Stag Arms Owner Unveils Modified Rifles That May Be Legal In CT

by Categorized: Jobs Date:

Five weeks after Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed a gun control law outlawing any retail sales for the entire product line of Stag Arms, the maker of military-style rifles unveiled a new design Thursday that its owner said will not be subject to the Connecticut ban.

Stag Arms unveils its redesigned military-style assault rifle, at bottom, and the original, at top. (Michael McAndrews | Hartford Courant)

Stag Arms unveiled its redesigned military-style assault rifle, at bottom, and the original, at top. The two weapons look identical. (Michael McAndrews | Hartford Courant)

From the outside, the new firearm looks identical to other Stag rifles, complete with matte black finish, pistol grip and adjustable stock.  Stag owner Mark Malkowski showed a prototype of the new  rifle in the shipping room of his New Britain plant,  explaining why it’s legal.

It’s not a radical new concept. The gun fires smaller bullets, which are allowed under the new law even in a military-style rifle.

The new model will only be available in Connecticut, said Malkowski, who founded the company exactly 10 years ago. But he said he’s not in any way trying to defy the state.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “My only intention here is to sell a product in the state where I reside, to people who have supported me for a decade.”

It is, to use the phrase of Tony Terzi, my colleague at Fox CT, “compliance, not defiance.”

The main changes is that the gun has a redesigned bolt carrier, the 5-inch long, cylindrical fitting that moves the bullet from the magazine to its firing position. It carries .22-caliber bullets of the sort fired by millions of people including children at camps, rather than the longer, more powerful .223 Remington rounds used in Stag Arms’ line of AR-15 rifles.

Some .22-caliber rifles in the AR-15 platform are already on the market, made by companies including O.F. Mossberg & Sons, in North Haven. With about one-third the firing velocity and a much smaller overall size, the .22 bullets are far less lethal than the .223 rounds, which are virtually identical to the bullets widely used by soldiers in fully automatic assault rifles.

Malkowski said he intends to seek approval from the state police firearms unit, which is charged with interpreting the 139-page law. He’s certain there’s no problem, but wants to check with authorities as a courtesy, and so they’ll be able to answer questions about the guns.

The firearms unit is already plenty busy answering questions about what guns may be transferred to what customers, based on subtle issues in the law — and it must help devise systems for the state’s new rifle registration, registration of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds and increased background checks.

But even if the redesign is approved, Malkowski said, he might still move all or part of his company — which now has 200 people in a four-building complex in New Britain — to another state that does not restrict sales of his rifles.  Last week, Malkowski was at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Houston, where he met with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who’s actively wooing gunmakers from states that have enacted tighter controls.

“There’s more factors that are in place with that,” he said.

The main issue that will determine a move is how much other states offer, and how customers around the nation will react to Connecticut gunmakers in the wake of the ban. The local firearms firms, including the Colt companies, worry that sales will fall if gun owners — a famously cantankerous bunch — boycott Connecticut brands. Federal law requires all firearms to have the location of their manufacture prominently stamped on the product, and many gun-rights advocates don’t want “CT” on their firearms.

“We have seen a slowdown,” Malkowski said. “We’re not sure if it’s 100 percent affected by that.”

The slowdown, however, is from a very brisk pace that was strong throughout 2012 and gained more speed after the Newtown tragedy, with the threat of bans. Malkowski said he’s able to make just over 6,000 rifles a month, and has an 8-month backlog of orders.

The new rifles could be shipped by the end of this month, and among the first buyers is John Napierski, co-owner JOJO’s Gun Works in Southington, who ordered a few dozen. It was Napierski who sold the first-ever Stag rifle, after Malkowski founded the company in part to advance his innovation of firearms for people who aim with their left eye and shoot with their left forefinger.

“There’s a lot of buzz about the new products coming out from Stag,” Napierski said. His store previously depended on rifles that are now banned for about 40 percent of its business, but that’s been made up, he said, with custom gunsmithing.  Some stores that don’t have such a specialty are suffering.

Some people who support the law are critical of Malkowski’s effort to design around it.

“If people are going to try to design around what the ban is, then that’s violating the spirit of the law and clearly by their own statements, that’s what they’re doing,” said Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “If this law had not been passed, would they be designing this weapon?”

Opponents of the law, and some who support it, say any manufacturer’s modifications to meet new rules are just plain Yankee ingenuity.

Another possible variation is a version that saws off the pistol grip. That would make the gun legal in Connecticut because the ban affects firearms that are semi-automatic, with detachable magazines and one or more military features, such as the pistol grip or a flash supressor at the end of the barrel.

On April 4, when Malloy signed the bill, Malkowski showed me a sawed-off version of an AR-15  in his office. Thursday, he was coy about whether he’ll built one of those. “We have a lot of things in development, always,” he said.

I’m in the group that thinks this is all good Yankee ingenuity because, after all, the law did not necessarily ban the most deadly weapons out there — it banned the ones that have the menacing features found on assault rifles, such as pistol grips, combined with the more powerful rounds.

Here you have two identical guns in look, features and function, one of them apparently legal because it uses a smaller caliber bullet — even though some guns that are semi-automatic, with detachable magazines and much larger, .308-caliber rounds, are still legal in Connecticut simply because they don’t have a pistol grip.

Malkowski doesn’t even consider the new version an AR-15 at all.  As proof, he heads to a back room and takes out yet another model that looks and feels like his regular line of banned firearms — except that it has an orange tip and fires tiny plastic pellets.  He licensed another company to make it a few years ago.

“It’s a toy,” Malkowski said, “but some people in law enforcement use it for training.”

The latest, .22-caliber version is definitely not a toy, but it’s just as surely not a weapon Malloy and lawmakers intended to ban. It only looks like one.

 

More About The AR-15:

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

125 thoughts on “Stag Arms Owner Unveils Modified Rifles That May Be Legal In CT

  1. Ronald Bentley

    Come to North Carolina we would gladly welcome you to our state. Just let us know when the 22 cal comes out Ill buy one, it will match the A1 I already own.

    1. CTYankee

      Lots of folks down here in Eastern NC would love to have the jobs!!…Come on down!! More and more manufacturing is coming into the area. A hard working & willing work force awaits!!

      1. Yankee Doodle

        We are in agreement; we want the gun companies to pack their bags, put their shit in plastic bags and take it with them so it does not pollute out disposal systems.

        Go down and help employ some of those toothless yoddles. Have them sow you up a replica Confederate uniform so you can go playing secession games with you little guns.

        See if I care.

        1. SadCTresident

          You kiss your Mother with that mouth? You should be ashamed of putting such a crude, ignorant response on this page. Makes you look like a toothless “yoddle” yourself. Maybe, during your superior CT education, you missed English and Vocab. It’s “yokels”…and we’ve apparently got our share in CT, too. How about some reasonable discourse and respect. NC has had the kind of growth in education, research, and technology jobs that CT’s government DREAMS about. All we have up here is growing un- and underemployment and a decrease in manners. Sure, let someone else get MORE of our jobs. Face it, arms and armaments built this state in the modern era….from battleship gun barrels in Ansonia, to handguns in Hartford, military aircraft engines in Hartford, to Submarines in Groton. I don’t see a lot of work replacing it.

          1. Yankee Doodle

            I know all about NC. Actually, I was thinking South Carolina. And yes, I was outrageous but it is fun to be such once in awhile. But in truth, America needs to fix our gun problem. And I have grown tired of the vitriol yelled at my side.

            I have a feeling that in the end, neither side will get what we all want. But in the end, if less gun violence is the lasting result, then we all win in spite of our emotions.

        2. Jay GatZby

          Gee, that’s great. Connecticut will have more unemployed toothless yoddels, while some slightly better off locals will applaud their jobs going to toothless yoddels in a state with fewer trust fund babies, but more employment opportunities in the private sector.

          You will care when increased taxes eat up more of your fixed income. Asyou watch CT state employees trade in their Audi A4’s for A6’s.

          See if I care.

        3. Ned Slapenski

          You’re a hateful little cuss. How about from now on, when you don’t like something don’t do it – just stop trying to ban it for everyone else. Dirty scum sucking commie, go to hell.

          1. Yankee Doodle

            I would invite you to kiss my ass but I would be afraid that you would give me some kind of puss disease.

        4. Gunowner

          Actually Yankee Doodle we would want the welfare users to pack their bags and disappear not the gun companies or gun owners. We pay taxes, what do you collect?

        5. benjamin harrison

          Hate crime alert.Yankee Doodle is a regional racist.Finding people to be inferior to his exalted station in life in grandma’s basement based on their residence is an especially virulent form of racism.Assuming a bunch of yokels are all that live in some place is generally based on them being the apparently disavowed lighter races.Peddle your prejudice where it counts;as in nowhere.

    2. Tony

      Boy is Sandy Hopok father and gun control advocate and Malloy buddy Neil Heslin gonna be mad. Oh nevermind hes going to prison soon.

      1. Gunowner

        Malloy likes to take his pictures with convicted felons. I saw a picture of Daniel Malloy and Benjamin Malloy, his son currently on probation, right next to a picture of Mr. Heslin, soon to be on probation.

  2. Dan

    Would love to buy another Stag, but I will not buy a firearm made in a state that outlaws them for the state residents to own them. I do not want to see my tax dollars go into that state. I will learn to shoot right handed before I would buy a Stag built there.

    1. Steve

      Agreed! I love my left-handed Stag but won’t buy another as long as they’re manufactured in the Socialist State of Konnecticut.

    1. Raul

      Rosa DeLauro Looks scary and she is allowed in Ct.
      Plus what does “looks scary” have to do with the issue.

      1. nick

        raul have you not been following this at all? the whole point is the guns function like any other rifle, but their cosmetic appearance is what turns so many people off. it has nothing to do w/ the gun actually being more lethal, but many think because its scary and black it is more dangerous. have you been living under a rock?

      2. RL

        Yeah Raul, the point is this: no matter what they look like, all guns are lethal. And people who need to own the most lethal-looking ones are the people who feel most impotent, so they buy a really scary gun so tht the world won’t see what a fucking pussy they are on the inside. Understand?

        1. raul

          RL,Scary is in the eye of the beholder and it isnt hard to see who the pussies are. You would probably find my 410 Scary,Understand.

          1. RL

            Awesome, Raul! You’re not scared of guns because you’re so TOUGH, because YOU have guns!

          1. RL

            Because cops put themselves in harm’s way, because they’re not fuckin pussies.

            If you want to handle such a weapon, become a cop or a soldier, go through all the vetting and training that goes with it, and see if you’re really able to spend every day in situations where such weaponry is necessary.

            You want the weapons, Bob W, without the training, and without the real danger of having to use them. You want to feel like a tough guy and pretend, when all you’re really tough enough to do is shoot at a paper target that won’t shoot back.

            You’d shit yourself if you ever had to go against another person with a gun, and you’d pray for the police to arrive.

          2. Gunowner

            Yeah 3 hrs of training a year qualifies a cop. I get more than that skeet shooting every week. Then range time with my AR and 1911. Who is more qualified RL

    2. Ben

      CT Law exempts rimfire rifles (which .22 caliber cartridge is a rimfire.). The rifle above is a semi-auto .223 caliber (a centerfire cartrige) which is banned in CT.

      1. jon

        Ben,
        Read the article before you post. The top one is the .223 and the bottom is the new .22.

  3. Doc Broom

    Come on Stag Arms…. just move out of Connecticut be done with them and shake the dust from your sandals…..

    1. Joseph Smith

      He’s not going to move out, he just wants to cry and pout because the pro gun people, did not get their way.

  4. Danny Hatt

    Connecticut blows, we get it, we live here, but don’t take companies from us because we have bad leadership.

    We the people don’t agree with the leadership.

    Keep your enemy close, stay in ct.

    1. Gunowner

      Anybody wants to take the Welfare Collectors and their votes. Please invite them to your state. Only the Peoples Republic of California is vouching for them. No other state is inviting these people. Maybe their leaders will follow them to Cali.

  5. Philip

    I own a Stag rifle but will not purchase another product by them until they leave the state of CT. NC is very 2nd Amendment friendly and we could use the jobs!

  6. Pete

    I love how the business is threatening to move, using the rationale that the new law is killing their sales figures. We all know that sales of weapons like this are at record numbers right now BECAUSE of panic over this type of legislation. The “reduction” of sales figures is another scare tactic.

    People like Dan up there are the problem, not any new law. The only reason sales figures would go down for any reason is because gun rights advocates are trying to make a political statement by trying to “stick it” to the state and Gov. Malloy, or purposely boycotting the company with the sole intention of having the company relocate.

    It is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    The law is preventing the weapons from being sold in CT, nowhere else. So how much sense does it make to boycott the company entirely and risk doing a great deal of harm to the company in general? There is another potential outcome here: the company could go out of business entirely. Is that what the gun owners really want?

    The development of this new CT-legal weapon is another clue that this company really doesn’t want to go anywhere. They’re trying to do as much as they can to prevent having to move. Transforming a large company is extremely expensive, time consuming, and dangerous, and Stag knows that.

    1. Bob W

      So what? And when pussifiers in the state say no, then Stag pulls up its stakes and moves and takes it one step further and boycotts CT altogether by not selling anything CT including law enforcement.

    2. Andrew

      Because by buying from a company located in a certain state you are indirectly paying money to that state’s government through the taxes they collect from that business….Pretty simple concept as to why theyre boycotting the business.

  7. dave

    I also own a stag arms im in Wisconsin we have no problems yet but will not buy from a state that’s going against are rights

  8. Reg

    Pete – gun owners across the country will watch to see what Stag does, and may punish them for staying in CT. Not b/c of their product, but b/c they’re staying in a state that ignores the 2A and violates gun owners rights. As Smith and Wesson what happened to them in the 90’s after they turned their backs on gun owners.

    From Huffington Post:

    “Under pressure from the boycott, sales fell 40 percent, and Smith & Wesson closed two factories. In 2001, Tompkins PLC, its British owner, sold the company to a U.S. buyer for $15 million, a fraction of the price it had paid for it just a few years earlier.”

    Stag is very well aware that the same thing could happen (I would say WILL happen) to them if they turn their back on gun owners and stay in CT.

  9. mikey

    The stupidity of gun owners knows no bounds. For example, take for example the Republican GOP nominee for prez. The company he founded refused to invest in business that manufactured guns – calling them “morally questionable businesses.”

    I bet a lot of gun owners had no problem supporting him. The whole I’m going to boycott your state because it has limits on guns is childish. The only people you are really hurting are the people who make the guns — you know people on your side. I don’t buy products from people who’s business practice I find questionable or don’t support, but I don’t try to take it out on entire.

    1. RL

      Mikey, don’t insult children by calling these people childish. Children don’t have the inclination to shoot each other with guns until depraved morons like these people give them the idea to…and in many cases, also give them the actual guns to do it.

      These people are grown-ups who live in a fantasy land where they are all Rambo. It’s called “arrested development.” A failure to recognize that putting energy into a peaceful and loving society is the true act of courage, and arming onesself to the teeth with the possibility of killing others is the height of cowardice.

      1. Mark

        Wouldn’t you say that if the vast majority of the people you choose to belittle have passed background checks and maintain clean records they have demonstrated exactly what you see as your ideal? They are,in most cases, the personification of peaceful and loving. Think about it, I’ll say it again, the vast majority of the owners of these weapons have passed background checks and have clean criminal records or they would not have passed the background check. And furthermore the vast majority does NOT arm itself with the anticipation of “OH BOY!! I CAN’T WAIT TO SHOOT SOMEBODY!!” Nothing could be farther from the truth and those people who would project us as thinking in such a manner are the ones that should be ashamed of themselves.

        1. Bob W

          Mark, Don’t try to reason with an pseudo intellectual bigot. They’re hypocrites.

        2. RL

          I really don’t mind you owning a gun, Mark. What I don’t like are those who stand in the way of extending public safety measures like the limitation on magazine sizes, background checks on 100% of gun sales, and limitations on the number of guns a person can own.

          If you support such measures, then I apologize to you. But the voice of the gun lobby makes those reasonable measures into an absurd slippery slope in which the end game is the government seizing all guns and enslaving the population.

          Which is bullshit, and everyone knows it. So if you don’t stand up to that bullshit, then you’re kind of part of the problem.

          1. Justsomeguy

            I’m glad to know that RL is the go to guy for public saftey measures. I’m so relieved that he’s available to tell us what we should think and support. It must be tough being as self important as he is.

          2. benjamin harrison

            Just great that RL doesn’t ‘mind’ someone owning a gun if they comply with his child-like demands.What he wants,is thankfully irrelevant to gun owners,who don’t have to bend to his obviously uninformed pinheadery.

        3. RL

          You can’t cut back on the number of guns! We need guns to protect us from all the guns that are out there because of our ridiculously lax gun ownership and manufacturing laws!

        4. SadCTresident

          Nicely said. The ignorance and name slinging on both sides of this issue are ridiculous and sad. Lots of pent up egos hiding behind anonymous handles with no consequences for their boorish, nasty behavior.

    2. Frank Castle

      Mikey, You are ignorant. I would support a gerbil over Obama. It would do less damage if elected. Heck I supported Romney (yuck) and it has zip, zero and nada to do with race so don’t pull the race card! There are plenty of other companies that make AR-15s so yep if Stag stays in CT I won’t purchase another product from them Period Full Stop. Their .22 version of the AR-15 is just a weasel around the law and an attempt to play both sides. What generally happens when you try to please everyone is you please no one. Take a stand Stag!

  10. RL

    Very exciting! A sexy new rifle for you gun fetishists to dream about and hold while you bathe yourselves in fantasies about fighting off criminals and going to war with the government.

    1. Gun Enthusiast

      Thats right RL, while we are able to protect our house and person from whatever threatens us you can sit at home and hope to hell that your frying pan holds off the animal trying to kill you.

      1. RL

        So you need to be able to buy unlimited guns with high-capacity magazines and no background checks in order to keep animals out of your home?

        Okay then. How about one handgun or shotgun, no more than ten bullets, properly vetted to cut down on crime, and limits on ownership to cut back on dangerous personal arsenals?

        Seems like that would allow you to keep animals at bay while also potentially hamstringing the efforts of inner-city drug lords as well as people like James Holmes, Harris and Klebold, and the fuckface in Newtown.

        1. AmericanJack

          Your thinking is based on the assumption that the bad guys are going to comply with the laws and submit to background checks. They will not. Your argument is flawed, And your incendiary ranting weakens your argument even more.

        2. Bob W

          “So you need to be able to buy unlimited guns with high-capacity magazines and no background checks in order to keep animals out of your home?”

          Why do the cops need the same then?

          1. RL

            Because the cops are the ones we hire to protect us, and they put themselves in harm’s way every single day, and they are trained to handle such weapons and deal with criminals.

            That’s why.

          2. John

            Rely on cops….yeah right. If you ask them, they would disagree with you that they hired to be your personal protector. I’ll rely on myself, I’ve done in before in a place called VIETNAM

        3. GovtSanity

          RL: You must live inside your local police department because in almost ALL cases of gun violence against civilians the police respond to the crime AFTER the fact. We clean up the mess and identify how the incident occurred. We can’t be everywhere at all times. This is why the majority of police officers SUPPORT a legally armed population. Quite simply – and statistics support this – legal gun ownership DECREASES and DISCOURAGES crime. It also gives honest & law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves. The degenerate criminals and drug addicts that we arrest day in & day out have NO REGARD for the laws. I feel that the magazine limit included in SB 1160 will result in an INCREASE in violent crime. Just as strict regulations have increased crime in MA, DC, & IL.

          1. SadCTresident

            Nicely said GovtSanity. I will add, though I don’t mean to offend any LEO’s….we don’t hire the police. The police don’t work for you and me. The police are not accountable to you and me. They are hired by the gov’t, directed in large part by political appointees, and are paid by the government, and protected by a union. While these fine men and women swear an oath, that oath does not
            Put the citizen first. Most LEOs do, but the bureaucracy does not.

          2. Yankee Doodle

            John: then return to Vietnam Nam and you may protect yourself with your old trusty M-16.

            Your living in the past. Take a break, gunner.

        4. Ant

          You have not stated any facts to why guns should be banned. You just blabber on . The loudest one in the room is the weakest and that is u R I

        5. Gunowner

          RL your stupidity puzzles me. A person can shoot one gun at a time, maybe too. A personal arsenal? What does it matter if I own one or tens of guns. They are locked and away from anybody’s reach but my own. And when the day comes and an unauthorized person gets ahold of my gun, I will wake up, I was having a nightmare because the possibility of it falling in the wrong hands is zero. So what is your opposition to people collecting guns. I like AR’s, ranch riffles shotguns, those old Mossins, why not a SKS, 1911 is every gun owners dream, them Sig Sauer, than sexy looking 32 what about the 1980’s east Germany Walther, Cabelas has a sale on the Nagant Revolver and darn I see a S&W revolver on sale at Hoffmans. Somehow I end up with all of them. My only crime is wasting so much money in paying state tax and giving a raise to the Hartford Legislators. The rest of the money is well spent.

        6. benjamin harrison

          Thank you for your efforts to determine what other people need.When you enter the real world,you might get to sit at the table with the big girls.

  11. Dave

    This rifle is not anything new. Granted I commend Stag for introducing a new line of rifles, but I would have been more impressed if they found a way to deliever a .223 rifle that circumvents the current legislation. The .22 AR has been around for a few years and is produced by several manufactures.

  12. Gman

    I can’t wait till they move out….go now! No one was worried about postal jobs…take your jobs and shove them

  13. Kyle

    I am a CT resident. I hate to say it but I would move the company out of state.
    But give us some time, there

  14. AmericanJack

    Even though Stag is making the modifications to comply with the law, the anti-gun crowd will accuse them of “skirting the law.” What the really want is NO firearms sales in CT. Period.

    1. Joseph Smith

      GUNS! GUNS! GUNS! I am sick and tired of hearing about guns. Do you people do anything else beside shoot guns and think about them constantly. Does it make you feel real powerful that you have the power to kill from a distance. Get a life!

      1. Suburban

        People go crazy over the newest iPhones, and stand in lines at the Apple store. THAT’s kind of silly. Get a life.

        Should the day come, when I really need a firearm, I really don’t want to be without one. Law enforcement officers are second responders. The first responders are the ones there when something happens. Should I find myself facing an immediate lethal threat, the police may be 12 minutes away. That’s what this is about.

        Even beyond that, it isn’t right to deny someone something because they MIGHT misuse it. We’re supposed to treat people as innocent until proven guilty, not the other way ’round.

      2. benjamin harrison

        Get a perspective.Gun owners haven’t been talking so much about guns when their rights haven’t been threatened by people like you,little missy.If you weren’t attacking non-criminals and their personal choices,you’d never know about their interests.Other than whining,what’s your life?

  15. Paul E. Bahre

    Our state legislators here in the Peoples Republik of CT have their heads firmly up their backsides. That goes along with the Governor. It’s what I come to expect when the American Wing of the Socialist Party (The Democrats) have a super majority and the Governor’s office. They can do just about anything they please. And with a stacked state supreme court there is no hope for freedom at all in this totalitarian bastion of socialist thought.

  16. Dave

    RL how about posting some constructive arguments rather than attacking another poster because they happen to enjoy firearms. Calling people morons and f-ing pussy isn’t really helping your cause.

    1. bryan

      It’s the language of the common leftist. No fact, no intelligent content or intellect, just vulgar noise and ranting in an effort to be heard. If you can’t make sense, be loud and vulgar.

  17. John

    “skirting” the law just highlights how stupid the law is. STAG, Move out of CT so I can continue to buy your great products. If you don’t you are just proving they can bend you over and you will take it. I regularly drive though CT and I will not spend another dollar in that state even if I have to carry gas cans and a sack lunch to make it though.

  18. John Joseph

    I was hoping for a semi-auto without the pistol grip and flash suppressor chambered in 5.56/.223 or 7.62/.308. I would think that will be the next Stag offering.

  19. glennhamilton

    There’s got to be something in the water in Ct.A .22 cal gun shot to the head can kill just like a .223 cal bullet.I understand the .223 is banned.
    Do Ct law makers have any idea on what they are doing?
    I know that the Ct State Police know what they are doing dealing with firearms and ballistics. They need to have a real long talk with the lawmakers in Ct. They really need to be educated when they create these feel good laws.
    Liberal left wing people do not have a clue! You are so lucky Ct!

    1. Fake Thomas Jefferson

      I believe Stag introduced this today to be used in litigation at some point. What would a Judge say if you showed him a rim-fire .22 AR, a center-fire .223 AR, 7.62 M1 Garrand and he was then told that the .223 centerfire AR was now banned and the .22 AR and M1 Garrand were still legal and the Judge asked why to the attorney representing the State of CT that one is illegal and the other two semi-automatic rifles are legal, that attorney will have a hard time telling the Judge that because it looks the way it does it is more dangerous than any other semi-automatic firearm that is misused in an illegal manner.

  20. Joe

    I live in CT & love my legal guns and in the infamous words of Snagglepuss I say with him —
    “Exit Stage Left”

  21. John

    Stay or go. I don’t care. Just because you have a business in state doesn’t make you special. Another business will replace it and the highly specialized machinists will have work at other positions.

    If it is best for your business to leave state, then leave. Go ahead, up root all your workers or lay off loyal employees and disrupt your entire supply chain because someone offended you.

    Then, you can go to one of the states and have people celebrate your coming and you can feel special and welcome. I hope your business does well in that regard.

    Stay or leave.

    CT is not going to kiss your behind because you employee people. Leave that to other states.

    1. bryan

      I agree! It’s become a nearly impossible task to keep the hoards of thriving businesses seeking to set up shop in this state, from buying up every scrap of open land to build factories and hire thousands of workers!I say we do anything possible to lose more employers, who needs them!

  22. Tepluken

    It is rather disturbing how many gun owners put their fetish for assault weapons ahead of the lives of children. Many – though by no means not all – assault weapon owners are fanatics.

    It is awfully disturbing. Folks like at communist party rallies and wonder “how can people be so fanatical, so uncritical in their following of a leader?”. No need to wonder. Just look at the how NRA types follow Wayne LaPierre and you have your answer

    1. bryan

      Thankfully, the majority of Americans do not see the bill of rights and our freedom as a “fetish”

    2. Gunowner

      Actually gun crime is down in the last 20 years while the firearm sales have skyrockets. I am sorry that your African Fetish is leading you to kiss Barry’s A..

    3. benjamin harrison

      Many,and probably all,liberals are educated beyond their capacity to learn.What is an ‘NRA type’?I’ve never seen one type associated with the constitution and the pre-existing rights of man.What’s awfully disturbing is how people who claim compassion and resistance to prejudice pre-judge anyone who disagrees with their authoritarian jack-bootery in deed and thought.Leave your fellow man who is doing nothing wrong alone,and you won’t have to be so prissy and awfully disturbed.

  23. garrett menard

    I knew they would not walk away from potential sales! it is cheaper to just modify for a market;rather than relocate. was just a tantrum.

  24. Henry Salo

    Even some Ct. police officers said some parts of the new Ct. gun law are unenforceable. Plus Ct. governor is impaired that he can’t read. Malloy suffers from dyslexia. He has to have someone read for him. Malloy can’t even write or type. Sure he can sign his signature but somebody read the bill to him. I found this out in the internet. I knew someone who had it. He was a carpenter foreman. He has to have someone who will read blueprints for him. When it came to job reports, his wife did the job reports. He just signed them. Some people can get away with this.

  25. p hofperson

    am still waiting for someone to explain to me why they need a military style gun? they certainly aren’t hunting deer or ducks with it. keeping it at their bedside, loaded and not under any type of safety is just putting their own family at risk. have yet to hear of any homeowner using one to protect himself or his family. I am a legal gun owner and would be able to pass any mental background check as opposed to some of these posters who would fail miserably and that’s why they are so frightened of them. for those companies thinking of moving, take a look at the services available, the quality of the workforce and living conditions. no one can keep anyone here is they don’t want to stay and they’ll use any excuse to leave

    1. Mike Steven

      You sure you own a gun? If you were a gun owner, then you wouldn’t have asked “why they need a military style gun”.

    2. Gunowner

      I hope in two years you don’t ask why do we even need a semi-automatic handgun. And in three years, the revolver will be the new assault weapon. Ten years, why would anyone need black powder.

    3. benjamin harrison

      How very liberal and outlook.Military style,not function,is your determining ideal for what is legal or not.Read a book.

  26. bryan

    RL, It’s stunning to find someone that is as ignorant, misinformed, vulgar, and arrogant as you are. Truly, you are the quintessential raging leftist in all it’s glory. I would respond in detail to your senseless rantings, but I was taught never to engage an idiot in a battle of wits, as they will only drag you to their level and beat you with superior experience. So I will leave you to spread your vulgarity, lies and mis information, as you wallow in your little closed world of self imposed ignorance. I can hardly wait for your stream of nonsense in reply.

  27. T

    It is a modified BB gun. I wouldn’t buy it. Law enforcement should not use any banned weapons either. We, as a state, should suffer together!

  28. rl is a pol

    RL- your arrogant, condescending tough guy tone is likely intended to leave readers with the impression that you are LE but I am sure it is obvious to most that you are a political operative. Do you get paid by the post?

  29. tom tiffany

    I will not support a company that cowards to Malloy “s attack on the 2nd amendment rights,of the constitution of the United States. Malloy’s unfair taxes and 138 page of unenforceable laws,as far as I’m concerned is shitting on every VET that’s laid their life on the line to protect us from this.Hundreds of company’s have suffered losses and we will all suffer the new taxes and government scrutiny.Ban together and fight this!!HAVE some BACKBONE !!!!

  30. Jack

    Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out just who is the funding source for CAGV and Ron Pinciaro ? Everytime there is something going on, he pops up like Jack-In-The-Box in a photo or a media article. Does he have a day job ?
    The oldest saying is to follow the money …….

    1. Yankee Doodle

      Jack, this is his full time employment. Stop looking for conspiracies. Our side is becoming more organized and we will soon be out spending you all by a large margin. Quite frankly, there are many more of us then there are of you.

      So put that in your pipe and smoke it, buddy.

      1. Bulldogg

        As a former executive of both Maidenform and Natori , Pinciaro may well be dressing up in some sexy womens’ lingerie and bending over for his buddy in NY that neither likes firearms nor Coca Cola . All the spending and all the organizing do not trump the Constitution. Perhaps in the Peoples Republic of Connecticut , with Chairman Um Uh Umm Dannel and his band of merrymen , yes. In most other states however , we have seen the resistance rule when such unconstitutional measures have been introduced . Mr. Malkowski , good for you and your Yankee ingenuity ….. keep up the good work !

      2. benjamin harrison

        Who is this ‘us’there are so many of?Loonies?All the more reason to be cautious for those who defend their families and their rights under natural law.

    2. James

      CAGV is the anti-gun arm of MoveOn.org in Connecticut.

      That’s where the money comes from.

      MoveOn money is why the “democrat” leadership insisted “democrats” opposed to PA 13-3 comply; they were threatened with no campaign support.

      MoveOn money will get Don Williams re-elected.

      Follow the dough.

  31. Raymond Bernardini Jr

    Give me a brake or rather give me something to impale myself with. Is it me or is Money,Money,Money talking here. Stag needs to move out of the state and shove it up Malloy’s Butt. There is no icing for this cake.

    1. Yankee Doodle

      And I answer; please move and take the caca and urine you excrete and put in plastic bags and take it with you when you go so that you don’t pollute Connecticut earth with it.

      Go now,mo fo.

      1. benjamin harrison

        And they’ll take their taxes with them.Enjoy paying for your chicago style utopia with fewer victims of your high taxes.

  32. walls

    Next year, Danny Boy and the dems will weaken the law further so Stag will have to redesign their rifle yet again to accommodate B-B’s. That’s how dems do it … a little bit at a time until they achieve their goal.

    Soon, the sales tax will start creeping up to 9-1/2%!

  33. Lorenzo

    “If people are going to try to design around what the ban is, then that’s violating the spirit of the law and clearly by their own statements, that’s what they’re doing,” said Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “If this law had not been passed, would they be designing this weapon?”

    I would venture that Mr. Pinciaro, were he ever to have to stand before the law, would rather be held to specific violations of law rather than to its spirit.

  34. VP

    Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

    I will user whatever tools I deem necessary if the need comes to protect myself & also use the same for recreation.

    It is sad that a lowly civilian is more proficient in firearm use than the so called professionals that I witness on the range when our club allows them to use our range!

    Many of us are taking our firearms & leaving this state along with our tax dollars.

    Many that I know who work in LW & GOV state they will not follow the new law or enforce it!

    I guess that makes them criminals!

  35. James

    “If people are going to try to design around what the ban is, then that’s violating the spirit of the law and clearly by their own statements, that’s what they’re doing,” said Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “If this law had not been passed, would they be designing this weapon?”

    Complying with the words of PA 13-3 while violating the spirit of the Bill of Rights is okay?

    By the way, Ron, .22 rimfire AR-style rifles have been around a loooong time.

    Nothing new, except your being aware of their existence.

  36. Randall Stevens

    Malkowski needs to grow a set and move Stag out of Connecticut if he wants to continue to have the support of AR owners nationwide. End of story.

  37. CJH

    Ask the American Indians how it worked out for them?
    The good old US government told them to hand in their guns and we will move you to reservations and take care of you.
    We all see what happened to those poor soles!

    Next the Dems will be going after the 4th Amendment, to make it “safer” for us also

Comments are closed.