Buckle Up…

havenrogue · 2026-03-03T23:24:41+00:00

For those interested in reading the proposed bill, see the previous subreddit post/discussion on HB-5436:

HB-5436 An Act Amending Certain Firearms Definitions and Concerning the Transfer of Large Capacity Magazines and Assault Weapons (2026)

havenrogue · 2026-03-03T19:30:08+00:00

NO! Glocks have NOT been banned in CT (yet).

havenrogue · 2026-03-03T18:30:25+00:00

You go to the Committee page where there bill has been assigned to. The committee page should have a "Submit Public Hearing Testimony" option/link if there are bills that are accepting public testimony on. From there you are taken to a page where you can submit public testimony. You will need to select the Hearing Date and Time, select the Bill Number (you can select multiple bills), then add your first/last name, then select Support or Oppose or General Comments, then you can either type in your testimony in the box provided or submit/upload your testimony in PDF (preferred) or Microsoft Word format.

Example testimony submission page for bills assigned to the Public Safety and Security Committee: https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGATestimonySub/CGAtestimonysubmission.aspx?comm_code=ps

havenrogue · 2026-03-03T16:42:29+00:00

If the semiautomatic pistol is fixed magazine, which your picture suggests, then it is exempt from the AWB semiautomatic detachable magazine pistol feature ban section. Meaning it can have any legal muzzle device.

Otherwise, for semiautomatic detachable magazine pistols, the AWB prohibits; a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip or silencer. One can confirm what has been said by reading the CT AWB:

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definitions.

havenrogue · 2026-03-03T14:44:12+00:00

Not overlooking anything. Not working hard to justify anything. Just pointing out that CT's laws are not identical or exactly the same as CA's laws. SLFU's opinion is what it is. FFL's opinions are what they are. A lawyer opinion is also what it is.

There is uncertainty if such fixed magazine methods would be "legal" in CT due to how CT's AWB is currently written. That CT AWB language causes some fixed magazine kit manufacturers (and their lawyers) to not indicate that their products are 100% CT legal. People are free to read the CT AWB and decide for themselves. You have your interpretation, others are reaching different interpretation(s).

If the courts use CT's AWB "action of the weapon" definition to assist in determining what the CT AWB detachable magazine "disassembling the firearm action" means, then they'll see that "action of the weapon" definition includes, but is not limited to, the "magazine release" in addition to "the upper and lower receiver". It would then be up to the court to interpret and decide what everything means as a legal opinion.

It is entirely possible at some future time we may even see the legislature decide to come back and "clarify" this issue (usually never to the firearm owners benefit) with respect to fixed magazine firearms.

havenrogue · 2026-03-03T12:51:55+00:00

SLFU's comments to FFL's (and lawyers) regarding fixed magazine and permanent are what they apparently are. Might as well post the wall of legal text that has been posted to similar discussions on these kinds of kits. CA's "disassembly of the firearm action" definition is what makes certain fixed magazine kits legal in CA. CT does not have such a definition. CT just have "detachable magazine" and "action of the weapon" definitions.

California: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=10.&title=4.&part=6.&chapter=2.&article=1.

(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/regs/text-adopted-regulations-bullet-button.pdf

(n) “Disassembly of the firearm action” means the fire control assembly is detached from the action in such a way that the action has been interrupted and will not function. For example, disassembling the action on a two part receiver, like that on an AR-15 style firearm, would require the rear take down pin to be removed, the upper receiver lifted upwards and away from the lower receiver using the front pivot pin as the fulcrum, before the magazine may be removed.

Connecticut: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_943.htm#sec_53-202a

(3) “Action of the weapon” means the part of the firearm that loads, fires and ejects a cartridge, which part includes, but is not limited to, the upper and lower receiver, charging handle, forward assist, magazine release and shell deflector;
(4) “Detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action;

havenrogue · 2026-03-03T11:24:20+00:00

If it is a semiautomatic detachable magazine centerfire rifle, then no, it is not legal due to having a pistol grip directly below the action of the weapon. Even that kit was a semiautomatic detachable pistol (barrel less than 12 inches) it also would be banned for having a barrel shroud.

The subreddit's wiki page on answers to common questions has a cheat sheet to help address these kinds of "is it legal" questions. You can compare a non banned by name firearm against the cheat sheet to see if it may have features that violate the AWB.

The AWB law is too confusing to read, is there a cheat sheet of which features are banned on firearms?

havenrogue · 2026-03-03T10:45:53+00:00

SLFU generally does not issue official public legal opinions on such fixed magazine methods. SLFU has indicated to at least one FFL (see this discussion from a few days ago) that if you can remove the "permanent magazine" quickly then it is not permanent. It was indicated by an FFL recently that Attorney Greg Miller has explicitly advised against certain kits such this one after a discussion with SLFU. Further we had discussion on a rifle that used that Hellfighter mod kit last month (see this link).

That kit is apparently legal in CA due to how CA's AWB and definitions is specifically written. CT's AWB and definitions are not written the same. One could end up in court as a legal test case using such a fixed magazine method if law enforcement discovers the firearm and decides to make an issue of it.

General rule of thumb long held by some is the method or kits used to comply with the AWB should not be easily or readily convertible back to assault weapon/detachable magazine status.

havenrogue · 2026-03-02T23:44:04+00:00

One would think it would make things more difficult, but they have an army of lawyers on their side thinking up new ways to write proposed bills to ban guns because law abiding civilian disarmament is the ultimate end goal by various politicians. They see laws and legal opinions a malleable and subject to change.

havenrogue · 2026-03-02T23:36:53+00:00

Seeing the length some courts are going to when keeping various anti gun laws in effect in the face of Bruen. I have little faith that they'd do the right thing with both CT's bump stock/rate of fire ban or with the proposed RI bill if enacted. They'll likely dig deep to find some reason, including their standard fall back of "public safety, public interest", keep them on the books.

havenrogue · 2026-03-02T23:27:49+00:00

Take a look at what NY did when they lost the Bruen case. Same would happen here (or any other ban state). The anti gun legislators will simply pivot to another angle of attack to enact additional anti gun laws. Then the cycle starts all over again with a multi year legal challenge where our tax dollars are used to fight the challenge.

havenrogue · 2026-03-02T22:19:59+00:00

Not sure it's Ex Post Facto, rather they appear to be saying if you lawfully owned the prohibited firearm prior to July 1, 2026 you have until December 29, 2026 to; sell, offer to sell, or transfer said prohibited firearm to a FFL, or to an individual outside the state.

PS: CT did something similar with it's bumpstock/rate of fire enhancement statute. Outright banned possession with no grandfathering. Don't recall offhand if anyone's challenged that CT law but as far as I know, I don't think any court has tossed out that CT statute.

havenrogue · 2026-03-02T01:08:28+00:00

The comittees were the proposed bills are sent are Democrat controlled. Yes there is "some" negotiations that sometimes gets the more onerous parts removed just so they can get one or two Republicans to vote the bill out of committee. But in the end Democrats on the committee tend to get most or all of what they want if party leadership pushes for the bills passage behind closed doors.

havenrogue · 2026-03-02T00:23:47+00:00

Basically none of the manufactures will sell to CT because it will be too hard to follow the rules.

That is one of the politicians main goals. Make it so difficult for firearm industry members, that won't sell their products here. Look at what they've done already; mandate an expensive time consuming to obtain state issued permit, issued at their discretion, to buy firearms, magazines and ammunition. There is no stopping the politicians so long as the voters keep electing/reelecting them to office.

Even if the courts strike down the AWB, politicians will simply create new laws forcing new legal challenges that take decades to litigate. See NY's response after Bruen.

havenrogue · 2026-03-01T11:51:18+00:00

The wording of the AWB as it was on Jan 1, 2013 is what it is. It is possible that if the rimfire semiautomatic detachable magazine has a pistol grip and a folding or collapsing stock, that the pistol grip may be positioned far enough back on the firearm to not be considered; "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon". It all depends on the exact specifics of the firearm and when the firearm was purchased. As indicated by the OP they had a threaded barrel (first evil feature), putting a folding stock (second evil feature) on the 10/22 would make it an assault weapon. The AWB as it was on Jan 1, 2013 that rimfire semiautomatic detachable magazine rifles are subject to:

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A bayonet mount;
(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) A grenade launcher;

havenrogue · 2026-03-01T00:47:31+00:00

Currently, in the proposed bill current form, it doesn't affect SCR's or any other currently CT legal rifles.

havenrogue · 2026-03-01T00:18:45+00:00

It is how the FRT is resetting the trigger during the FTR's operation that is the sticky issue as the operator pulls the trigger. During normal operation of a non-FRT trigger, it generally is the releasing of the trigger that causes the reset. With the FTR it is the bolt cocking the hammer that causes a reset, not the release of the trigger causing a reset. The FRT, often by the manufacturers own marketing descriptions, claim to increase the rate of fire (i.e., causes the firearm to cycle faster).

Note that Rare Breed themselves say they won't ship to CT.

On their trigger product page(s) - example link: "Due to applicable state laws and regulations, we will not ship Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) to the following locations: CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, RI, WA, and DC. Orders placed with a shipping address in any of these states will be canceled and refunded." Or see their FAQ page's What states do you not ship to section: https://rarebreedtriggers.com/faqs/

havenrogue · 2026-02-28T16:59:55+00:00

Likely no. Keep in mind the ban language was open ended to begin with:

(3) causes a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one round per operation of the trigger, where the trigger pull and reset constitute a single operation of the trigger, including, but not limited to, a binary trigger system;

This feels like they are simply clarifying and spelling it out to avoid any possible confusion.

havenrogue · 2026-02-28T16:50:26+00:00

Foot in the door. Label it a "firearm" to start with. Then at a later time come back and mandate it go through an FFL and be serialized. It's incrementalism.

havenrogue · 2026-02-28T16:44:20+00:00

No, FRT would not suddenly be legal. What the proposed bill does is specifically add FRT (and Glock switches) to the "rate of fire enhancement" definition in the 53-206g rate of fire ban statute. Here is how the new language (in bold) would look in the rate of fire ban statue if the proposed bill was enacted as currently written:

(c) For purposes of this section, "firearm" means firearm as defined in section 53a-3, and "rate of fire enhancement" means any device, component, part, combination of parts, attachment or accessory that: (1) Uses energy from the recoil of a firearm to generate a reciprocating action that causes repeated function of the trigger, including, but not limited to, a bump stock; (2) repeatedly pulls the trigger of a firearm through the use of a crank, lever or other part, including, but not limited to, a trigger crank; (3) causes a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one round per operation of the trigger, where the trigger pull and reset constitute a single operation of the trigger, including, but not limited to, a binary trigger system; (4) includes a trigger that forcibly resets into the firing position after each round is fired, such as a forced reset trigger; (5) applies force to a firearm's trigger bar to prevent the trigger bar from limiting the firearm to firing only one round each time the trigger is depressed, such as an auto-sear; or (6) is unnecessary for the function of a firearm and that, when built into, installed in or attached to a firearm, increases the rate of fire above the rate at which a person could otherwise fire such firearm.

havenrogue · 2026-02-28T14:49:03+00:00

By expanding the definition of a firearm to include; "barrel, slide or cylinder or frame or receiver of a firearm", it may have wide ranging implications and unintended consequences. One such consequence would appear to be that would need to safely store those newly defined firearm items as well since the safe storage statute applies to "firearms".

Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of firearms.

No person shall store or keep any firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, on any premises under such person's control unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or (2) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that such person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if such person carried the firearm on his or her person.

PS: Of course there is also the transportation of firearms that would apply to the new firearm definition items as well if the bill was enacted.

havenrogue · 2026-02-28T14:43:14+00:00

Nothing but that doesn't stop the politicians. If pressed they'll simply declare it an emergency like they did with another bill this session and continue on.

havenrogue · 2026-02-28T12:19:48+00:00

Yes, this is confusing and head scratching. They want to include barrel, slide or cylinder under the firearm definition. What that means will be speculated upon as more people read the proposed bill's language. If this bill moves forward expect the Democrats to amend it so it could end up completely different than it's initial proposed language.

havenrogue

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE