The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 2, 2013, 12:53 PM   #26
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,080
If there isn't a serious and devastating backlash in the next elections and a sweeping ruling from SCOTUS announcing strict scrutiny outside the home on the pending cert cases, I fear we are doomed.

Why should the antigunners even care what goes through congress when an unnavigable patchwork of laws can be created at the state level? We already know that the administration has engaging in unprecedented arm-twisting at the state legislatures.

I believe there is a limit to this level of unconstrained infringement beyond which many people will take a stand. I fear that the antis will poke, shove, and antagonize until an inevitable pushback wherein they can say, "Look, just as we said all along, these are violent, evil, antigovernment insurrectionists who cannot be trusted with 2nd amendment rights", backwardly justifying their own behavior which forced the situation in the first place.

I don't know what is more loathsome, that this level of disregard for rights could lead to violence, or that it never will.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; April 2, 2013 at 01:53 PM.
maestro pistolero is online now  
Old April 2, 2013, 01:42 PM   #27
vba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 181
Well said Maestro. I have thought of this myself and and living CT I feel I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I will most likely end up a Class D felon and have been a honest hard working man all my life.

Quote:
I believe there is a limit to this level of unconstrained infringement beyond which many people will take a stand. I fear that the antis will poke, shove, and antagonize until an inevitable pushback wherein they can say, "Look, just as we said all along, these are violent, evil, antigovernment insurrectionists who cannot be trusted with 2nd amendment rights", backwardly justifying their own behavior which forced the situation in the first place.
vba is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 02:11 PM   #28
adamc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
I have posted all of this before , BUT NOW it proves it !

2A is Extinct here in Connecticut

Voters, tax payers, Legal owners be dammed...........

Just watch... Gov Malloy will now be
promoted to be Obama's new shoe shine boy, as a reward for playing ball

I'm wondering if I should take down the stars & Stripes, and fly the Hammer & Sickle flag

Well done Legislators of Connecticut for stomping both the state & federal Constituions

All of this will be passed by Gov Malloy under the guise of 'Emergency' legislation.. Is this what DEMOCRACY is ?
__________________
**** NRA Life Member *****

Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box,
Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy"

Last edited by adamc; April 2, 2013 at 02:25 PM.
adamc is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 04:08 PM   #29
heyjoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 165
as in new york, republican representatives in connecticut also caved and also support and will vote for this law. its not just liberals who are enemies of the second amendment.

Last edited by heyjoe; April 2, 2013 at 04:26 PM.
heyjoe is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 04:39 PM   #30
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Quote:
How is a magazine registry supposed to work again?
It's what we call a chilling effect. Enforcement will be random and rare, but the idea of prosecution will be enough to discourage people from owning these. Even if John Q. Public legitimately owned the magazines before the ban, he'll likely get rid of them to avoid the potential hassle.
I think that sums it up well. I tried to do some surfing from my computer at work and I stumbled across a discussion about the proposed CT law, with a statement from a guy who I think was the chief Democrat pooh-bah in one of the chambers of the CT legislature. What they really want is to just not have ANY "large capacity" magazines in the state at all, so their view is that allowing people who already own them to keep them (with registration) and pretend they don't hold more than ten rounds is bending over backwards to be "fair."

And they view it as cutting off the flow. They apparently seriously expect the other 49 states to follow suit and outlaw "large capacity" magazines, and their goal (as we have always said) is to simply have them disappear through attrition.

I hope someone in CT gets this before the Supreme Court quickly, while it can still be argued that denying "The people" the right to use the weapons in common use (the language used by Mr, Scalia in Heller) is contrary to the Constitution.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 05:14 PM   #31
Ruger480
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 514
Does anyone know if Colt is staying CT? I had heard rumors they were contemplating a move.
With this legislation coming down the pipes, I wonder, is that assured now?
Ruger480 is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 06:08 PM   #32
Jayster
Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2013
Posts: 74
And none of these new laws in any state would have stopped those insane people from killing. Not ONE.

It is truly hard to wrap one's head around the fact that there are people that have the power to make these laws in our government that have no more sense than that.

I hope 2014 and 2016 sees a lot different outcomes but it seems a lot of the country has no more sense than that either.

That is scary......
Jayster is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 06:46 PM   #33
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,551
Quote:
To make it worse (if possible), they want to "certify" this legislation (whatever that means) as "emergency" legislation, which I guess does something to streamline the process and curtail discussion.
It also usually means it takes effect immediately rather than the normal delay (60/90 days or whatever is normal for that state).
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 07:53 PM   #34
Vireye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 201
I'm already contemplating how to get out of this state...at the very least, I have family in a few other more gun-friendly states, and I may need to try to get my rifle to them sooner rather than later for safe storage...

My major concern with this is losing Colt, Stag, Mossberg, etc...and watching our taxes hike as a result to make up for the lost revenue.

That and the cost of potentially having to register every magazine over 10 rds...and how? By "stamping" our mags?
Vireye is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 08:46 PM   #35
Daggitt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2011
Posts: 321
I'd think if this passes they can kiss their fish and wildlife program and several million in license fees GOODBYE. No one will pay extra for a nonresident hunting license with these kinds of restrictions. Unchecked deer populations will bring other problems like CWD , crop depredation , more vehicle accidents and a lot of waste and needless animal suffering. On my part I will not be traveling through these East Coast Gun grabbing states nor buying anything from such states. Money talks real loud these days and the lack thereof practically shouts the message. New York ought not be allowed to call itself a state , they have sunk so low. No Guns and no large drinks. They are the laughing stock of this country and they don't even know it.
Daggitt is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 12:51 AM   #36
kcbrown
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayster View Post
It is truly hard to wrap one's head around the fact that there are people that have the power to make these laws in our government that have no more sense than that.
You're presuming that it is because they lack sense that they are pushing for and intend to pass these laws.

It has nothing to do with that at all. These people want the population to be disarmed, not because they wish to improve our lots in life or anything so lofty, but because they fear an armed population.

When the government fears the population, there is liberty. When the population fears the government, there is tyranny. The people in question are attempting to ensure that the latter is the case, not the former.

These people want a subjugated population. They want to make the population subservient to the government. It's as simple as that.

I assure you, this is not an accident, and it is not stupidity. It is malevolence.
kcbrown is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 06:00 AM   #37
adamc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
CT Gov Malloy I'm sure will use his 'Emergency' powers to enact
any additional gun grabbing laws , if the legislature does not provide him with 'His' desired results today...


Wed 03 April 2013 is the last day of 2A here in Connecticut

Democracy in action
__________________
**** NRA Life Member *****

Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box,
Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy"

Last edited by Vanya; April 3, 2013 at 11:26 AM. Reason: invective.
adamc is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 07:37 AM   #38
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
In Conn. would the Gov. have the power to mandate that all "High Capacity Magazines" and "Assault Weapons" may not be removed from the home, or MUST be turned in during a "state of Emergency" ?
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 07:45 AM   #39
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Not really. "Emergency powers" only go so far, and things like confiscation of property set off Constitutional tripwires.

Even if that weren't the case, judges still know the difference between a "real" state of emergency (wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes) and the politicians' BS use of the word in order to short-circuit the normal procedure for creating laws.

If the CT governor tries to use a months-old shooting as the predicate "emergency" to justify confiscation or forcing people to keep their weapons locked in their houses, he's seriously going to get the "hairy eyeball" from the courts.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 07:48 AM   #40
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Didn't CT get hit with not one but two huge snowstorms this past winter? Also I thought "Super Storm Sandy" did some damage to CT as well, though not as bad as NY and NJ.

I am saying that this could be a slippery slope to confiscation, even without further legislation. We all know how hard it was for people to get their guns back after Katrina.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 08:08 AM   #41
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,081
Back to the question:
Quote:
Can this be reversed?
Its unlikely the new CT anti-gun law will be reversed in its entirety. Part/s of the law might be reversed on appeal. As for a legislative remedy: There's little chance a pro-gun legislature and governor will be elected in CT.
thallub is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 11:02 AM   #42
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,325
Here's a link to the actual proposed legislation: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/201...160-R00-SB.htm

If you take the time to look through it, it revises some existing sections of the state statutes and it adds a number of new sections to the statutes. I sincerely hope that the sane people of Connecticut will get help from the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation to challenge some of these provisions in Federal court.

I need to spend a lot more time reading it. So far, what I see is that there doesn't appear to be any provision for people who already hold a handgun carry permit to be allowed to buy "long guns" under the new system. Same for buying ammunition. That means Connecticut residents will need to obtain, AND PAY FOR, three separate permits: One to carry a handgun, one to buy long guns, and a third to buy ammunition.

I can't wait to see what else is in there ...
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 01:30 PM   #43
adamc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
All the "Gun" parts are off the wall, 2A is now a hospice patient here in CT

but further reading concerning the education safeguards...

are just plain nuts as well.. I can't believe that any of the teachers unions will let this lie still, making requirements to do "More"

and a parent serving on a committee , is not allowed information reported to the said committee "
Quote:
Any parent or guardian serving as a member of a school security and safety committee shall not have access to any information reported to such committee,

*read below*
b) For the school year commencing July 1, 2014, and each school year thereafter, each local and regional board of education shall establish a school security and safety committee at each school under the jurisdiction of such board. The school security and safety committee shall be responsible for assisting in the development of the school security and safety plan for the school and administering such plan. Such school security and safety committee shall consist of a local police officer, a local first responder, a teacher and an administrator employed at the school, a mental health professional, as defined in section 10-76t of the general statutes, a parent or guardian of a student enrolled in the school and any other person the board of education deems necessary. Any parent or guardian serving as a member of a school security and safety committee shall not have access to any information reported to such committee, pursuant to subparagraph (c) of subdivision (2) of subsection (c) of section 10-222k of the general statutes, as amended by this act.

(c) Each local and regional board of education shall annually submit the school security and safety plan for each school under the jurisdiction of such board, developed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
__________________
**** NRA Life Member *****

Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box,
Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy"
adamc is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 06:02 PM   #44
Vireye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 201
Well, it would appear that the CT state senate passed the bill...

still waiting to see the exact break-down of the votes...but rumor is that Malloy will sign it tomorrow.
Vireye is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 06:05 PM   #45
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,399
The WSJ is reporting that the Conn. Governor's security detail isn't allowing him near the capitol for fear of gun right's supporters.

Said supporters were all chanting "Read the bill." Real threatening.

That might be the most singular act of cowardice I've ever seen form an elected official.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is online now  
Old April 3, 2013, 08:04 PM   #46
1stmar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,174
The only hope we have is that manufacturers are able to produce essentially the same weapons without the components that would classify them as "assault weapons", ie removing the bayonet lug. I have not been able to find the list of the additional 100 weapons added to the list or the elements that make them illegal. I hate this state....my wife won't leave.
1stmar is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 08:35 PM   #47
eldermike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 545
Get active in politics with a goal to turn the state red. This crazy stuff is tied to a political machine. You can stop trying to find logic in the bill and see it as exploitation of a crisis, as a means to an end. IOW, its a start and not the end goal. Its a plan that has been in the drawer waiting for a chance. There are more bills in that drawer. Stop voting for gun control.
eldermike is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 08:42 PM   #48
51.50
Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2010
Posts: 41
CT

Move out. Put it in the same group as CA, NY, IL etc
51.50 is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 11:10 PM   #49
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
From my admittedly layman's viewpoint, i'd bet this will pass Supreme Court scrutiny, if it ever gets there. Under the proposed law, guns (some guns anyway) can still be purchased, carry permits can (ostensibly) still be obtained, there will simply a whole lot more process and "reasonable regulation" - but not an outright abrogation of the RKBA.

From a logical perspective, it's something else entirely. CT never gave up it's "assault weapons" ban, so the one i bought there has a fixed stock, no evil threads on the muzzle, and no fearsome bayonet lug. The weapon violation registry is a hoot; those laws are so seldom enforced they might as well be repealed, and felons and violent misdemeanants are already supposed to be in the NICS system anyway. So is CT now going to run their own substitute background check system paid for how? 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. That's if anyone is dumb enough to register their mags. I think there is a Constitutional right against self-incrimination. And oh yeah, what exactly will this law do about getting help for nutjobs that have slipped through the cracks in the mental health system? Now THAT might actually prevent another Sandy Hook tragedy.

Boy i'm glad i left, and only just in time.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon.

Last edited by Vanya; April 4, 2013 at 09:39 AM. Reason: political invective.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 11:48 PM   #50
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stmar
The only hope we have is that manufacturers are able to produce essentially the same weapons without the components that would classify them as "assault weapons", ie removing the bayonet lug. I have not been able to find the list of the additional 100 weapons added to the list or the elements that make them illegal. I hate this state....my wife won't leave.
CT already has an AWB, allowing two "evil" features. It is worded as "a detachable magazine and not more than one of the following." One of "the following" is a pistol grip that protrudes from the stock, so all AR-15 pattern rifles have their two "evil" features right out of the box. Beyond the detachable magazine and pistol grip, they are (currently) not allowed to have any other "evil" features, such as: collapsing or telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs (I suppose Connecticut had an epidemic of drive-by bayonetings in the years preceding 1993), flash hiders or threaded barrels that can accept flash hiders, vertical fore grips. I think that's about it.

But now the new law will reduce it to ONE "evil" feature. So if a rifle has a detachable magazine, it will NOT be allowed to have a protruding pistol grip. Bye-bye AR-15.

Give it three months. Someone will design an AR-15 stock that fits and works and doesn't have a protruding pistol grip, it'll be legal in CT, and the anti-gunners will again start whining about evil manufacturers exploiting a "loophole" in the law.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.19982 seconds with 9 queries