View Single Post
Old April 4, 2013, 06:56 AM   #53
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daugherty16
So is CT now going to run their own substitute background check system paid for how?
Two words: Permit fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daugherty16
Then there is the magazine registration - they'll be years just keypunching all the forms into a computer system that will likely be antiquated and the resulting database useless.
Based upon reading the law, the penalties for violations are so onerous that the IMHO the registration system is likely not intended to function as an actual registry; the intent is to encourage CT residents to quietly dispose of restricted magazines out-of-state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
I also think it will fail because it essentially imposes a tax on a right. To buy ANY long gun you will need a new permit from the state... Then the law requires ANOTHER permit, with fees and background checks, before you can buy ammunition. Again, unless I skimmed it too fast I don't see any exemption for people who have either a pistol permit OR a new long gun permit.
+1; I think this is the crux of the matter. Although I am just now familiarizing myself with CT law, I gather that under the old system, only a pistol or revolver required a renewable permit and a fee. IOW if a person wanted to own a firearm without a permit and fee, he or she could buy a long gun.

However, I agree with Aguila's reading of the law- a gun owner will now need at least one permit or certificate to own or use a firearm, unless he or she is using ammunition stockpiled before the permit system goes into effect <incorrect info deleted>. Here's the key: as I read the law, the permits and certificates are granted by the same agency (the DESPP) using largely the same process, and are also revoked using the same process if the person is somehow disqualified from owning a firearm.

There are only two conceivable reasons to require three largely identical and parallel permit systems: (a) to ensure continued employment for bureaucrats, and (b) to make it a real nuisance the exercise a fundamental right. I'm actually fairly confident that the courts will go with (b).

<edits in italics>
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; April 4, 2013 at 10:05 AM. Reason: Corrections!
carguychris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03034 seconds with 8 queries