The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 1, 2013, 09:09 PM   #1
Ruger480
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 546
Can this be reversed? New Gun Laws in CT?

Edited by Al Norris: The Connecticut Legislature has just agreed on the most draconian gun law package! They have outdone NY State. If anyone has a link to the actual bill(s), please provide it. In the meantime, you folks from Conn. need to get busy, if you want to do anything at all about it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/ny...l.html?hp&_r=0

I read this and can't quite wrap my brain around it. Is this legal?

Last edited by Al Norris; April 1, 2013 at 09:56 PM. Reason: Added a reason to except the drive=by closure
Ruger480 is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 10:01 PM   #2
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,930
From the article:
"The bill is expected to go to both houses of the General Assembly on Wednesday; passage seemed assured."

It hasn't passed yet, so it's not too late for CT residents to let their reps know (again!) what they think about this.

A PDF file summarizing the legislation is available at this page on the CT General Assembly website.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; April 1, 2013 at 10:08 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 10:09 PM   #3
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
The legislation would also mandate a new state-issued “long-gun eligibility certificate,” which would require that applicants take a firearms safety course, be fingerprinted and undergo a national criminal background check before buying any rifle, shotgun or ammunition.
There's a lot in the bills not to like, but for me, this part takes the cake. fingerprints, a background check and a safety course to buy ammunition?!?
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 10:17 PM   #4
WeedWacker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
long-gun eligibility certificate
So, from what I gather, they mean to have you prove you aren't crazy to own a long-gun. So the crazies don't have evil guns because they aren't eligible to own them. This bill must make them incapable of picking a rifle up and walking away with it, too.
__________________
- Weed
Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation.
9mm vs 45 ACP? The answer is 42.
WeedWacker is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 10:18 PM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,385
Holy cow, this one is bad.

Quote:
Under the bill, individuals must register with DESPP if they have been convicted of any of more than 40 enumerated weapons offenses (mostly [?] gun offenses) or another felony that the court makes a finding involved the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon. Individuals must register with DESPP for a total of five years after their release into the community. During that time they must keep their registration address current at all times, and they must check in once per year, on the anniversary of their release, with local law enforcement in the town where they currently reside.
So, a guy who gets busted because he stored his gun improperly is now treated like a sex offender.

The bill also mandates universal background checks, calls anything with one evil feature an "assault weapon," and makes possession or transfer of any magazine holding more than ten rounds a felony. Existing magazines must be registered, and even then, they can be loaded with no more than ten rounds.

It also establishes an "ammunition eligibility certificate" which also requires a background check.

The wording shows great pride in the fact that they're going to be just as restrictive as New York and more restrictive than Maryland. They're actually preening at the fact that they're racing to the bottom when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 10:28 PM   #6
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,930
Quote:
Holy cow, this one is bad.
Tom, you have a nice way with understatement.

As far as I can tell, the actual text of this omnibus bill hasn't been released. (And they're rushing it through -- sound familiar?)

However, the texts of the various proposed bills that seem to have been incorporated into the agreed proposal can be found at the links on this page. Something like 23 of them, by my count...

Yikes.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 10:33 PM   #7
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,203
Wow.

A 30 round magazine must not be loaded with more than 10 rounds except at the owner's home or shooting range. Because obviously a criminal who is legally allowed to own (but not fully load) a standard capacity magazine is going to follow the rules if they're not at a gun range or at home.

So what if I have a magazine loaded with 30 rounds and transport it to the range. Am I a felon if I get pulled over because it's in my car? And if not, what's to stop a potential shooter from saying he's on his way to the range and then stopping at a diner or bookstore on the way there to cause damage?

Totally backwards and, in my opinion, a great example of using a tragedy to exploit political means rather than actually fixing any problem.

Not to mention universal background checks AND fingerprints. Lanza's mother, to my knowledge, still would have passed and that wouldn't have stopped it. Under these provisions, he still could have got the weapons from his mom and still could have had the magazines (albeit illegally loaded).

All I can see this doing is adding time onto charges for people who do a crime with a gun if it's loaded with 12 or 17 or 30 rounds.

Glad I live in Florida
dakota.potts is offline  
Old April 1, 2013, 11:14 PM   #8
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,486
I've had e-mails from a number of friends in Connecticut who are concerned (and rightly so) about this bill. 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.

And all this while the State Police in Connecticut are keeping much of their findings under wraps, meaning this legislation is being acted upon without even knowing the basics of the incident that triggered the mad rush to pass new laws.

Insanity.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 03:32 AM   #9
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
If they really had anything to fear from law abiding gun owners, how is it they are still alive to continue passing this crap? No, they KNOW we are not a threat to public safety, they just want the government to reduce us to slaves and minions.

OR, they actually believe the government is trustworthy enough to have a monopoly on power.

OR, they, themselves are so corrupt that they project their cynical self-view on the rest of the population.

OR, all of the above.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 04:25 AM   #10
rfxcasey
Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2013
Posts: 46
OMG, it is so incredibly mind boggling to think this is actually happening. Reason and logic have gone straight out the window and someone with a rage full bind hatred of guns has been allowed to run rampant with their pen.

I just can't seem to wrap my head around how people are in such a blind rage and ignorance. The vast majority of gun violence are committed with handguns and even at that if you look at the whole picture statistically the numbers are so low its virtually non existent. In 2011 I read that something like 6220 people were killed in gun related violence. In a nation of 325+ MILLION people its less then 1%.

As far as violence is concerned, now they are suggesting that anyone who even gets angry and throws a cup needs to be lockup up for a long time, physiologically evaluated and registered. Yet I look on the internet and see video after video of police violently beating people, explosively unleashing unhindered rage and overpowering force on people because of the slightest indication of resistance. Homeless people, teenagers, mentally ill people, and they get away with it on a daily basis. Many are just comping at the bit for any excuse to smash someones face in and yet our government and ignorant neighbors that support this crap are telling us any indication of violence makes someone evil. Hypocrites!!! They back and support our troops, so it ok to have guns and kill people as long as you're in the military. All our kids need to be brought up as pusified pacifist but as soon as they join up or are drafted into the military they are supposed to turn into cold blooded killers and then return home and be pusified pacifists again. Then when they come back from combat with PTSD they will be treated as criminals or insane people and have their gun ownership rights taken.

Bearing arms in a right, driving is a privileged, yet they would take away our rights but hand out drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Is it just me who think that is insane?

I am really, really scared for myself and my children, not because of things like Newtown, but because of insanely violent police and neighbors who will classify them as violent and evil given the first opportunity.

On such a heated subject, if you have 51% or the people saying "no guns" and 49% for guns the way the system works majority rules so the 51% say tough cookies to the 49% and take away their guns. Now, what you wind up with is 49% of the people hating the other 51% for screwing them. The problem with majority rules is, the majority are stupid and or ignorant.

The US really needs to be divided into 2 separate countries and here's why. The ideas of States was so that each group could decide for itself what it wanted and what it didn't. Now the federal government is continually trying to overstep its boundaries and decide for everyone what will and will not be. They keep pushing and pushing making small gains here and there until one day we will all be subjectified and watched like a hawk with no freedom to be had and no way to get it back. I hope when it happens the people who were for it remember they caused it. Enjoy your slavery you are fighting so hard for. I hope its everything you dreamed it would be and more.

What's happening with the legislation in Connecticut is not only appalling, its also unconstitutional. This crap needs to stop now.

Last edited by Vanya; April 2, 2013 at 09:56 AM. Reason: removed Nazi reference.
rfxcasey is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 07:33 AM   #11
longlane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 156
If CO, CT, & NY laws surprise you at all...

You might want to remove your head from the sand and get busy contacting reps and getting the next generation into the shooting sports.

This should come as no surprise, if you're paying attention that is.

In case folks haven't been paying attention, stupidity is winning: a school has no real security in place, yet it's time to limit the rights of law abiding citizens; the mental health system breaks down again and again and it's time to limit the rights of law abiding citizens; & criminals kill innocents and otherwise without ever being charged with federal firearms violations but it' still time to limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

Hmmm. I see a pattern.
__________________
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. -T.W.
longlane is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 08:06 AM   #12
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
They "say' the list of "Gun Offenders" will not be public..until it is through a FOI request....or some "Gun Offender" kills his neighbor and the public demands to know who "theese people" are.

If you ask me, this is going to the SCOTUS just over the whole offender registry thing and I am not sure which way it turns out....


I wouldn't get too hung up on the whole no loading magazines with more than 10 rounds thing either, it won't be but a few years before some nutjob who doesn't even know the law shoots a few people and they come to "legally" "Take dangerous weapons of war and assault magazines off the streets"(confiscate all of your registered magazines and assault weapons).


Also, didn't I read somewhere this gun control package was the Bi-Partisan "Deal" package? Not some fringe of the party throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks...
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 08:28 AM   #13
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
What I considered disturbing was that in one article it was said by the lawmakers that the reason the new laws were so "lax" was to get something passed and that in the FUTURE they will go back and close the loopholes.

I would say that some of these laws may be motivated behind an orchestrated attempt to assault the 2nd amendment through court battles, making it to the Supreme court which will determine which of the ordnances will be upheld and which will not.

Specifically magazines and ammunition limits.

Will the supreme court consider these as arms?
Come and take it. is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 08:31 AM   #14
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
close the loopholes.
= Firearms and magazine confiscation.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 08:35 AM   #15
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
There were a few things that jumped out at me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
But the package did not include everything that anti-gun forces had asked for.
My first reaction was: Holy cow! What else did they want?!? Then I read the bit about a total ban on "LCMs." I guess that was one other thing.

However, it looks like they'll get some action on those, too:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety
Immediate ban on sale, purchase or importation of LCMs: effective on passage, it will be a class D felony to sell, buy, transfer or import an LCM into the state (other than to turn it in or trade it in to law enforcement or a licensed gun dealer). Going forward, possession of any LCM not possessed as of the effective date will be a class D felony.

LCMs that are currently possessed must be registered with DESPP by January 1, 2014 to remain legal, and even when registered will be subject to extremely strict usage limitations:
 Possession of such magazines must be declared to DESPP by January 1, 2014. After January 1, 2014, any LCM that has not been the subject of such a declaration cannot be legally possessed under any circumstances (even if it had been possessed before the effective date).
 Even with regard to such legally declared LCMs, upon passage the bill will immediately impose the following stringent limitations on their use:
o Except for in an individual’s home or on the premises of a shooting range, an LCM can never be loaded with more than 10 bullets.
o Even if an individual has a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, they can never carry, other than at a shooting range, a pistol that has an LCM loaded with more than 10 bullets.
o If an individual with a carry permit has a pistol that they purchased prior to the effective date that accepts an LCM, they can carry the LCM in that pistol, but only loaded with 10 bullets.
Moreover, under no circumstances can the LCM in such pistol extend below the pistol grip.
o If an individual has a pistol purchased after the effective date, an LCM can never be carried with that pistol other than at a shooting range. Instead, the individual must use only a magazine that takes 10 or fewer bullets in any pistol purchased from the effective date forward.
Hmmm, magazine registration. I don't know how they do things in CT, but around here, magazines don't usually have a serial number. I'd expect a requirement for numbering to come up soon.

Let's back up just a second to look at two particular provisions:
Quote:
o Except for in an individual’s home or on the premises of a shooting range, an LCM can never be loaded with more than 10 bullets.
o Even if an individual has a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, they can never carry, other than at a shooting range, a pistol that has an LCM loaded with more than 10 bullets.
Reading these two together, it looks like an outright ban on carrying a pistol loaded with an "LCM" loaded with more than 10 rounds in one's home. If the legislation reads as this document does, you could load your LCM with 11+ rounds, but you would be prohibited from carrying it in that condition.

Quote:
Moreover, under no circumstances can the LCM in such pistol extend below the pistol grip.
We're gonig to see some long dadgum grips on some pistols. . . I can think of several models in which the magazine extends a fraction of an inch below the pistol grip that (at least arguably) are about to become illegal. Besides, what if it's just a butt pad that sticks out beyond the grip? How are they going to measure? Butt pad? Bottom of the "sleeve?" Bottom of the bottom round of ammo?
__________________
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 2, 2013, 09:23 AM   #16
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
No more Mec-Gar +1 or +2 magazines for any kind of pistols...I wonder if this will apply to smaller guns that offer an extended magazine for additional grip like the Shield or XDS?
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 09:35 AM   #17
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
What about the sleeve extensions of the grip like we see on the SR9 and XDs? I guess those are out, too.
__________________
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 2, 2013, 09:47 AM   #18
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
The absolute saddest part of this bill is the fact that even if it had been in effect, even years prior to Sandy Hook, it very likely wouldn't have had any impact on the shooting. This is a feel good bill to make people feel good.

How is a magazine registry supposed to work again?
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 09:49 AM   #19
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,166
Certainly glad I moved from CT some years ago. Their knee jerk legislation is beyond ridiculous. I can picture being stopped to have a magazine checked for appropriate registration and to have the number of rounds counted.

The mechanics and paperwork should overload a state already in financial trouble. More useless paperwork.

Requiring a certificate for any resident to buy ammo is rather creative. What about a non resident who wants to buy some?

The northeastern state see to be in a contest to see which one can come up with the most onerous and inane anti gun laws.
JWT is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 10:40 AM   #20
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,385
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 11:09 AM   #21
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
I wonder if this will apply to smaller guns that offer an extended magazine for additional grip like the Shield or XDS?
Extended magazines, heck... what about pinky rests? Does this mean that the infamous Beretta Model 1934 offensive assault pistol is now forbidden in CT?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old April 2, 2013, 12:00 PM   #22
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
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 was mostly being rhetorical. I have a feeling that they'll come up with some loophole, or whatever since there's no way to register a magazine, that they simply cannot be registered. This law is absolutely terrible. I wonder how long before it get's challenged on the basis of Heller/McDonald, and the idea of "common use?"

The other part, the magazine cannot extend past the grip. Does this mean you can't have Glock's anymore? My stock Glock mags extend almost a half an inch past the bottom of the grip.
Gaerek is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 12:22 PM   #23
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,385
Quote:
I have a feeling that they'll come up with some loophole, or whatever since there's no way to register a magazine, that they simply cannot be registered.
Well, then we'll just need another law: one that requires serialization of all magazines, the costs of which will be borne by the owners.

I really wish I was kidding, but this is how it'll work.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 12:29 PM   #24
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
On such a heated subject, if you have 51% or the people saying "no guns" and 49% for guns the way the system works majority rules so the 51% say tough cookies to the 49% and take away their guns. Now, what you wind up with is 49% of the people hating the other 51% for screwing them. The problem with majority rules is, the majority are stupid and or ignorant.
And that is why the Bill of Rights was passed, to protect the individuals and the States from the tyranny of the majority. A pure democracy eventually devolves into mob rule. What makes our country unique and exceptional is that we acknowledged and codified that individuals have rights which should never be violated by majority rule.

Then we pay politicians to work very hard to figure out how much violation of our rights they can get away with.
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 12:38 PM   #25
Rj1972
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2010
Posts: 129
This one is kinda weird too:
Quote:
The bill requires applicants for a temporary permit to carry a pistol or revolver to apply only in their town of
residence (as opposed to also where they work), and further limits such applications to only one per twelve
months
Now I work 11 miles from my house. I go through 5 cities in the 11 miles.

So you'd be allowed to carry a pistol, but only as far as the border of your city. Awesome....
Rj1972 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 08:07 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 0.12801 seconds with 9 queries