location: Ct.
Posts: 546
|
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.
__________________
There are many things in life that are out of my control. Recoil isn't one of them. |
January 21, 2013, 08:16 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
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. |
January 21, 2013, 10:07 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
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.
|
January 21, 2013, 10:29 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
|
|
January 21, 2013, 10:48 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Its long past relevant, but even FOPA wouldn't have helped him. One of the requisites of FOPA is legal in place of origin.
|
January 21, 2013, 11:00 AM | #40 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
win-lose stated in post #16:
Quote:
win-lose then said in post #26: Quote:
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. |
||
January 21, 2013, 11:22 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
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
|
January 21, 2013, 12:05 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
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. |
January 21, 2013, 12:07 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by win-lose; January 21, 2013 at 12:29 PM. |
|
January 21, 2013, 01:49 PM | #44 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
[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: Quote:
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:
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. |
||
January 21, 2013, 02:06 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
|
|
January 21, 2013, 02:07 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
I'm glad it worked out for the OP. |
|
January 21, 2013, 02:16 PM | #47 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And with that, we are closed.
|
|
|