The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 3, 2013, 11:57 PM   #51
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daugherty16
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.
I think it won't, but who knows.

I base my opinion on Scalia's language from Heller to the effect that the 2A protects the right of the People to have for self defense those arms "in common use." And in the United States today, THE pistol in most common use is a double stack with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds, and THE rifle in most common use is the AR-15 type rifle with a 30-round magazine.

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. I didn't see any exemption for people who have already taken classes, paid the fees, had the background checks, and have pistol permits. 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.

In essence, the new regulations really are NOT "reasonable," and taken together they would not have prevented sandy Hook so they don't further the intended purpose. And to pass SCOTUS review a law restricting a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored to produce the desired intent with the minimum imposition on the populace. IMHO there's just no way this mess could meet that test. It seems the legislature is telling themselves it will pass scrutiny because it's reasonable. What makes it reasonable? In their twisted minds, what makes it reasonable is that they say it's reasonable.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 06:20 AM   #52
Famas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Location: French, currently living in US
Posts: 121
I wonder if firearms manufacturers and other pro-2nd companies can be encouraged to boycott Conn. in the same manner as New York state?
Famas is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 06:56 AM   #53
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,267
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  
Old April 4, 2013, 08:06 AM   #54
RCP Fab
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2013
Posts: 102
From the reading that I have done, and the hours of the debate that I listened to, a CT Pistol/Revolver Carry Permit trumps the other permits.

My understanding:

If you own a long gun and want to buy ammo, you can buy a $35 ammo permit, and purchase ammo until the permit needs to be renewed.

If you want to buy a long gun you will need the long gun permit (unsure on the fees) and with it, you can buy long guns and ammo.

If you have a pistol permit, nothing changes for you, you can buy hand guns, long guns and ammo. The was no talk of the fee changing or not that I heard.

Last edited by Tom Servo; April 4, 2013 at 09:21 AM. Reason: Removed "bull****"
RCP Fab is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 09:46 AM   #55
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,267
^^^ RCPFab, upon rereading the section, I believe you're right.

Aguila, I believe our reading was incorrect. I apparently got lost in the "ands" and "ors". From the law:
Quote:
(c) On and after October 1, 2013, no person, firm or corporation shall sell ammunition or an ammunition magazine to any person unless such person holds a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver..., a valid permit to sell at retail a pistol or revolver..., a valid eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver..., or a valid long gun eligibility certificate... and presents to the transferor such permit or certificate, or unless such person holds a valid ammunition certificate issued pursuant to section 15 of this act....
<emphasis mine>

Similar wording is found in the portion of the law that creates the long gun eligibility certificate program, but the ammunition certificate does not trump the long gun certificate.

In other words, there will be four types of permits or certificates available to average CT citizens who aren't LE officers or gun/ammo dealers. They are, in order of decreasing privileges:
  1. Permit to carry a pistol or revolver
  2. Eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver
  3. Long gun eligibility certificate
  4. Ammunition certificate
The permits or certificates that are higher on the list trump those that are lower on the list.

FWIW the fee for both the long gun and ammunition certificates is $35, and the law specifies that the Commissioner "shall issue" the permit to anyone who passes the background check and satisfies the other qualifications; however, the long gun certificate requires fingerprints and a training course, while the ammunition certificate does not.

(I'll make some revisions to my prior post in a minute.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 11:15 AM   #56
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
Today's news says the Governor is signing the bill today.
Sad, our country is being patchworked into pro-2ndA and anti.
This could impact CT tourist industry. Those with carry permits or traveling to shooting events or hunting will by pass the state entirely.
Nothing good will come from this.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 11:24 AM   #57
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
+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.
Even Connecticut's old system was unconstitutional, under both the Connecticut and Federal Constitutions. The reason is that both (supposedly) guarantee a right to bear arms -- Connecticut even says "in defense of the self and of the State." But ... Connecticut residents cannot exercise that right AT ALL (neither concealed carry OR open carry) without a permit. Cases in other states (Ohio and, IIRC, Idaho) have held that where a right is guaranteed by the constitution, the state may regulate it but may not prohibit it. Thus, if concealed carry is not allowed (or requires a permit), open carry must be allowed without a permit. Or a state could allow concealed carry with no permit but require a permit for open carry, but I don't think any state has gone that direction.)

But Connecticut simply doesn't allow ANY carry without a permit. That's not regulating the mode of carry, that's regulating the act of carry.

That didn't get fixed in this new bill. CT didn't make anything easier for anyone -- they just made things a lot tougher. In a bill this long, they should also have included state preemption (which Connecticut doesn't have), but that didn't further the gun control agenda so that was never even discussed.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 01:11 PM   #58
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
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


Well.... I see unintended consequences that are good for our side: A state where everyone who ever wants to buy ammunition does so by getting a permit to carry a handgun...



Willie


.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 05:47 PM   #59
Beentown71
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,491
Disgusting...

I really don't see any way for this to be changed. The citizens of CT will not vote out the current lackies.
__________________
Μολὼν λάβε

Time for the Mall Ninja list:
Beretta 92fs, Springer XD9, High Standard Model HB, RRA bull bbl...aw heck with it time to go plink
Beentown71 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 06:51 PM   #60
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,687
In responding to another thread, I found a page put together by CT's Office of Legislative Research that explains the new laws in lay terms pretty well: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:12 PM   #61
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
Move out of the state to a better place and deny them your taxes.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:14 PM   #62
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,687
For many, moving is not an option. Many people have families, children, jobs, schools and other such things to consider.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:48 PM   #63
ritepath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 825
Sorry for our friends in CT....however, I'm scared more of us are going to get a good dose or regressive 2A laws in the near future.
__________________
There's only one...
ritepath is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:53 PM   #64
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Quote:
For many, moving is not an option.
On top of that, if all the pro-gun folks leave, who's going to stick around to fight this?

Suggesting someone move as a solution is shortsighted and it's not helpful. Posts will be deleted for that.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 08:00 PM   #65
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 256
Registration, plain and simple

So that CT-legal AR i bought, which has the pinned stock, plain muzzle, and no scary bayonet lug, is now illegal. But the good news is, i could keep it there if only i'm willing to comply with their registration scheme, including a thumbprint. if only it didn't have that pesky protruding pistol grip, i could avoid registration.

So it's pretty clear that the real intent behind all of this is to so heavily burden the right as to render it inoperable. They've learned not to make the ban so sweeping that it is a de facto denial of the right, or to make it so expensive that it is effectively the same. Nope, they are burying the right in paperwork, elgibility certificates, licenses, bureaucracy and delay,all in the name of reasonable regulation. Then for those of you crazy gun nuts who navigate this web of fees and background checks, you play right into their registration scheme and are all set for confiscation when they get around to that.

and this from the home of Sharps, Colt, Marlin, Winchester, Mossberg, and i forget how many other fine manufacturers of firearms from a better day.
__________________
"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 April 4, 2013, 11:29 PM   #66
Viper99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2010
Posts: 478
I am not surprised that politics has taken what should have been simply closing loopholes to another level. Anyone bend on harming people and causing the kind of carnage done in Sandy Hook School is going to be next to impossible to stop.

You can say that limiting the magazine to 10 rounds helps or that all transactions should be recorded. The problem is that people who are mentally sick don't care about these details. Who was at fault in this case in my opinion? the mother of Adam Lanza. Why would you buy and show how to shoot and use an Ar to a kid that obviously had mental problems? I read stories where it actually said that when the parents needed to go out and hired a baby sitter, they would tell her not to turn her back on their kid. Didn't that ring any bells to them?

Living in Newtown Ct, I can tell you that this horrific event has taken a tbig, big oll on this town. I spend 6 years going to Sandy Hook School to pick up my kids so I knew, not personally but knew a lot of those kids by sight. I had seen their parents picking them up while I was picking my kids up. So needles to say, even now its very emotional to write about this.

These are my neighbors, great people who loved their kids, did everything right and find themselves trying to understand why this happened to them.

Yes, politicians have taken advantage on what happened here but we were hit so hard that we did not have time to react. Did I expect what we got? no way. I thought it would be just closing the loopholes on gun shows and limiting mags to 10 rounds. Sadly now as a gun owner, I will have to pay the price of someone else crazy act.

No disrespect to any of my fellow posters here. Just my 2 cents.
Viper99 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 11:57 PM   #67
freedash22
Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 47
New Laws Lack Thought

Saw this article in CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/us...html?hpt=hp_t3

So it appears that standard capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds may be kept but have to be registered and you cannot load them with more than 10 rounds outside your home. This and all sorts of new purchasing permits that get taken away for 1 firearm violation (loading more than 1 round outside your home?).

This is ridiculous and outrageous!

Imagine if there was a gas shortage, but instead of rationing gas, the government enacts a law that makes it illegal to fully load you vehicles' gas tanks and you can only have it half-filled at any time! So now cops can pull you over, check you gas tank level indicator, arrest you if you are one drop over the limit and forever ban you from driving a car.

I smell a boycott coming.

This only proves that the USA is fast becoming a nation of laws, not a nation of justice. These new laws do no justice to law-abiding firearms owners.

Last edited by freedash22; April 5, 2013 at 01:13 AM.
freedash22 is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 07:27 AM   #68
Vireye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 191
So if I'm understanding this correctly...because I'm a soldier, I can keep my LCMs unregistered? And I can continue to buy them?

Fantastic, but isn't that about as anti-2a as you can get?
Vireye is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 07:53 AM   #69
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
So if I'm understanding this correctly...because I'm a soldier, I can keep my LCMs unregistered? And I can continue to buy them?
Probably not. I haven't read the text of the bill yet, but generally, any time there's an exception for active-duty military, it also includes the caveat "while in the performance of their official duties".

So while our military commands can continue to buy and use magazines of whatever capacity, I doubt that would give you or me the ability to buy them, or to avoid registration on ones we already have.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 08:49 AM   #70
adamc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
All of this gun grabbing here in Connecticut,

Nobody makes a stink about this though...

Before the Dec. shootings, Gov Malloy was Preening
"BUSHMASTER" here in Connecticut with tax breaks and incentives

wow how things change
__________________
**** 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 5, 2013, 09:56 AM   #71
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRiqui
I haven't read the text of the bill yet, but generally, any time there's an exception for active-duty military, it also includes the caveat "while in the performance of their official duties".
Military and most LE actually get a pass from some of the regulations. The law uses this language in the sections concerning the purchase of assault weapons and large capacity magazines (which I'll call AWs and LCMs for short):
Quote:
[AWs or LCMs may be purchased by] Members or employees of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments, 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 or when off duty;...
<emphasis mine>

Interestingly, the off-duty provision very specifically does NOT apply to employees of, or security contractors employed by, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For some obscure reason, the law is very carefully worded to prohibit anyone associated with the NRC from possessing an AW or LCM at any time except when on-duty (*presumably excluding grandfathered personally-owned "pre-ban" firearms and magazines).

Military and LE are NOT exempt from the registration requirements for AWs and LCMs. The law does, however, give active-duty service members a temporary 90-day pass from some of the registration deadlines if the person is stationed out-of-state when the deadlines take effect.

The off-duty provision does NOT apply to the purchase or possession of so-called armor piercing bullets (APBs). I'm going to address APBs in a future post.

[*Added note with subsequent edit.]
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; April 5, 2013 at 04:34 PM. Reason: Clarification (again)
carguychris is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 10:01 AM   #72
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Military and most LE actually get a pass from some of the regulations. The law uses this language in the sections concerning the purchase of assault weapons and large capacity magazines (which I'll call AWs and LCMs for short):
Thanks for that, Chris - I think that's the first time I've seen something gun-related explicitly allowed for off-duty use.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 12:57 PM   #73
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
Quote:
For many, moving is not an option. Many people have families, children, jobs, schools and other such things to consider.
It's always an option but it would most likely be an inconvenient and life altering option. This is why they get away with the oppressive things they do, knowing people can't or won't change their life. I'm not disagreeing with you Spats but all that's left to effect them is a vote that they don't seem to fear.

Last edited by Punisher_1; April 5, 2013 at 01:08 PM.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 01:12 PM   #74
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,687
No, for some folks, it's really not an option, at least not for the foreseeable future. Would you suggest that the family pack up and move without a place to stay, without a job on the horizon? What if none of the adults in the family can find a job in a less restrictive locale?

For some folks (like me), the license that lets them make a living is only valid in the state in which they currently live. If I, for example, needed to move to another jurisdiction, I would have to give up the practice of law (which pays the best money that I can reasonably expect to make with my skill set) until I get my license in the new jurisdiction. Until ~10 years ago, Arkansas didn't even have reciprocity with any other state. That meant that if I wanted to move to another state, I would have to either take their bar exam, or give up the practice of law. What if I (or someone in my position) had moved out of state and failed the bar? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a little unwilling to send my entire family out on a limb that could leave them homeless.

Besides, if all of the gun owners move out of the more restrictive jurisdictions, who will fight for gun rights there? I'm not sure where you're located, Punisher, but consider this: if every single gun owner vacated CA, NJ, NY, and IL, that would put the anti-gun folks in total control there. Those of us in less-populous jurisdictions should try to avoid that, due to the voting mechanism in the House of Representatives.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 01:18 PM   #75
ChasingWhitetail91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 336
Looks like i'll be dusting off my bow this season..
__________________
Abraham Lincoln made all men free, Samuel Colt made them equal.
ChasingWhitetail91 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 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15415 seconds with 7 queries