ATF Pistol Brace Rule's Unique IMPACT in Connecticut!

[JohnO]

Background: Connecticut has an Assault Weapons Ban in effect. SB-1160
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/ba/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm

It was discovered that firearms designated as an "Other" were not banned under SB-1160 and they have been selling like hotcakes for a few years now.

An Other is defined by what it is not.
Not a Pistol because the barrel is longer than 12"
Not a Rifle because it is not designed to be shouldered. Has pistol brace and forward vertical grip.
Overall length greater than 26"

In a January 17, 2023 response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the SLFU (CT Special Licensing & Firearms Unit) declared that there are 1,306,867 firearms in the state weapons registry database.

In a January 10, 2020 response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the SLFU declared that there are 53,849 “assault weapons” registered in Connecticut.

In its January 17, 2023 response, SLFU also declared that, of those 1,306,867 firearms, there are 88,766 firearms in the state weapons registry database that are classified as “others.”

The Following has just transpired 2/3/2023 due to the ATF Pistol Brace Rule:


The Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) has filed an EMERGENCY RELIEF injunction against the CT AWB over "others". Filing was made Friday February 3rd, 2023 to the United State District Court for the District of Connecticut.

https://ccdl.us/injunction-filed-ccd...rgency-relief/

The 194 page Grant v. Lamont filing: https://atkinsonlawfirm.com/wp-conte...For-TRO_PI.pdf

The Plaintiffs filed this action on September 29, 2022 seeking a declaratory judgment that Connecticut’s “assault weapon” ban is unconstitutional and seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of that ban. On Tuesday, January 31, 2023, the United States Justice Department, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), published a new rule in the Federal Register, effective immediately, redesignating a class of firearms known as “any other firearm” or simply “others” as either “rifles” or “short barreled rifles” depending on the barrel length. For most people in the United States who own “other” firearms with short barrels, the new ATF rule requires that they register the firearms with the ATF or replace the short barrel with a longer one. Those with “others” with barrels of sixteen inches or greater, need not do anything in response to the rule.

However, redesignating “others” as any type of rifle pushes them within the definition of “assault weapon” banned in Connecticut. “Others” were legal in Connecticut and did not fall under the “assault weapon” ban because they were neither “rifles,” “shotguns,” nor “pistols” – each of which (in the relevant configuration) falls within the definition of “assault weapon.” Until January 31, 2023, Connecticut residents, including the Plaintiffs, lawfully owned and peaceably used tens of thousands of “others.” Like all legal firearms purchased in Connecticut, each “other” was purchased with the express approval of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection’s (“DESPP”) Special Licensing and Firearms Unit (“SLFU”). As of January 31, 2023, those tens of thousands of previously legal firearms are “assault weapons” – the simple possession of which is now a FELONY.

[swampyank33]

CT guy here.
Interested to see what will happen.

Sent from my SM-A515U using Tapatalk

[Norville]

If you remove the brace, it should revert back to “other” status, or am I missing something?

Not the ideal choice, but a choice, similar to anyone with a brace who removes it and it (probably) no longer meets the new definition.

**Not a lawyer, as confused as the next guy, waiting to see if and how this situation resolves. **

[JohnO]

If you remove the brace, it should revert back to “other” status, or am I missing something?

Not according to the Grant v. Lamont filing: https://atkinsonlawfirm.com/wp-conte...For-TRO_PI.pdf due to the CT AW Ban.

However, redesignating “others” as any type of rifle pushes them within the definition of “assault weapon” banned in Connecticut. “Others” were legal in Connecticut and did not fall under the “assault weapon” ban because they were neither “rifles,” “shotguns,” nor “pistols” – each of which (in the relevant configuration) falls within the definition of “assault weapon.” Until January 31, 2023, Connecticut residents, including the Plaintiffs, lawfully owned and peaceably used tens of thousands of “others.” Like all legal firearms purchased in Connecticut, each “other” was purchased with the express approval of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection’s (“DESPP”) Special Licensing and Firearms Unit (“SLFU”). As of January 31, 2023, those tens of thousands of previously legal firearms are “assault weapons” – the simple possession of which is now a FELONY.

In an online public information session the ATF gave on January 31, 2023, the Department of Justice confirmed that continued possession of “others” is likely in violation of Connecticut state law. During that information session, members of the public directly asked the ATF officials if they could follow the same steps as people from other states to register their “others” as “short barreled rifles” under the final rule so they can keep them. Exhibit C – Affidavit of Holly Sullivan, 12. ATF officials responded that ATF would not be accepting registrations from Connecticut residents because the ATF takes the position that their “others” are now illegal “assault weapons” under Connecticut law. Id. at 14. Connecticut officials have yet to weigh in. Id. at 14

[Norville]

Not according to the Grant v. Lamont filing: https://atkinsonlawfirm.com/wp-conte...For-TRO_PI.pdf due to the CT AW Ban.

Got it, thanks!

[JohnO]

It looks like things are not as bad as initially reported.

[NPV]

Another CT guy here, interested as well. I’ve already learned a lot from this thread so thank you. My plan was, and may still be, just to buy an M1A.

[JohnO]

Another CT guy here, interested as well. I’ve already learned a lot from this thread so thank you. My plan was, and may still be, just to buy an M1A.

If you are not already I suggest you consider joining the CCDL https://ccdl.us/. They are worthy of our support.

King Lamont's proposed Legislation:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/TOB/H/PD...667-R00-HB.PDF

I find it interesting that he is proposing a registration for "Others" by re-opening the Assault Weapon Registry. He has recently said he wants to remove the Grandfather Clause and outlaw the legally held so called Assault Weapons. Estimates are around 10% compliance when the registration was required. He has now threatened CONFISCATION and wants another registration. GOOD "F"ing LUCK!

[NPV]

If you are not already I suggest you consider joining the CCDL https://ccdl.us/. They are worthy of our support.

King Lamont's proposed Legislation:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/TOB/H/PD...667-R00-HB.PDF

I find it interesting that he is proposing a registration for "Others" by re-opening the Assault Weapon Registry. He has recently said he wants to remove the Grandfather Clause and outlaw the legally held so called Assault Weapons. Estimates are around 10% compliance when the registration was required. He has now threatened CONFISCATION and wants another registration. GOOD "F"ing LUCK!

Thanks I’ve been a member for years. Shame on me though for not being as current as I should be on recent proposals/legislation.

I had not realized included in the proposal was a ban on carrying a firearm in a place licensed to serve alcohol. Meaning basically any restaurant, which is further complicated by the already on the book law in CT of having to store a firearm in a locked compartment (safe) when left in car. What a pain in the ass.

[MK11]

Others are already registered, as is anything sold in CT. Would this be Double Secret Registration? 🙄

These dopes are so desperate to be seen as tough on guns they’re proposing things already on the books.