Gun Registration Soon Mandatory in CT!

[Daugherty16]

Yep, that's right. The state public safety commission just voted 9-5 in favor of a registration scheme, making both existing owners and future purchasors into FELONS if they fail to register their guns within 10 days of purchase; FELONS for failing to renew their registration, etc.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/H/201...800-R00-HB.htm

Read it for yourself - section 29-33 of the CGA governs sale/transfer of pistols, etc with felony penalties for violating any section of the code.

I wrote a long recommendation against this and emailed every member of the PS committee, to no avail. I'm going to the mat on this one. I have an editorial piece ready to go out to the three largest newspapers this weekend. Anyone else from CT on this site, contact me and let's organize.

Registration is illegal under Federal Law. I refuse to sit idly by while the state tries to make me a felon for being a gun owner. Meanwhile, felons can't be compelled to register their guns - see Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85 (1968) - because the 5th Amendment provides immunity against self-incrimination.

[AirForceShooter]

Good for you.
Kick, Scream and raise hell.
Call the NRA-ILA, SAF amf GOA.

At least you're doing something

AFS

[silentargus]

Since this is a current issue, perhaps the NRA will take more of an interest in fighting it than they have the registration schemes in other states. Perhaps CT will be the source of the case that strikes down NJ's long-standing registration requirements? The text of the act reads "all firearms" rather than just handguns, so perhaps this one won't be overlooked by the Fudds and they'll pitch in to help for a change too.

Also... "Committee on Public Safety and Security?" Sounds like it comes from the same sort of mind that calls a dictatorship a "Democratic People's Republic." :barf:

[Conn. Trooper]

It's actually a bunch of state lawmakers. This is a suprise to me, I didn't know this was coming. I really don't care anyway.

[Standing Wolf]

This is a suprise to me, I didn't know this was coming. I really don't care anyway.

Unfortunately, not caring is how further infringements of the right to keep and bear arms are written into law.

[Spats McGee]

Good for you. Fight like hell on that.

[Aguila Blanca]

Doesn't Connecticut already have a de facto registration system? Every gun purchased in Connecticut requires, in addition to the 4473, a separate State form in four parts. One copy goes to the buyer's local PD and one copy goes to the State Police.

Tell me the State Police don't enter those sales into a database and I'll get you a GREAT deal on a bridge in Brooklyn.

[Conn. Trooper]

Article in the Waterbury paper says this hasn't passed and was only sent to commitee for further review.

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2011/...cal/536952.txt

Appears this didn't pass and only a date was set for a public hearing.

[Conn. Trooper]

Unfortunately, not caring is how further infringements of the right to keep and bear arms are written into law.


Um, there is no infringement of keeping and bearing anything just because you have to register a gun. I don't care because I only buy and sell through dealers, who have to do all the paperwork anyway. So, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just don't care if the state knows I own guns.

[Sefner]

Registration is illegal under Federal Law.

MI has registration. Except our government calls it a "safety check". Except when I go to the sheriff's office they call it registration.

[KyJim]

Um, there is no infringement of keeping and bearing anything just because you have to register a gun.

I suppose you don't care if you have to register your religious affiliation (freedom of religion), sign a register listing all of the organizations to which you belong (freedom of association), or disclose for whom you vote (secret ballot). There is only one reason to require people to register their guns and that is to control them and possibly confiscate them. Just ask the folks in the United Kingdom or look what happened in pre-WW II Nazi Germany.

[armoredman]

Um, there is no infringement of keeping and bearing anything just because you have to register a gun.

Considering what happened to New Yorkers with so-called 'assault rifles" and California residents with the "second wave" SKS registrations, yeah, it is an infringement, big time. Registration historically seems to be a prelude to confiscation, world wide. Perhaps as a state employee you may feel differently, isolated or immune to these events. I do not think so, sir. I am also a state employee in a Free State, and feel this is unconstitutional and a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars during a down economy, to put it in crass monetary terms, as well. As always in a free society, you are entitled to your opinion, whether we agree or disagree. Drive carefully in that frozen state, sir.

[dlb435]

Unfortunately, there is no federal law that prevents states (or cities) from enacting their own gun control laws. The only test the Supreme Court seems to apply is the the law not be too restrictive. As long as the terms and time limits for registering firearms is "reasonable", the law will stand.

[Conn. Trooper]

I suppose you don't care if you have to register your religious affiliation (freedom of religion), sign a register listing all of the organizations to which you belong (freedom of association), or disclose for whom you vote (secret ballot). There is only one reason to require people to register their guns and that is to control them and possibly confiscate them. Just ask the folks in the United Kingdom or look what happened in pre-WW II Nazi Germany.


Maybe so, but we are not there yet. I really just don't get worked up over it. Registration and confiscation are two different things. I don't keep my religion a secret because I also don't care who knows. I also don't care who knows that I am a mason, or a member of the national eagle scout association, or whatever. Do I want guns taken away? No, not at all. Do I care who knows that I own guns? Nope.

[Conn. Trooper]

Considering what happened to New Yorkers with so-called 'assault rifles" and California residents with the "second wave" SKS registrations, yeah, it is an infringement, big time. Registration historically seems to be a prelude to confiscation, world wide. Perhaps as a state employee you may feel differently, isolated or immune to these events. I do not think so, sir. I am also a state employee in a Free State, and feel this is unconstitutional and a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars during a down economy, to put it in crass monetary terms, as well. As always in a free society, you are entitled to your opinion, whether we agree or disagree. Drive carefully in that frozen state, sir.


Actually, I have even more restrictions placed on me because I work for the state, not the other way around. And I just don't care who knows I own guns. I don't make it a secret (not that I announce it to everyone I meet either). I know the saying that if we don't look at our history we are bound to repeat it. Doesn't always happen that way. History may show that regsitration leads to confiscation. Granted. But we are not there yet, in fact we are gaining more rights, not losing them.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

Um, there is no infringement of keeping and bearing anything just because you have to register a gun.

Maybe ... maybe not. Did this proposed law spell out the details, or is it just an enabling statute to set the wheels in motion for the State Police to set up a system -- which (as you know) you already have anyway?

What's the fee structure going to be? How will it apply to collectors and hobbyists who may own a number of firearms? If someone owns ten or 25 or 100 firearms, and the registration fee is $25 per firearm -- as the late Everett Dirksen once said, "Pretty soon it starts to add up to some real money."

Remember, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is a "fundamental" right, supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and also by your Connecticut state constitution. If a Connecticut resident cannot "keep" his/her arms without paying a fee to register them, and cannot carry ("bear") them without paying another fee for a license to carry ... how, exactly, is the RKBA NOT being infringed?

[BigPapa4147]

Actually, in Michigan now, you just drop off the paperwork at your local PD. They're not even pretending to call it a safety check anymore. They even tell you not to bring in the pistol. They don't even want to see it.

[Alaska444]

The problem I see from the law as written is mostly with the 5 year renewal. That becomes problematic if someone simply loses track of the renewal time. Is there a renewal notice that the state will put out if this passes? What if the notice doesn't make it to a new address? All of a sudden, without any action a person could find themselves a wanted felon.

Very bad law that will do nothing to prevent crime.

[dlb435]

From Alaska444:

Very bad law that will do nothing to prevent crime.

Very true. The folks that actually commit a crime would not bother to register. These laws only cause problems for the law abiding.

[Conn. Trooper]

I have not actually read the proposed statute. I would guess it has about 0 chance of passing. Our new Gov is not going to add more work ( more work=more people) to the state budget. I would hazard a guess it will go nowhere. There have been no new gun laws passed in a long time in CT. I don't think this one is going forward any time soon.

[therealdeal]

if someone's state passes a law like this, does that mean that existing guns must be registered as well that were bought when the law wasn't in effect?

[orionengnr]

I have not actually read the proposed statute.

Sounds like a good place to start.

I would guess it has about 0 chance of passing. Our new Gov is not going to add more work ( more work=more people) to the state budget. I would hazard a guess it will go nowhere. There have been no new gun laws passed in a long time in CT.

Don't know how old you are, or how long you have lived there.

I grew up in CT quite some tme ago, and up until 25 years ago, it was a pretty reasonable state (for New England, what was once the "cradle of Liberty")

All of New England (and especially CT/MA) have gone downhill big time in the last 25 years.

My sister, brother-in-law and some childhood friends still live there. I left in '77, and will never go back.

[Conn. Trooper]

Sorry you left. I have been here 15 years. Besides the assault weapons ban, nothing has changed in gun laws since I have been here. There has been lots of talk and no real changes. Which is ok with me.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

Sorry you left. I have been here 15 years. Besides the assault weapons ban, nothing has changed in gun laws since I have been here. There has been lots of talk and no real changes. Which is ok with me.

That's not correct.

Just last year or the year before Connecticut enacted a law requiring reporting the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours of when the owner knew or should have known (I wonder who gets to determine that) the loss or theft occurred.

Perhaps you don't think this is a "real change," but I have friends in Connecticut who regard that as a very real, and abhorrent, change. And again ... what does it accomplish? Nothing.

[CortJestir]

Word from the public hearing on the 10th is that this most likely will not pass. The money alone for the DPS to administer such a database was/is a concern to the PS committee.

As always, we should be vigilant about this and keep a watchful eye.