|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 13, 2013, 02:04 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2001
Posts: 1,603
|
CT senator to attempt a ban on all but single-shot weapons
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/201...122-R00-SB.htm
There you have it. If this idiot gets his way CT shooters will only be allowed to own 1800's style single-shot weapons. |
January 13, 2013, 02:07 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2010
Posts: 2,016
|
It's kinda funny... Otherwise a waste of paper and ink.
Why stop there... How about going back to horses?... (one horsepower vehicles).
__________________
What did Mrs. Bullet say to Mr. Bullet? ... "We're having a BeeBee!"... IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT!... IF THE GUN FITS, SHOOT IT! "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it." |
January 13, 2013, 02:11 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
I have no words so will have to suffice.
Any idea if the full text is floating around anywhere? I'm pretty curious as to what certain military, law enforcement and gun clubs actually means. |
January 13, 2013, 02:17 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2010
Posts: 2,016
|
Under 'Statement of Purpose' it should actually read:
"To make me look like an idiot."
__________________
What did Mrs. Bullet say to Mr. Bullet? ... "We're having a BeeBee!"... IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT!... IF THE GUN FITS, SHOOT IT! "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it." |
January 13, 2013, 08:38 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
|
Misinformation and misdirection have more of a role in this *fight* than fact or reason, just ask CNN.
Mixing these efforts into the discussion may add to the "look they're really after *all* the guns" in ads etc. putting these efforts prominently to imply that they're being pushed by the people who are only after the mags. |
January 13, 2013, 10:20 AM | #6 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
It seems that Mr. Meyer hasn't read the Heller decision.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
January 13, 2013, 10:21 AM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I don't know about CT, but if he'd filed that bill in AR, I'd say he was tired of being a senator. I'd respectfully suggest that the good people of CT show this buffoon the door, come election time.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
January 13, 2013, 12:43 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
|
Miller Ruling
Unfortunately the misguided ruling by the SC in Miller has placed the legislatures in quite a bind. Miller states clearly & unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment ONLY protects the right to bear military weapons. (I believe the wording states "suitable for militia purposes"). The court ruled that a short barrel shot-gun (aka sawed off shot-gun) serves no military purpose and ONLY weapons suitable for military use were protected. Notice that weapons for hunting are NOT protected (or at least the court ignored hunting weapons in the Miller ruling). The court overturned lower court rulings basically because the defendant (Mr. Miller) was alleged to be a member of organized crime arising from prohibition. So, this now muddies the waters.
In Heller the court ruled that handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment for self-defense purposes. In the home you aren't bearing weapons so it's not clear if the Miller ruling applies. But outside the home, which is where Miller does apply, the ruling is quite clear. You MUST bear military weapons. So, what is a military weapon? Dueling pistols are definitely out. In a number of Amici briefs for Heller & McDonald the states all cried out about only weapons identified in the 2nd Militial Act of 1792 and only those weapons in "common use" in 1791 (date of ratification) were protected by the 2nd Amendment. The commentary in Heller & McDonald definitely disputes this. So no matter what the legislatures attempt do prohibit simply can't run affoul of Miller & Heller. Everything I've read so far clearly violates the rulings in both of these cases. What the legislatures are attempting to do is to repeal the protections of the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional law instead of amending the constitution. This is because they know they'll lose the convention as well as their job. |
January 13, 2013, 09:16 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
The US Senator From Ct., Richard Blumenthal, has introduced a bill requiring background checks on ALL ammo sales. Can you imagine the strain that will put on the NICS resources? Hoo boy. What about reloading supplies? Will it be required to conduct a background check for people seeking to purchase powder, bullets and primers? Isn't this the guy who said he'd served in Vietnam when in the Marine Corps, only to find out that he didn't, once the truth came out. His excuse? "I guess I must have been mistaken". Seriously? It was disheartening to see the voters in CT put this guy into the US Senate after his false claims of serving in Vietnam. Why would he do that? I have my suspicions, but I doubt he'd ever be honest with us and tell us the truth behind why he lied.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
January 13, 2013, 09:50 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
rts99,
Miller was a decision where the appellant didn't even bother to show up and neither did counsel for him. In Heller the Supreme Court really rejected the military weapons test and held that the second amendment protects weapons "in common use" or in other words "only those weapons typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Whle the court didn't explicitly overrule Miller they adopted a different test and pounded a square peg (Miller) into their freshly drilled hole. Lawful Purposes for sure includes self defense but in addition likely includes: 1. Maintaining Proficiency (Ezell v. City of Chicago) 2. Hunting (In Heller the majority opinion notes that the weapons people possessed for self defense and hunting were the same ones they would use when called for militia service) In any event banning all but single shot firearms would almost certainly die a quick death in federal courts. Such a ban would cover even broader classes of arms, which are overwhelmingly chosen by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, than contained in the DC law struck down in Heller. |
January 13, 2013, 10:04 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 433
|
Guys, I think it's been pretty transparent that all of the recent "shoot for the moon" legislation is an attempt at forcing a compromise. The politicians pushing these bills know that they have no chance of passing in their submitted form, but some part of them might stand a chance of passing in a watered-down and carefully diluted form. After a few back-room discussion and some give/take... we might not have a ban, but maybe (FOR EXAMPLE), the give/take is that federal law goes the way California has.
Even after going on a big diet, any of these bills would still constitute a HUGE win for the anti's. Let's not miss the trees hiding in the forest here. My feeling is that we're not gonna see an outright sales ban on semi-auto rifles or 11+rd mags, but I'm not foolish enough to think "nothing" is going to happen knowing what little I know about how politics works. |
January 13, 2013, 10:40 PM | #12 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Posts: 2
|
Quote:
I think chances are pretty good that the process of reporting of mental health problems will change. As well as criminal records for background checks, which may become universal. I think the odds are pretty good that California, Illinois, New York and Connecticut -- where the libs control, or almost control, all the branches of government -- will go through the gesture of passing some new laws that will be predictably ineffective but will greatly inconvenience the purchase of firearms by sane, law-abiding citizens. Some interesting thoughts from the Wall Street Journal. John Boehner has an "A" rating from the NRA, and there are a couple of other major roadblocks in place that might thwart the lib's dreams nationally. Quote:
|
||
January 13, 2013, 10:47 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 23, 2009
Posts: 106
|
Virginia's Bob Goodlatte (who runs the Judiciary Committee) and Pete Sessions (who runs the Rules Committee). Mr. Goodlatte is strong on gun rights. Mr. Sessions is from Texas.
Goodlatte is my Congressman in VA. He's about as conservative as they come. |
January 13, 2013, 11:26 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 433
|
^I live in VaBch currently on Navy orders... don't see myself leaving here in the next 7 until my 20 is up, and don't plan on moving anywhere until the kids are out of college... so that's another 20 years or so.
Looks like I need to start learning who my reps are as I've always voted in Florida. |
January 14, 2013, 06:50 AM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
The answer was, it IS an individual right. And for THAT reason, DC's total ban on keeping a functional firearm in the home was ruled unconstitutional. But the decision is not limited to the home, despite the antis' arguments in that direction. If you read the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, there is only ONE right: a right to both keep and bear arms. So, by ruling that THE right is an individual right, the SCOTUS ruled that the right too bear arms is also an individual right. The problem is that Mr. Justice Scalia's dicta included some garbage about not automatically invalidating existing regulations that are "presumptively" legal. He didn't say that existing regulations are legal. He said, in essence, "We're not here to talk about those today, so let's not go there." |
|
January 14, 2013, 01:24 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
If they go too far off the reservation, the accusations of "judicial activism" start to ring true.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 14, 2013, 04:48 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
For what it's worth, Mark Begich's office indicated in an e-mail that they do not support any new restrictions on gun rights. Mr. Begich is introducing a bill related to mental health this session.
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh |
|
|