The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 2, 2011, 12:51 PM   #1
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
Connecticut is at it again!

SB 1094 was introduced yesterday, proposing to make possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds a felony. Yep, a felony. The bill specifically calls for a brief period when owners can turn them in, after that you're a criminal. Without doing a single thing, without committing a single crime, BAM! you're a felon.

No sooner do we draw a breath, thinking the Mandatory Registration has been quashed, than another lunatic fringe bill is introduced. I emailed every single member of the Judiciary Committee this morning with a host of reasons to kill the bill, hoping only that since this isn't really an issue split on party lines, maybe common sense will prevail.

I gotta get out of this state before it becomes just like NY and MA.
__________________
"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.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Old March 3, 2011, 02:34 AM   #2
LDSGJA
Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2011
Location: Inland Empire, CA
Posts: 70
That's pretty serious - atleast the California Philosopher-Kings only made it illegal to sell/transfer them, allowing owners of hi-caps to grandfather in.
LDSGJA is offline  
Old March 3, 2011, 08:58 AM   #3
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,825
And this is one of the reasons I moved from the North East having lived in N.Y. N.Y. and Taxachussets.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old March 3, 2011, 07:27 PM   #4
Maus
Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Posts: 17
So that effectively turns anyone that owns most 9mm handguns into a felon. Hope it gets voted down.
Maus is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 03:13 AM   #5
telcomfaust
Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Middletown, Connecticut
Posts: 28
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/201...094-R00-SB.htm
here is the proposed bill, I cant see it going through like this, but im sure they will get something in to tighten the already tight laws
Quote:
AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) As used in this section, "large capacity magazine" means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, but does not include: (1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds, (2) a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, or (3) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

(b) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(c) Any person who (1) prior to the effective date of this section, lawfully possessed a large capacity magazine, and (2) not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, removes such magazine from this state or surrenders such magazine to an organized local police department or the Department of Public Safety for destruction, shall not be subject to prosecution for a violation of subsection (b) of this section.

(d) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity magazine by:

(1) Members or employees of organized local police departments, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties;

(2) A person, corporation or other entity that manufactures large capacity magazines for persons specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection or for export in accordance with federal regulations;

(3) Any person engaged in the business of selling or transferring large capacity magazines in accordance with state and federal regulations who possesses such magazines solely for the purpose of such sale or transfer; or

(4) A gunsmith who possesses such large capacity magazine for the purpose of maintenance, repair or modification.
__________________
Greg
Emergency Dispatcher Police/Fire/EMS
EMT Emergency Medical Tech
State of Connecticut Carry Permit
telcomfaust is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:08 AM   #6
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
hopefully it will fail....

as for Ct's laws.... actually I don't find them that bad... much better than S.C.s

I carried for a week in Hartford in Feb. and did not have to worry about stepping into the wrong place and breaking the law.
blume357 is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:40 AM   #7
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,655
I know nothing about CT politics, but this bill seems so draconian that it strikes me as political posturing- i.e. propose an over-the-top ban that has no realistic chance of passing, wait until the next election cycle, and accuse your opponents of blocking "common-sense gun restrictions that would have prevented events like the AZ tragedy."

Does it have co-sponsors? Are any of the sponsors on influential committees with business relating to this legislation?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 12:59 PM   #8
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by blume357
as for Ct's laws.... actually I don't find them that bad... much better than S.C.s

I carried for a week in Hartford in Feb. and did not have to worry about stepping into the wrong place and breaking the law.
You did have something to worry about, and you probably didn't even know it. Hartford is near New Britain. I was astonished to learn recently that New Britain (along with New London and some smaller towns in Connecticut) have local ordinances that prohibit carrying a firearm -- even if you have a Connecticut permit.

I've had a Connecticut permit for several years, and I didn't know that. Now I've been obsessing over whether I might have traversed New Britain while traveling around Connecticut. I have not been to New London for many years so I'm pretty sure I never transgressed there, but New Britain? Next door to West Hartford where the Colt factory is, and home to several gun and magazine manufacturers? I may very well have been an inadvertent scofflaw, and that's not a comfortable thing to find out.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 01:55 PM   #9
SwampYankee
Registration in progress
 
Join Date: November 1, 2008
Location: I can be found on a number of other forums.
Posts: 1,333
Are you kidding? How can they get around the state preemption? At least in Rhode Island, I have been told that municipalities can't write a law that contradicts state law. If the state allows you to carry throughout the state, the town cannot limit that right.
SwampYankee is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 04:08 PM   #10
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Friend of mine in CT just got her carry permit a few months ago and sh just narrowly lost an election against her Democrat incumbent opponent. I have a feeling a she is already on this. I almost feel sorry for state Sen. Martin Looney. If he thought high capacity magazines were dangerous wait till he has to meet and explain to the CT Tea Baggers. The fun is just starting.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 04:15 PM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampYankee
Are you kidding? How can they get around the state preemption?
Connecticut does not have state preemption. There is another bill proposed this year to create it. (I think I read that here, as a matter of fact.)
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 04:23 PM   #12
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
There is no town law that can prevent you from carrying a firearm if you have a permit. I have friends who live in New Britain, carry guns on permits every day. All the town code does is make reference to the state law (53-206) that covers weapons offenses. The town law does not make it a crime to carry a handgun with a state permit.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 06:01 PM   #13
SwampYankee
Registration in progress
 
Join Date: November 1, 2008
Location: I can be found on a number of other forums.
Posts: 1,333
It appears as though New Britain is very, very confused.

From their town ordinances:

Quote:
Sec. 16-76. Permit for carrying weapons.
Any person who has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack upon his person or upon any member of his family, may apply to the chief of police for a permit to carry a firearm. If such permit is granted, it shall be for a limited period of time only, and the issuance of this permit shall be entered in a record kept for this purpose by the chief of police.
(Code 1970, § 15-8)
But they then make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon:

Quote:
Sec. 16-80. Carrying concealed weapons.
(a) No person shall wear under his clothes, or conceal upon or about his person any deadly or dangerous weapon including, but not limited to any pistol, dagger, metal knuckles, razor, slingshot, blackjack, sword or canegun. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any person who is found with any such weapon or implement concealed upon his person while lawfully removing his household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another, nor to any person while actually and peaceably engaged in carrying any such weapon or implement from his place of abode or business to a place or person where or by whom such weapon or implement is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to his place of abode or business with such weapon or implement after the same has been repaired.
(b) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his duty. (Code 1970, § 15-12)
It appears that Sec 16-80 is missing the very important clause, "nor shall the provisions of this paragraph apply to individuals legally licensed by the state of Connecticut to carry a concealed firearm upon their person". The two clauses are in direct conflict as they are written.
SwampYankee is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 06:26 PM   #14
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
I agree with carguychris, I believe this bill was written to fail for political posturing. I have even talked to some mildly anti-gun people who thought the bill was draconian. These anti-gun folks said they would only support magazine restrictions if there was grandfathering in it.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 09:45 PM   #15
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
If you read the whole statute it says to reference the state law, which allows carry with a permit.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 10:27 PM   #16
SwampYankee
Registration in progress
 
Join Date: November 1, 2008
Location: I can be found on a number of other forums.
Posts: 1,333
What is says, verbatim, is:

Quote:
Sec. 16-80. Carrying concealed weapons.
(a) No person shall wear under his clothes, or conceal upon or about his person any deadly or dangerous weapon including, but not limited to any pistol, dagger, metal knuckles, razor, slingshot, blackjack, sword or canegun. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any person who is found with any such weapon or implement concealed upon his person while lawfully removing his household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another, nor to any person while actually and peaceably engaged in carrying any such weapon or implement from his place of abode or business to a place or person where or by whom such weapon or implement is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to his place of abode or business with such weapon or implement after the same has been repaired.
(b) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his duty. (Code 1970, § 15-12)
State law references: Similar provisions, G.S. § 53-206(a).
Secs. 16-81--16-100. Reserved.
The term "State Law references" is not the same as "we follow the state law" or "just go look at the state law". Were that the case, there would be no need for the ordinance. They have CLEARLY written an ordinance that contradicts state law. It is sloppy. Does the state law prohibit concealed carry? The words "similar provision G.S. § 53-206(a)" would lead me to believe so. What should happen is a New Britain citizen should approach the City Council and have this rectified, the town solicitor has to know it would not stand in court, assuming there is a state preemption, which is still in doubt? Any idea what Code 1970 means? I would assume that was the year the law was codified. Was there CCW in CT in 1970? Perhaps this is sloppy because it is simply outdated?

I've written a few town ordinances in my time and cleaned up a good number of others. This is sloppy and lazy.

Last edited by SwampYankee; March 5, 2011 at 10:36 PM.
SwampYankee is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 11:02 PM   #17
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper
There is no town law that can prevent you from carrying a firearm if you have a permit. I have friends who live in New Britain, carry guns on permits every day. All the town code does is make reference to the state law (53-206) that covers weapons offenses. The town law does not make it a crime to carry a handgun with a state permit.
Well, that's not what the Sergeant in charge of YOUR department's firearms unit told me less than two weeks ago. I called him in regard to collecting some general statistics about numbers of permit holders but, in the course of a very cordial conversation, he confirmed that Connecticut does not have a preemption law and he volunteered the information that carry is prohibited in New Britain and New London. Regardless of having a state permit to carry.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 11:10 PM   #18
a7mmnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: NC Foothills
Posts: 1,150
There's been talk of these types of legislation coming from all over the country. Next is lead ammo causing second-hand exposure. After that...?
Be ever vigilant, and send NRA-ILA an extra sawbuck or two.

-7-
a7mmnut is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 01:03 AM   #19
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampYankee
What should happen is a New Britain citizen should approach the City Council and have this rectified, the town solicitor has to know it would not stand in court, assuming there is a state preemption, which is still in doubt?
There is no state preemption, and there is no doubt. If there were a state preemption, why is there a bill pending this year to enact state preemption?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/H/201...377-R00-HB.htm
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 09:17 AM   #20
SwampYankee
Registration in progress
 
Join Date: November 1, 2008
Location: I can be found on a number of other forums.
Posts: 1,333
Well, there you go! Aguila, does it look like it is going to pass, state preemptions, that is?
SwampYankee is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 09:21 AM   #21
SwampYankee
Registration in progress
 
Join Date: November 1, 2008
Location: I can be found on a number of other forums.
Posts: 1,333
Another question: I'm in Rhode Island, I have a CT nonresident permit. If I travel to Milford, thus passing through New London, do I thus have to stop the car on the Groton side of the bridge, lock my gun in the trunk and then take it out once I've hit Niantic?
SwampYankee is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 12:50 PM   #22
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampYankee
Another question: I'm in Rhode Island, I have a CT nonresident permit. If I travel to Milford, thus passing through New London, do I thus have to stop the car on the Groton side of the bridge, lock my gun in the trunk and then take it out once I've hit Niantic?
According to the Sergeant at the CT State Police firearms unit -- yes. And you can't even claim protection under the FOPA, because that describes "transporting" unloaded firearms that are not accessible to the driver.

Dumb, isn't it? I have no idea if the preemption law has a chance of passing. Maybe forum member Daugherty can comment on that. I hope so, because the existing situation is unworkable. In addition to New Britain and New London, I discovered recently that the Connecticut town I grew up in also has a town ordinance that prohibits carry on any town-owned property. That would include not only the town hall, but also the athletic facilities, the extensive town-owned open space trail system, even the transfer station (which was always a Saturday ritual, to catch up on local gossip from the attendants). I shudder to think how many times in the past I might have violated that ordinance. The history is a bit unclear because it has been amended two or three times and there isn't a clear path to what the original version said, but the ordinance number dates to 1947!

I'm sure there are other towns in Connecticut that have similar little legalistic land mines in their ordinances. I hope my brother's town doesn't -- I usually carry when I visit him, but I don't advertise because my sister-in-law would have a stroke. I can't trust my brother to check for me, because he's not good at reading and understanding laws.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; March 6, 2011 at 12:58 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 08:00 PM   #23
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
Aguila, I have looked into this in the past and the law is not enforceable and references state law that requires a permit. I know of several people that live in New Britain and carry every day, on a state permit. My gunsmiths used to operate out of New Britain before they moved and everybody coming in there carried guns on them. The law may still be on the books, it is not enforceable and is never enforced.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old March 7, 2011, 04:50 AM   #24
209
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 269
Luckily, I have an out-of-state location where I can store anything they ban as some knee-jerk response to a nonexistent problem. The fact that said law won't do a thing to stop what they perceive is some type of problem doesn't seem to have stopped them in the past.

I shouldn't have to do that but I realize this state is out-of-touch with concepts of basic freedom. And in 42 months, my state pension and I are leaving for a place with a better clime and better laws. And lower taxes...

Also within a month of moving, all of my weapons that have certain items which are missing as prescribed by the CT law will be configured back to their original design.

I am glad to see the proposed registration law is seemingly halted because had that passed, I would have moved weapons out-of-state and it would have had a negative impact on my shooting hobby for the next 3 1/2 years.

I am sick of this state.
209 is offline  
Old March 7, 2011, 08:38 AM   #25
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
I did some research this morning, and I was wrong. The law still exists. I spoke to my buddy who is a Lt. in New Britain PD and he said the law is there, just never enforced. He searched in the in-house report system back to 1994, and there was no arrest for this. He has been there since 1989 and can't remember anybody ever being arrested for it. So, take that for what it's worth, it's still on the books and illegal, just never enforced.

I have no idea about New London, that's the other end of the world from me.

I don't see the mag ban going anywhere, the state is way too busy with the budget to even discuss anything else. This will probably go nowhere, I hope so at least, the law does nothing. I also can't see how a law will pass taking your property but not compensating you for it. Even when the assault weapons ban came in (another waste of time), it didn't make anyone surrender the weapons, you just couldn't sell them.
Conn. Trooper 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 03:24 PM.


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 0.12993 seconds with 7 queries