CT senator to attempt a ban on all but single-shot weapons

[dsk]

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.

[CWKahrFan]

It's kinda funny... Otherwise a waste of paper and ink.

Why stop there... How about going back to horses?... (one horsepower vehicles).

[sigcurious]

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.

[CWKahrFan]

Under 'Statement of Purpose' it should actually read:

"To make me look like an idiot."

[Battler]

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.

[Tom Servo]

It seems that Mr. Meyer hasn't read the Heller decision.

[Spats McGee]

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.

[rts99]

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.

[USAFNoDak]

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.

[vranasaurus]

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.

[SamNavy]

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.

[Bob2222]

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.

I agree "something" will happen. Obama can still use an executive order to restrict imports. Maybe no more of those inexpensive Browning Hi-Powers and Beretta 84s that were military/police trade-ins.

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.

Originally Posted by WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

Montana's Jon Tester and Max Baucus, Alaska's Mark Begich, Arkansas's Mark Pryor, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu—all are quiet on that red-state Democratic front. North Dakota's brand new senator, Heidi Heitkamp, declared proposals mulled by the Biden task force as "way in the extreme" and "not gonna pass." Unlike Mr. Obama, all of these members still face elections.

Over in the House, when asked recently what was more likely—passage of gun control or Speaker John Boehner becoming a pagan—a senior GOP leadership aide told Buzzfeed: "Probably the latter."

Even were the Senate to summon 60 votes (unlikely), and even were Mr. Boehner to risk the renewed wrath of his caucus by moving such a bill (crazy unlikely), any legislation would fall to members such as 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.

[RockyTop]

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.

[SamNavy]

^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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by rts99

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.

I think you are missing the importance of Heller. The fundamental question in Heller wasn't "Can I keep a gun in my home?" The fundamental question was, "Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee an individual right, or a collective right tied to militia duty?"

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."

[Tom Servo]

He said, in essence, "We're not here to talk about those today, so let's not go there."

That's exactly what he was supposed to do. The Court is called upon to answer twp specific questions: does the 2A protect a right to individual ownership, and did the District's regulation violate that.

If they go too far off the reservation, the accusations of "judicial activism" start to ring true.

[Isk]

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.