Yankee Ingenuity Meets A Ban: Effort To Redesign AR-15 Underway

by Categorized: Commerce, Manufacturing, Technology Date:

As Mark Malkowski watched Gov. Dannel P. Malloy sign the gun control bill into law on April 4, he sat in his office with three military-style rifles.

Nothing unusual there, since Malkowski’s New Britain company, Stag Arms, makes the AR-15-style guns. But one of the black weapons was a bit different – it had a sawed-off pistol grip.

The de-gripped rifle was the first go-around in Stag’s effort to design a gun that’s legal for sale in Connecticut, and still has the core of the AR-15, the wildly popular type of rifle that represents fully one-quarter of all firearms sales in the United States.

Even as he considers relocation offers from Texas and other states, he’s moving ahead in the time-honored tradition of factory managers and engineers, solving the latest problem.

“Don’t dismiss the creative minds of manufacturers. We’re entrepreneurs, we’re job creators and we will do what we have to do to succeed,” he said, minutes after Malloy signed the bill.

On that day of grimness for this 10-year-old business with 200 employees, the gun with a lopped handhold might have seemed nothing more than a symbol of protest. But now, more than a week later, Malkowski reports progress.

“I’m currently working with some prototypes that may be something that would be available for Connecticut citizens,” Malkowski said. “It’s still early in the development.”

And it’s not just the employees at Stag. “We have been approached by a lot of other designers that have input,” he said.

The State Police firearms unit is still not prepared to say what designs, exactly, will be legal. “They’re not really giving much definition to anything right now,” Malkowski said.

The reason is that the unit, part of the Department of Public Safety, has more immediate concerns, such as figuring out what retailers may sell, and how they may sell it.

A deeper concern is the law itself, which is a lot harder to get around than previous gun bans. Many people have assumed that this ban is a true, outright prohibition on the AR-15 – unlike earlier bans.

In 1993, Connecticut passed a law banning military-style rifles, which allowed the basic AR-15 design to slip through with some minor changes. That law, similar to a federal ban in effect from 1994 to 2004, prohibited guns with at least two military-style features from a list that included a flash suppressor, adjustable stock, bayonet mount and pistol grip.

The pistol grip is the one indispensable feature, so gun-makers simply designed “ban-legal” versions that had the pistol grip but didn’t include those other things.

California tightened its version of the ban, essentially outlawing  detachable magazines — another crucial feature of all military-style firearms.  In response, companies designed a so-called bullet-button, which requires a jab by the point of a bullet or some other probing object to remove the magazine.

The result: The bullet-button made the magazine non-detachable under the law, and the modified gun was good to go in the Golden State.

The latest round of bans, in New York and Connecticut, apparently offer no such easy out, lawyers connected with the industry say. That means no pistol grip – a basic part of the AR-15 design since legendary inventor Eugene Stoner first developed the ArmaLite rifle in 1957 – unless Yankee ingenuity leads to some other answer.

The irony is that a pistol grip makes a rifle safer because it’s easier to handle and less likely to be fired accidentally, firearms instructors and manufacturers say. Another irony: A modified AR-15 might function more or less like a traditional rifle with semiautomatic action that’s far deadlier – but not banned.

Just this week John W. Olsen, president of the state AFL-CIO, suggested that manufacturers get busy finding ways to modify the gun so they can sell in Connecticut.

“Obviously we are going to do everything we can to comply with state law,” Malkowski said. “We’re trying to figure out what that is right now….We will be submitting designs to the state weapons unit as soon as they’re available.”

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.

164 thoughts on “Yankee Ingenuity Meets A Ban: Effort To Redesign AR-15 Underway

  1. Jim

    I applaud Mark Malikowski’s ingenuity. As a Stag Arms owner, I can say they make a superior product. I’m sure Dannel, Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy will continue to villify gun manufacturers while continuing to use the gun manufacturers hard earned tax dollars to destroy the manufacturers in state and nationwide. The hypocrites in Hartford will continue to seek the spotlight as self crowned champions of justice producing do nothing feel good legislation. Stag should seek safer harbors before Dannel, Dick & Chris stage some event where they kick in the doors of the gun manufacturers and lay waste to the guns in some twisted reality TV public relations move. Don’t put it past the headline grabbers.

    1. walls

      Mark should quit playing cat & mouse games with the state, and forget trying to sell to CT residents. The first order of business should be to get out of CT and head for a gun-friendly state.

      1. MS

        I disagree. Just because the state government hates guns, doesn’t mean you turn your back on the states citizens that are gun owners. If you do that, you give the government free reign and admit defeat.

        1. disgruntled citizen

          the sheeple voted for these progressive liberals and their SCUM–socialist communist utopian marxist –views…why would you stay and pay taxes to support the beast?

          1. Mary Santarcangelo

            I am one of your so-called “sheeple” or, as I like to think of myself “fellow
            citizen”. Why can’t you make your argument without being so rude and hateful?

          2. Esmeralda

            Mary, They can’t because they had a poor upbringing. It is obvious and their lack of stability shows it in their ignorant posts.

          3. Gregory Polk

            I agree with the disgruntled citizen. You should use whatever language you choose. The heck with who don’t like it! Undoubtedly they also are scum and liberals. If they don’t like our pro-gun post they don’t have to read it! Tell someone who cares because we don’t!! PRO GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          4. Bryan

            I’m willing to be you have no idea what most of the words mean. I’m also willing to bet you didn’t get very far in school. But, if you want to look at numbers, liberals perform higher than conservatives in every measure of educational attainment.

        2. SEW

          Walls is correct. The majority of citizens in CT elected those officials assumably because of their pre-election promised other benefits to be delivered once in office. The CT citizens deserve what they get. Unfortunately Obama, despite his 4 year record, managed to get a majority to re-elect him and this entire country will also get exactly what we deserve as a result.

          1. PRM

            Something to ponder of our “elected” officials, yes I live in CT. After slipping the ballot into the electronic voting machine there is no way for me to know how the machine actually registered the vote.
            No screen to tell me, no “are you sure” button or Yes or No selection. Just slip the ballot in and “hope”, I shudder when I use that word, for the best.
            Until we gain control of the voting machines we will see more like this. I did not vote for ANY of these “officials” and I don’t know any one who did. How our state elected them with approx 80% mystifies me.

          2. Randy

            It has nothing to do with a poor upbringing, nor stability. It’s a matter of belief and standing up for what you believe in. In my opinion, CT citizens in general are uneducated when it comes to firearms. The lack of knowledge leads to fear in most cases. I think if education was readily available related to firearms we as a society would take pride in our own self defense rather than rely on a reactionary police force, which in most cases is too late. The legislation that just went through doesn’t help anyone, it was just action for the sake of taking action, a check in the box. It will not keep guns out of the wrong person’s hands, the US Gov spent 2.4 billion funding the DEA to keep drugs off the streets in 2012 and last I saw this nation still has a drug problem. The problem needs to be approached through education. Learn to safely operate and store firearms. Take pride and the lead role in your and your family’s safety.

        3. James Cobb

          Siphoning the firearms manufacturors out of Conn. might hurt the gun owners for a while, but remember they are the ones who let this happen in the first place. Yes, I know the State legislators and the Governor circumvented the legislative process and dissed the voters. Seems the assault weapon ban did nothing to stop Sandy Hook!

      2. H.Richard Wisneski

        Just don’t sell or service weapons to any state where your banned,No police,state,city’s or town’s let them be unarmed too

  2. Mel

    How disgusting that he would try to subvert a law that the majority of CT citizens and legislators wanted passed. I hope this dirtbag leaves the state and takes his employees and customers with him.

    1. Reformed Liberal

      Complying with the law is not subverting it. The response to this bill was overwhelmingly against passage. Look at the number of individuals that spoke against passage of the bill.

      1. Esmeralda Frankel

        Mel, I will admit that pro gun proponents flooded the LOB but our side worked behind the scenes. We only came out en mass on February 14 for our rally of almost 6,000 protestors. How many did you bring out?

        The polls showed that about 90 percent of the population was in favor of this legislation.

        The ground work have been laid for more restrictions. Mel, we don’t waste our time on these blogs. They are irrelevant and they have no effect on the body politic. Simply, these posts are a place for mental therapy release. Something our side does not need. We are effective with our work.

        1. Francis


          What you should understand is that most that know what the second amendment is and believe in its necessity also do not spend much time on blogs. Such people are concerned about the laws that you and yours work to pass and are politically active, but, in the end, many, if not most gun owners will not comply with gun restrictions anyway. They will not register their property with the state, and many will simply travel out of state when they want guns, magazines or ammo. Think about it. Since a large percentage of gun owners believe that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to protect our liberty from our own government, is it reasonable to believe that they will comply with a government that they believe is at enmity with their liberty? What do you think they are going to do with the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of now illegal guns that people have been flocking to purchase in CT in anticipation of these restrictions? It will be interesting to see how many actually do comply with the new registration laws, but I have a hunch that many will be proud to be made into the rebels that this new law has created – and since they will have already be made into outlaws by the state, newer restrictions will only further demonstrate the state’s impotence.

    2. Matt from CT

      The General Assembly passed a bad bill.

      Blame them, not the folks complying with the law that their leadership jammed through without properly vetting it.

    3. Mel needs Meds

      Yeah, how disgusting that a dirtbag tax paying business owner would want to find lawful ways to keep his 200 tax-paying employees working!

      1. Fred D

        I know. He lost 3% of his business not being able to sell in CT. Made huge profits from the “gun scare” and buying binge all across America, but we won’t mention that.

    4. Everybody is so stupid.

      How can anyone know what they wanted passed since nobody knew anything about the bill until the day they voted on it?

    5. undeterred

      How do you for certain the “majority of CT citizens” wanted the legislation passed? What research have you done? Sounds like you’re just regurgitating what the liberal media feeds you. Typical.

    6. Mike


      How can you possibly assume that a majority of CT. residents wanted this bill? This bill was done outside the public arena.
      There is no way this bill would have passed in it’s present form, had public opinion and input been solicited, it would not have passed in it’s present, complete form.
      Read the bill, the whole bill, all 138 pages of it, and you will take away that all that has really happened is that the state will create a new bureaucracy, and instutute a set of new fees. They created a new revenue stream, more than anything else. Not one single thing in all the 138 pages has, would have, or will, prevent another Newtown tragedy.
      It made a lot of law obiding citizens, with legally purchased, stored, and registered, guns in Ct, potentially Class D felons at a minimum, next year.

    7. fran

      Did a majority of citizens want the law or a majority of law makers. I say let’s put it to public vote and see where we stand. It’s easy to be on to say let them leave the state but these are good jobs that pay well. I’m sure when all these manufacturers leave the state and unemployment hits 9% we will all be happier.

    8. snafubar

      So are you actually saying that the lack of a sawed off pistol grip would have stopped the Newtown murderer? That any of these feel good laws would have stopped him?

      What I find repulsive is the knee jerk reaction of people like you who wish to subvert the US Constitution by passing unconstitutional laws.

      You are the dirtbag, and I hope you leave the state. Soon.

      1. Adam Crisp

        Hes taking the pistol grip off so it will be legal to sell in ct are you that ignorant or did u not read the article.. and the only reason this bill passed was because of the way the politiced and danced on the graves of the innocent 20 children… nothin im this bill is going to prevent another massacrw anywhere, do you really think the criminals and thugs are going to register there stolen not leahal guns! Idont think so….

    9. America Is Dying

      a law that the majority of CT citizens and legislators wanted passed?
      Say’s who?
      Not me! And thousands of others in CT did Not want this Unconstitutional Law, which is Not a Law.

    10. Mike Johnson

      Fine; I hope they do (STAG, Colt, Mossberg) and take their jobs, factories and guns down here to Texas where people still believe in freedom and leave Stupid Liberals like you behind to rot in your pathetic excuses for states. We innorant sutherners will win the next civil war without firing a shot – Because idiots like you banned all the guns……

      1. raptor5618

        Do not forget Remington in NY. I do think that a majority of the people in that state are for this bill or the politicians would fear for their cushy job and find a way not to vote it into law. I hope I am wrong and everyone who voted for this law is not in office longer than the term they are in. I think that Stag Arms should leave and go where their product is a legal product and not a criminal act. I heard that they are looking to move and I think that the state will be losing all that money for no good reason. As far as making profits, well what company does not want to make a profit. Bet that poster makes a profit by applying for aid because he certainly does not work for a living. Until these clowns who look at making a profit as if it is a criminal activity are put to rest our country is doomed. This guy employs 200 people built a big plant and purchased lots of equipment not to mention all the materials he buys which supports a whole host of other people and some of these idiots want to make them the bad guy.

        1. snafubar

          raptor5618, Illion, NY is VERY different than “downstate”. Yes, there are many “liberals” in upstate NY, but believe it or not, many of them are hunters and do not like his bill one bit. I know many upstate unions guys who voted Obozo and they are dead set against this bill.

          Withe regard to Remington leaving upstate NY, they have just been granted an $80 million enticement to stay put. Right now it looks like they are going to stay. We’ll see how long that lasts. If Remington leaves Illion, that will destroy the local economy, where good jobs are nearly impossible to come by.

    11. disgruntled citizen

      spoken like a true low information voter who supports the progressive liberal SCUM–socialist communist utopian marxist –goals. Gubmint puts impediments in the way of business…those who survive adapt. Mel yo uand your ilk are the problem progressive liberals that want the world to be perfect; news flash it is not.

    12. piccolo

      And his money and his joobs which will leave more CT residents on unemployment and an increase in poverty which will lead to more crime.

      And the outlawing of these firearms has done nothing for any real public safety.

    13. Matt

      You Liberals make me sick i wish you would all leave a go to North Korea so you can see what your views actually turn into if they are allowed too

    14. MartyH

      I hope he leaves CT taking his employees and tax dollars with him and then figures out a way to sell his CT customers good, self protection firearms despite the unconstitutional laws that the idiots in the CT legislature passed. Your new laws will cost lives, not save them.

    15. YankeeI

      Obama is skirting the Immigration laws and skirted Bankruptcy laws when he handed GM to the unions and dismissed the bond holders claims. That makes him a dirtbag, right? Remember, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Better work on your common sense.

    16. bobh

      It is the nature of all government to grow, and increase in power. The possibility, even probability, of abuse always exists. Our Nation’s founders were well aware of this and attempted to guard us against it.

      At this moment we are faced with a government no longer content to stay within it’s constitutional boundaries. The threat of tyranny becomes more obvious with each day.

      Only fools, and aspiring tyrants, would not fear and fight against this.

      Three quotes to remember, the difference between night and day.

      “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”

      Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”

      Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      “The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

      Judge Alex Kozinski

    17. Jay

      So… you’d blame all auto makers for “subverting” laws by designing cars that meet new laws? Stay classy, Mel.

    18. Tom

      Another ignorant statement from yet another ignorant CT resident. If you had any brains, or paid any attention to anything in the world that goes on around you, you might read the statistics or look at the FBI data. “Feel good” laws don’t accomplish anything. Gun laws DO NOT PREVENT CRIMES This law passage was a disgrace. The Senate vote had nothing to do with the law, it was a memorial service for a Government Sponsored Alleged Massacre that never happened. Sandy Hoax will live on as the Greatest American Tragedy staged in attempt to destroy the Constitution. This law is about political posturing and nothing more. The vast majority of resident were AGAINST this law. And when these companies leave this state and take almost $2 Billion dollars of annual revenue and almost 7500 jobs with them, what then? Your husband’s taxes will continue to climb through the roof in the most overtaxed state in the country. You don’t care because you probably don’t work. Sit how and watch all the Sandy Hoax indoctrination shows on TV and lament over how to “Save our Babies”. You people make me sick. The money these companies generate are acceptable to the state, but their products aren’t? Bunch of hypocritical losers.

    19. sam

      You are so full of sh**. If this was a law that the majority of citizens wanted then why didnt they go thru the proper procedure to make it law instead of railroading it thru. For that matter why not let the citizens of this state vote on it. Malloy knew if he waited to long that it would not pass because he would lose the emotional support. majority of citizens my as*.

    20. H.Richard Wisneski

      Only 4% of the people in the U.S,want gun controlask malloy about his son ben malloy 4oz pot arrest,armed robbery,he got 5 yr’s probation (he was holding the gun)his two buddy’s went to jail,malloy gun control,can’t control his kid so go after guns,liberal BS

        1. snafubar

          Dennis, to go further with your line of reasoning: if a “pen, pencil or keyboard” creates words that incite violence, do we outlaw writing instruments and paper and computers? How about just create an unconstitutional new law that nullifies the first amendment?

          After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.

          1. YankeeI

            Remember that to liberal the only worthwhile doors to keep open are those of your local Planned Parenthood office and the only instruments that could lead to death worth making are those used inside the PPH office!See they’re not totally against business and death!

  3. Reformed Liberal

    Dannel + force gun manufacturers out of Connecticut = higher unemployment

    Dick + events of 12/14 = raises funds for 2016 campaign per New Haven Register

    Chris + attempt to cancel broadcast of NRA 500 = more self serving political grandstanding

    Connecticut residents should really to proud that they elected these three.

    1. Charles

      “Chris + attempt to cancel broadcast of NRA 500 = more self serving political grandstanding”

      Apparently Chris Murphy doesn’t believe in the 1st Amendment either.

      1. snafubar

        Meanwhile, Sen. Blumenthal asks that you send campaign donations for his 2016 campaign, all the while standing on the little bodies of Sandy Hook.

      2. old timer

        With all the important things to do in Washington, this newbie Murphy tries to get press time with a car race. Disgusting !!!!

  4. What Ever It Takes

    If removing two inches of the deadly plastic appendage saves even one life – it was worth it.

    1. snafubar

      Do you really think that removing 2″ of plastic is going to make one bit of difference to an obsessed murderer?

  5. Pocono Shooting

    Gun Control is Unconstitutional

    Shall not be Infringed = Not limited, Not restricted, Not Controlled.

    Well Regulated = Well manned and Equipped. (not govt controlled)

    Militia = All gun owners capable and willing to fighting. (not enlisted men under contract)

    Arms = Ordinary Military Equipment (not crew operated)

    These definitions came out of the 1939 United States vs Miller Supreme Court case.

      1. littlemike

        No, Joe. It means exactly what he said. “Well manned and Equipped.” Squared away and ready, trained and orderly.

      2. John

        Joe, believe it or not, you happen to be a member of the militia as well.

        Also of note, “regulated” refers to being properly trained, safe, and maintaining adequate skill. Some old-timers still make references to regulating your muzzle when in the field hunting birds over dogs.

        But whether you can get past “well regulated militia” or “security of a free state”, the right that is specifically forbidden from being restricted is that of the people.

        Much like the use of “the people” in the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments. That is unless you’re arguing that only the government has a right to free speech…because the founders would have never conceived of the Internet.

      3. Reality

        The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms means individual citizens.

        1. al

          And Justice Scalia has already put into record that one cannot have every weapon that exists. There is a limit to what an individual can own.

        1. Norm Scott

          Most gun haters are irrational, by definition. By comparison, imagine taking chainsaw haters seriously.

    1. gun crazy

      The minority fringe deluded by gun manufacturers’ marketing hype/NRA, who actually believe they’re “capable and willing” of effectively ‘fighting’ the United States:
      Better first build-up those Saddam Hussein-style bunkers to crawl in. Oh, and maybe get busy assembling a modern air force and defense….(??)

      What a sad joke. (That isn’t one: Unfortunately it’s usually the local police who have to deal with these haters/loonies.)

      1. snafubar

        We’ve been in Afghanistan 10 years now, with no end in sight. Care to re-think your statement?

        And oh, BTW, which side do you think all those returning soldiers will be on?

        (Hint: they vowed to protect the US Constitution against all enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC).

        1. nohopeandnochange

          “We’ve been in Afghanistan 10 years now, with no end in sight. Care to re-think your statement?”

          Don’t forget that the Russians were there for nine years in the 1980’s. They went home with their tail between their legs.

        2. Alpinglow

          As it turns out, most members of the military will tell you that they disagree strongly with your position. They overwhelmingly agree that assault weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians. Only the military and police.

          1. Bob


            As a US service member your assumption is flawed. The views of some senior officers do not reflect the views of the entire force.

          2. snafubar


            Do you care to back that statement up with a link or stats or facts? Or are you just talking out of your a$$ ???

          3. artr0920

            Alpinglow, And you get this information where? Almost every veteran I know supports the 2nd amendment in fact these are the very people who volunteer to pay the ultimate price if need be to defend the constitution. But then maybe if you served you’d know that.
            By the way ever heard of the organization Oath Keepers?

      2. Mike

        I am more concerned about the rabble that believes it has a right to ransack my home for resources once the government checks stop flowing, not a group of honorable soldiers sworn to uphold the constitution.

      3. Concerned Citizen

        It’s sad that the people who know the littlest about firearms are also the ones so intent on banning them and backing these politicians agneda, which is only to further their career. What’s even more sad is the present loss of patriotism that once mad this country great. Whether patriots are able to stand up and fight against a tyrannical gov’t or not, the fact is that they stood against them. If our lives are lost defending a constitution so many have died for, then maybe it will open enough eyes to come to our aid and put the government back in place that once made this country so great. Or you can just ban everything, so in your mind everything will be OK, but in reality criminals, and drug cartels walk the streets free and untouched, and will have no problem breaking into your house to steal your valuables along with your wife’s dignity. Criminals don’t follow the laws, that is their job! So how will you defend yourself, your family, and way of life?

  6. Steve

    I hope the CT AR manufacturers and affiliates develop the new firearms AND take their business out of state. Why should the place trying to shut them down benefit from their R&D?

  7. Kate

    Good for Stag for looking at alternative designs to make a legal firearm on the AR-15 platform to serve their CT customers. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Stag and other suppliers exit CT completely in the long run, but it takes time to relocate a manufacturing operation.

    I think the legislation that was rammed through was too far-reaching and unnecessarily infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens. As has been seen it also has the potential to seriously impact a number of firearms manufacturing companies and their many local suppliers – isn’t our Governor claiming he wants to encourage companies to do business in Connecticut? He has a funny way of showing it.

    These rifles are not to blame in 99% of gun crimes – it is handguns, usually illegally-acquired handguns. So all this legislation has done is get the tinfoil hat crowd riled up about government tyranny, while simultaneously infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners, and doing absolutely nothing to help reduce the number of handguns (often illegally acquired) which cause the overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths in the US.

    The whole thing smacks of politicizing the absolute tragedy at Sandy Hook to ram through an agenda which will have no serious impact on rates of gun violence, rather than making sensible legislation with public input that might actually help make our state safer.

    Like I said, I don’t own a gun and if I did own one, it would likely be a handgun rather than an AR-15. However, just because I don’t own one and don’t want one doesn’t mean that we should prevent other law-abiding citizens from having one if they so choose. As a parent, the tragedy at Sandy Hook shakes me to the core – but this legislation is not the solution, and using the deaths of innocent children and educators for political gain is pretty pathetic.

    1. snafubar

      I resent your “government tyranny” remark. That’s EXACTLY WHY the founders gave us the 2nd amendment. And if you don’t think our “government” is heading down the path of tyranny, you’re the one wearing the tin foil hat.

      PS, 99% of gun crimes WEREN’T committed by a handgun, they were committed by a criminal.

        1. snafubar

          Ohh, you hurt my feelings.

          Name calling. Telling people to STFU. That’s what you OBOT freaks consider “intelligent discourse”

          So typical of you crybabies.

          1. artr0920

            This coming from someone that’s done nothing but try to subvert the constitution. aparently when presented with the truth the only come back is name calling.

  8. Stunned

    Make a law that bans all weapons that can hold more than one bullet at a time,you will have to reload every time, like a musket, It will make hunting more of a sport and still meet constitutional requirements and require a hell of a lot of yankee Ingenuity to get around.

    1. Norm Scott

      In the same spirit of equality, the government should actively censor, or ban, the internet, telephones, radio, and TV. Because they weren’t around either during the musket era.

      Otherwise, any blather about muskets is pure hypocrisy.

    2. Reality

      The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or sport. It also says the right to bear arms, not single shot muskets. It is a timeless right that is not given by the Constitution, but recognized as being God-given to all people. It is about protection and deterring tyranny.

      1. al

        It is not a god given right. The Constitution was written by men. By the way, please lets keep God out of this discussion since it is in the Constitution of the separation of religion and state.

        1. Joe

          Learn your history. All documents based on the founding of our nation were designed on God given rights. Read your Constitution, Bill of Rights and Federalist papers. It’s the rule of Nature versus the rule of man!!

          1. al

            And yet again…the constitution clearly states a separation of church and state. And please tell me which bible has Jesus/Allah/Buddah/Zeus walking around with an AR-15.

          2. snafubar

            Actually Al, no it doesn’t.

            The Establishment Clause prohibits 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

            That’s it. In fact, during colonial times the Center Congregational Church usually doubled as the public meeting hall.

            Joe is right. The Bill of Rights is rooted in the idea of egalitarian, autonomous, individual “natural rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”

            The Declaration of Independence references God, the Creator, and Natural Law numerous times.

            The founding documents were based on God given rights, including the 2nd amendment.

        2. Voyager

          Merely because something does not come from god does not follow that it must only come from man. There are certain rights that man cannot grant, because man cannot take them away.

          For example, the right to free thought is not granted by man, because it is not possible to take away someones right to think what they choose to. You can, however, infringe upon it, by trying to regulate or restrict what thoughts are permissible and what are not. Doing so will create a society that is fundamentally unjust, and in the long term, unsustainable.

          The right to bear arms is similar, in that you can never prevent people from acquiring or creating weapons. It can, however be infringed upon, through regulations discouraging lawful acquisition and use of them. Taken far enough it removes the consentuality aspect of a representative government, which typically ends in a non-representative government and social collapse.

          1. al

            Let me apologize about the ‘church and state” issue. You are correct that the phrase itself is not in the constitution but the meaning has been interpretted by Supreme Court and the first amendment. To say they are incorrect on this issue would be to say that they are incorrect on the issue to bear arms.
            Secondly, since I still do not see any law prohibitting anyone from owning a gun, how can this law be against Scalia’s determination that anyone cannot just have any type of weapon? There is a limit to the type of weapons allowed to an individual.
            Thirdly, because I have different opinions compared to the many pro gun enthusiasts here, I hope one can explain, without being a complete DB about it, the merits to owning a weapon such as the AR-15. I do not insult anyone over their beliefs so I expect the same. Everyone is entitled to their opinions without being insulted.
            The reason I ask is because if most crime is committed by handguns, then owning a handgun should be sufficient to protect yourself.

        3. daniel

          the bill of rights doesn’t give us any rights, it only prohibits the government from infringing on rights we already had, not because any men wrote them down and gave them to us, but because we are born with rights as human beings (the right to our life, our liberty, and our property).

          to take this further, our constitution existed for a year without a bill of rights, the federalists argued with the antifederalists that there was no reason for a bill of rights because the federal government had no power and authority to legislate on speech, or property ownership (guns, etc), or any of the other rights listed in the bill of rights.

          if the federal government had legislated against gun ownership or free speech it would have been unconstitutional before there was even a bill of rights.

          our understanding of the constitution and our rights has gone completely backwards. when the constitution was written it was understand that the federal government only had the powers specifically given to it in the constitution, no its for some reason understand that the federal government can have whatever powers it wants as long as its not listed in the constitution.

          this is liberalism today, it’s tyranny.

          1. artr0920

            Al, The merits of owning an AR 15. Lets start with because I want one. The truth is that an AR 15 is nothing more than a semi automatic firearm meaning 1 round fired for each pull of the trigger. It is made of modern materials as far a rifle goes it’s pretty easy to maintain (clean etc.)
            Typically needing less maintenance than. A wood stocked rifle. Contrary to what the antigun folks say they are very accurate. They are very ergonomic.
            And a lot of fun to take to the range for a day of shooting. And with the right ammunition they make a great defensive rifle.

      1. gzuckier

        Or that silly law against murder. Criminals don’t abide by it anyway, why do we even have it on the books?

    3. CT2A

      There are numerous laws on what calibers you may use, how many rounds your gun can hold, etc. while hunting. But why not keep posting nonsense instead of being educated on the subject?

  9. Bobcat_rt

    “Another irony: A modified AR-15 might function more or less like a traditional rifle with semiautomatic action that’s far deadlier – but not banned.”

    Here’s some more irony Mr. Haar: Hammers kill more people than rifles – but nobody is calling for a ban on them.

    Truth is, an AR-15 with or without a pistol grip is no more or less deadly than a “traditional rifle.”

  10. raptor5618

    How the uninformed can get so worked up about something that they know nothing about. They do not understand what the bill of rights says nor do they understand why it was so important that these rights were put down in the constitution. They really do not understand that handing freedom to the government is never a good thing. They may think that Obama can be trusted with this new authority but the next guy will have it and might use it in a new and horrible way. They just cannot think things through. I am so sad that our country has come to this point and I really fear that in the not so distant future those who do not understand why gun ownership is so important are going to find out the hard way. In LA during the riots the only ones had their stuff when it was over were the owners who defended their property.

  11. HelloAgainHello

    Why do you guys even bother responding to these hipster pseudo-intellectuals who complain about evil capitalism because they can’t get a job with their Masters in Native American Studies? Dumb asses are angry and hateful because their lazy, narcissistic hedonistic lifestyle has finally caught up with them and they now realize what useless twats they are. Blame your mommy, tranny daddy and pedo school counselor for your woes… Not us liberty loving hard workers..

    1. Randy

      Because they have held the bully pulpit for far too long, and more and more people are buying into their BS, simply because there are no other voices out there.

      Now many people are taking to the internet and social media to spread some facts. A commodity that is sorely lacking these days.

    2. Esmeralda frankel

      Helloagwinhello: I’m just wondering, do you lack attention in real life and posting here gives you a sense of…well, finally arriving with substantial amount of intelligence. Not.

      1. Cogito

        Esmerelda Frankel: I’m just wondering, do you have anything substantive to contribute to the conversation, or does calling people with whom you disagree puerile names give you a sense of…?

  12. Brad

    Mark Malkowski for state representative.

    See everyone at the polls in 2014. Make ‘me pay for making us all potential felons!

  13. gzuckier

    So what? We’ve been through this before. The state publishes a list of features that get a gun banned, like bayonet mounts; the usual suspects scream bloody murder about all the ways that they might need a bayonet mount and anyway the second amendment assures them the right to a gun with a bayonet mount. Meanwhile manufacturers produce a model without a bayonet mount to be sold in CT and everything’s fine until the next massacree.
    The problem is you can’t legally or effectively ban “toy army guns that shoot real bullets for people with dysfunctional fantasies”.

    1. Mike

      Are you trolling, or just stupid?
      It works the other way around my friend. Politicians that want to ban guns look at the features guns are sold with and use them to define the list of guns that are “assualt weapons”.
      Do you really think the 10 round magazine was an arbitrary number? Try again, that feature alone would ban the greater majority of hand held firearms manufactured, and sold, in the last 4 deacades.
      Pistol grip handles, bipods, and collapsible stocks? Do you think those were arbitrary features that were picked? Try again.They know exactly how wide the brush needs to be to paint with.
      As for the “dysfunctional fantasies”. Remember that at one time some politicians in Washington wanted the control of guns to come under the authority of the FDA. They wanted to classify gun ownership as a disease.

        1. Mike Reardon

          Esmeralda, fear of inanimate objects is a disease, but with therapy it can be managed. I wish you luck.

          1. The truth about the gun industry in CT

            Mike, The “inanimate object” argument is lame. It is wise to have a healthy fear of these particular objects. That is why children, and people in general, take gun safety courses. Guns are extremely dangerous. 600 deaths a year from gun accidents, thousands of accidental non-lethal injuries.

            By the way, the free insurance you get from the NRA covers only 2 things. One is payment covering cost of a stolen gun. The second is payment to your family if you, the gun owner, die from a gun. Nobody else is covered, nothing else is covered, and this free insurance it is not liability insurance. Nice hobby, eh, where the major enthusiast group covers you for your own death while engaged in the hobby. I guess they figure death insurance is the one insurance every gun owner needs the most.

        2. snafubar

          Liberalism is a mental disorder. All you have to do is look at the left wing kooks shooting defenseless people in gun free zones.

          I say ban gun sales to all liberals and their families, since they’ll just steal guns from family members to carry out their evil deeds, like the Newtown scumbag.

        3. Mike


          Apparently free and independent thought is a disease also.
          For the record, and hopefully your peace of mind, I do not own any guns that would be classified as an assault weapon under this bill, or any definition currently used in the US.
          It did however make the two magazines that were part of a handgun I purchased 25 years ago, legally, and registered, in this state, a Class D felony next year, unless I pay a fee to keep them every five years. It didn’t outlaw them, it didn’t ban them, the bill just provides a mechanism for the state to get $35.00 from me to keep them. Does that make any sense to you? The weapon is completely legal to own and carry, but the magazine that holds the bullets is not.
          So when the state passes a bill that potentially could make me a Felon, after I have followed every legal requirement the state mandates, and by which threatens my job and livliehood, I’m not sure quarantining is the solution I need.

          1. Esmeralda

            Mike: No one wants you to become a felon. So I suggest that you hand in your non-conforming magazines. Or that you destroy them. As an option, you pay the mandated registration fees.

            And we will live in a safer state. I have the greatest confidence that you are not going to become a felon since i think you mentioned that you were law-abiding.

            Do I have it correct?

  14. benjimalloy

    Good point helloagain , I repeat your sentiment . It is sad how people interpret/ stereotype these gun grabbers as intellectuals when obviously just the opposite is true. The FACTS , which the gun grabbers succinctly ignore , tell the truth . FBI statistics clearly show a precipitous decrease in gun violence since 2001. Scientific fact clearly shows a much greater likelihood of being struck by lightning than being struck down by a scary black rifle and yet the Pavlovian lapdogs clearly choose to ignore the FACTS . My solution , let us bus these lapdogs into an inner city , arm them with an Obamafone (to call 911) and a pair of scissors as recommended by DHS for self defense , and fend for themselves !
    Kudos to Mr. Malinkowski for all his efforts on behalf of the 99.9999% of responsible CT. gun owners .

  15. Ammo Ban Too!

    Everyone is focusing on the Weapons in this bill…. Has anyone looked at the ammunition ban in this bill?. It basically outlaws ALL Ammunition that is “Jacketed, Hollow Point, Copper, contains pellets, Self-defense rounds” etc. the only exceptions are Lead bullets and Pellets loaded in Shotgun Shells that’s it. ALL Other AMMUNITION is now BANNED in the State of Connecticut. READ THE BILL it IS there. So now most legally owned Modern Firearms that require jacketed or copper plated ammunition are now useless paper weights.

    Yes Danniel and his cronies pulled a fast one with the Ammunition ban. SAD very SAD

  16. Ammo Ban Too!

    CT2A, are you sure? because reading the “Bill” it has just about every component that makes up modern ammunition listed as banned. Also a couple of LEO’s that I spoke with “Who oppose” this law said that in fact most ammo is banned in state now, as they interpret the way the “Bill” is written. But did say they are waiting for the LEO version of the Statue as to how it will read.

    1. Mike

      Page 53 of the Bill, Lines 1606-1628, define Armor piercing ammo. Line 1621 has a double negative in it, when read with line 1608/1609.
      Hopefully it is read as what does not constitute an armor piercing round.

    2. Esmeralda frankel

      Ammo Ban: ate you telling us that you can’t read very well? And you want a gun? Do you have gaps between your front teeth? Just wondering.

      1. CT2A

        Esmeralda, the state of CT has revised the “assault weapon” registration forms on their website several times because of mistakes. The state itself can’t figure out the legislation and will not have anything details for things like Magazine registration ready until August 1st.

        Why is the state of CT having trouble reading the bill?

  17. John from CT

    When will the politicians let these poor people who suffered great loss from Newtown rest. Dick, Chris, Dan and others stop standing on their tragedy like it is your personal “soap box”. Your need to let them move on with closure and not be dragged into your self serving crusade. Perhaps you elected types could work on health care, social security, the mortgage debacle. Just wait for your reelection. We won’t forget!

    1. Mary Santarcangelo

      Your post is insulting to the families from Newtown who are lobbying the Senate. I respect them as individuals with free will capable of making their own decision to petition Congress with determination and fortitude. They are citizens using their First Amendment rights, not
      witless pawns.

      1. Pat in CT

        They absolutely have the right to speak, but they are absolutely being used as pawns by the Left. Notice not every family zipped down on Air Force One the other day; just those that are useful to the administration…

        Read up on the woman cop who shot the Ft Hood shooter… She was paraded around by Mr Obama, and it made her sick to her stomach. She eventually told them to bug off. I think she’s unemployed now.

        The Left in CT rammed this bill through under the protection of “Emergency Certification”, which means no public hearing. The bill hit the floor at 2:30 in the morning, and was voted on hours later. That’s a GROSS misuse of the E-Cert process, which is only to be used in times of crisis, such as a natural emergency, NOT for a bill drafted up in secret three months later. Left or Right, the public should be outraged at their politicians skulking around like vermin in the night.

        As someone else penned, fight for your rights now, while you still have a right to fight for them.

        1. Esmeralda frankel

          Pat: Shut TFU. You all went screaming at the public hearings thinking this form of intimidation was going to sway the legislators. Our side was diligently working overtime behind the scenes to insure strong gun reform legislation.

          Learn how to lobby and you might eventually get somewhere. Because right now, you all lost big time.

          If you are planing to move to Texas soon, I’ll be happy to buy your property at half price (quick sale) and make some money on your mangy behind. I’ll take the proceeds and roll it into more successful legislation further restricting guns in Connecticut.

          Now, I am an interested buyer but only if you live in a prosperous part of the state. Did I hear you say “no?” You mean you live in po man’s land? Lots of pick-up trucks around? Trailer trash park? You live in Trailer Trash Park and pay rent by the week?


          1. A CT Resident

            Esmeralda frankel:

            Has anyone ever told you that you are nothing but a two faced, Money grabbing, Extreme Left leaning Liberal who ONLY cares about yourself and the Left’s Agenda.

            Which in and of itself is Disgusting, but your comments to other posters indicates that you are a TRUE Fornicating Rectal Opening!

          2. snafubar


            You comments a laughable. There was never ANY doubt as to how the left wing moonbat CT so-called governor and his sycophant legislature would vote on this bill, in the middle of the night no less.

            Your stereotype of a gun owner is no different than the stereotype of a black man or a Republican made by a Democrat KKK’er.

            Long live the US Constitution. Death to collectivism.

      2. Esmeralda frankel

        Mary, Thank you for saying this. you are absolutely correct.don’t ever be intimidated by the jerks who post here.

        1. Pat in CT

          Whoa Esmerelda, put down the Pabst, shut off the QVC, and step outside for some fresh air…

          Just because you could care less about a Constitutional Right that others bought and paid for you, doesn’t mean its yours to give away. But you wouldn’t understand that…

          Maybe when they ban cigarettes and sweat pants, you’ll suddenly take notice.


      3. artr0920

        using one part of the constitution to destroy another part of it. now isn’t that hypocritical

  18. john

    Mary, the people of newtown couldnt keep tabs on one of their own, now the rest of us have to pay a price?

  19. PRM

    The massacre in Newtown had less to do with the gun he used and more to do with the mental issues Lanza had.
    How many adults confronted Lanza, 6 by my count all dead. If the principle had a gun when she challenged him as he shot his way through the wire mesh window there would have been 1 dead mentally ill Adam Lanza and his unfortunate mother back at home. Sad to say but gene pool ends there.

    Taking away the ability of the average person to protect themselves is the wrong action.

    To answer a previous post as to why I would need an AR-15 is simple. The Second Amendment was written by people who just threw off the shackles of a tyrannical government. They used arms from local armories. That’s where the British were headed when the lamps of the old North Church were lit and started Revere, Dawes and Prescott’s ride to Lexington and Concord. These were the most up to date weapons of their time not just some historically significant museum pieces or poor mans slap dash hunting arm.

    The Second Amendmant was written to keep the power of the government in the hands of the general population and not in the hands of singular or small group of individuals.

  20. John

    Esmerelda, you’re an idiot. I own MANY firearms and NONE of them have ever shot a person. Try as I might I can’t get them to act on their own. It’s almost like they require a human to be involved before they operate.

    You and your Communist state government should be dealing with mental health issues, not reducing the 2nd Amendment Rights of others. Go smoke another joint and wash your Prius.

  21. John from CT

    Ms.Frankel, if you are so proud of the present group of pandering politicians, ask your unemployed former neighbor who lost his home to foreclosure and ended up divorced how he likes the aggressive legislative titians who are fighting for gun legislation on his behalf. Or better still how your retired neighbors are doing with health care, or the soldier who just returned to a foreclosed home and unemployed or disabled. Un-informed miscreant.

  22. OldBeatCop

    Yankee ingenuity addressing the ban that Yankee STUPIDITY drafted. Hmmm…. lends truth to the old adage “American by birth, Southern by the grace of God”.

    1. Bryan

      Hahaha….Southern. The Southern United States is such a joke. They’ve been dragging us down and making this country look stupid for too long. If all you gun nuts love it so much….go there, you can hang out with the rest of the uneducated bigots. Any group of people that think owning deadly weapons is more important than saving lives isn’t worth bothering with.

  23. Randall Stevens

    Mark, grow up and leave Connecticut. Many of us that are AR15 owners will not even consider doing business with Stag until they leave the “Constipation State”. We’re Stag owners and we’ll buy our parts elsewhere until you do the right thing.

  24. Bill

    No more complaining.
    You want solutions and ideas? Read JB CAMPBELL !!!!

    Geared for Lone w o l fs, imho..

Comments are closed.