Seeking Advice re: AR-15 in CT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doesn't matter if the gun's origin is CT. He is illegal right now in CT. Oncehe crosses the line in RI, he's legal. The gun is legal for him to possess there. His gun could have been sitting in his cousin's closet in RI for the last 30 years.

He's just as illegal with it in his house as he would be driving to RI. Once he's there, he's good.
 
If his house catches fire and the fire marshal comes across the rifle while investigating the cause and origin of the fire, he's caught then too. Is it a felony if a wire shorts and your house catches fire?
 
If his house catches fire and the fire marshal comes across the rifle while investigating the cause and origin of the fire, he's caught then too. Is it a felony if a wire shorts and your house catches fire?
Click to expand...

It is far more likely that you will have official interaction while traveling. You can get pulled over.... you can get harassed a check point.... you can break down... you get into an accident... etc...

The downside risks could be >$50K in attorney fees + jail time. The upside is $2-3K. Not worth it to me.... you may feel differently. That's what makes a horse race.
 
I've been pulled over only once since 1980. Tell me again why the odds are that this guy will get pulled over? And why they would search the vehicle for a supposed traffic violation?
 
I appreciate the concern. RI is a 10 minute drive from his house and I believe the "contraband" is now sitting at a friendly gun shop that was recommended by one of his VFW friends and is for sale on consignment.

Thanks again for everyone's input.

Best,

p.s. I haven't been pulled over in 15 or 20 years and I doubt he's been pulled over since the 70's. :)
 
Tell me again why the odds are that this guy will get pulled over?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
win-lose said:
It does us no good as a community under attack to recommend breaking the law on public forums.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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. :D

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.:rolleyes:
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Its long past relevant, but even FOPA wouldn't have helped him. One of the requisites of FOPA is legal in place of origin.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top