CT Facing Tougher Laws Than NY

[Speedo66]

According to a NY Times article, CT lawmakers are agreeing on a gun control bill that looks tougher than NY's.

A course would need to be passed before you could buy a long arm or ammo, with a background check also required to purchase either. All gun sales, public and private, would have to go through a background check.

Normal capacity magazines could no longer be sold in the state, the new limit would be 10 rounds. Existing magazines with a limit greater than 10 would have to be registered, thus creating de facto gun registration. They could not be loaded with more than 10 rounds except at a range, or in the home.

They would also set up a registry of "criminals" who violated any of more than 40 different gun "crimes".

Although CT already has an "assault" weapon ban, they are adding 100 guns to the list that cannot be sold in CT. Owners of existing guns in the state would have to register them.

It seems the new politics is to try and one up every other state to make more restrictive gun laws. Once again, the public's right to discuss the new law is being denied, it's supposed to be voted on tomorrow.

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/n...r-reaching-gun-control.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0

 

[p2000sk]

http://capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/
That link is provided by NRA-ILA so that you may enter your zip code and find your local officials contact info.
I have recorded the phone numbers of my CT Senate representative and my CT House representative. I will be calling them in the morning to voice my opposition to any proposed restriction toward firearms.
Aside from showing up in Hartford personally, is that the best I can do?

 

[Solo]

If it passes, we can always sue.

 

[Blackbeard]

Just how does one register a magazine, anyway? I don't know about yours, but mine don't have serial numbers on them.

 

[splithoof]

Welcome to California.

 

[MikePaiN]

This proposed law known as "E-CERT" is an emergency type bill, it was developed behind closed doors and is being rammed through the legislative process.
We have local and national groups in state today mounting as much opposition as possible... Wish us luck...

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...ll-in-the-nation-to-be-voted-on-tomorrow.aspx

 

[JohnnyK]

that SUCKS!!! I was born in CT but am soooo glad I live in TX!!!

 

[Steve CT]

Just how does one register a magazine, anyway? I don't know about yours, but mine don't have serial numbers on them.

We will need to identify the quantity of magazines that we own over 10 rounds, and be "licensed" to possess that number. I'd guess we have to break it down by make and model in some way, but legislators are saying "just get it passed, we'll figure out what it all means later.

Obama already has a Victory Lap scheduled for CT in the next few days

 

[beatledog7]

...but legislators are saying "just get it passed, we'll figure out what it all means later.

Scary new trend in the legislative mindset: do something so we can say we did something. They pass it, pat themselves on the back, then explore what it really means. My bet: It won't be long before CT legislators are reading about the various parts of their shiny new gun law that are demonstrably unenforceable, ineffective and advantageous to criminals, just as happened in NY.

 

[MagnunJoe]

Soon another state will brag about "having the toughest gun laws in the country"

 

[19-3Ben]

I'm here in the senate chamber of the ct Capitol building getting ready for the senators to enter. 139pg bill finalized and made available to the public this morning at 7:30 and being voted on today. The outrage among the several hundred pro2a folks here is palpable.

 

[Devonai]

Here is my letter to my rep:

Dear Ma'am,

As a Connecticut resident and eight-year veteran of our armed forces, I strongly urge you to oppose any new legislation that would interfere with the ability for honest citizens to own or keep arms and ammunition. None of the current laws prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook, and none of the proposed legislation would have prevented it either.

Particularly onerous among the recent legislative proposals are the restrictions on magazines and magazine capacity. They are Orwellian in tone and offensive. First, registration of magazines, which are not serial numbered, would require self-reporting, which is a Fifth Amendment violation. Enforcement of a registration requirement would amount to an "audit" of sorts, and is a clear Fourth Amendment violation.

Most offensive to law-abiding people is the proposed requirement to restrict loading more than ten rounds into a magazine that accepts eleven or more. This is thought control, plain and simple, and is intolerable to free, fair-minded people.

The Supreme Court decision in Heller V. DC found in favor of "arms in the common use." There are millions of "high-capacity" magazines currently in circulation and hundreds of various firearms that use them. The proposed restrictions in Connecticut will not pass constitutional muster, and will result in many long and costly lawsuits.

Please vote against these and any other proposed legislation regarding firearms. Thank you.

David Kantrowitz
East Granby, CT

She's a Democrat, so I don't expect much.

 

[Blackbeard]

We will need to identify the quantity of magazines that we own over 10 rounds, and be "licensed" to possess that number. I'd guess we have to break it down by make and model in some way, but legislators are saying "just get it passed, we'll figure out what it all means later.

So what's to stop me from registering say 3,000 magazines. I'd be happy to show them to you -- ten at a time. Description? Um...black, slightly curved.

 

[Devonai]

Thanks, Johnny!

As I mentioned in my letter, I just don't see how a requirement to report magazines (regardless of the actual number owned) gets around the 5th Amendment. The burden of proof lies with the state to show that a crime has been committed. If you do register your magazines, you have, in effect, waived your 5th Amendment protections. Now what?

On the enforcement side, let's say you do register 3,000 magazines. You've now consented to allow the Department of Public Safety to audit your property, and effectively waived your 4th Amendment protections.

IANAL, not by a long shot, but it seems to me that compliance with this law would be a huge mistake. Now, there is a certain school of thought that says that certain rights cannot be waived, even if you sign a paper to that effect, but who has the time and money to fight it out in court?

I am considering leaving my mags with a friend in NH until this whole thing blows over. That way, if I have to clam up and plead the 5th, any warrant to search my residence will come up empty anyway. If the law survives the first couple of years, then I can start looking for a way to get the hell out of this state. VT is only 80 miles away...

 

[Speedo66]

Nobody has mentioned how much this debacle will cost. CT already has ridiculous taxes, setting up the "bureaucrazy" to monitor this will cost a fortune. How much are they going to try and soak the owners for paper work, inspections, permits, etc. How often?

They want to raise the age to buy a long gun to 21. Constitutional?

How will the citizens get shafted for state legal fees to fight the myriad lawsuits we know are coming?

I moved here a year ago, I'm thinking I'd like to move again.

 

[Blackbeard]

I think it could be a blessing in disguise. The more outrageous the law, the more likely it is to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And then we'll have a foot in the door to knock down all "assault weapon" bans.

Paging Alan Gura.......

 

[Speedo66]

They're supposed to be raising 100 addition guns to "assault weapon" status, has anybody seen a list, or know a link to it?

Anybody know if the bill passed today?

 

[Solo]

I think it could be a blessing in disguise. The more outrageous the law, the more likely it is to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And then we'll have a foot in the door to knock down all "assault weapon" bans.

This is my hope as well.

 

[HankR]

So what's to stop me from registering say 3,000 magazines. I'd be happy to show them to you -- ten at a time. Description? Um...black, slightly curved.

A) Well, next year when they come to confiscate them and you can only find 242, you will be guilty of 2558 Class D felonies (since you obviously "transferred the missing magazines. If you transferred them out of state, you have paperwork. If not, you're in the hokey.

B)Or maybe they'll just charge a licensing fee (starting next year) of $2.98 per magazine (per year). At that point you tell them you don't want to pay for all of those mags, so they say "just turn in the extra mags (See A).

C) or you find one tan magazine, or a "straight" 20-rounder, and get caught with it. It's obviously not one of your original 3000, so it's possession is a class D felony.

D)...

 

[19-3Ben]

Anybody know if the bill passed today?

Yup. It passed about 45 minutes ago by a 26-10 vote.

 

[CTGunner]

Is there a way to see a list of who voted and how?

 

[19-3Ben]

Is there a way to see a list of who voted and how?
__________________

Ask and ye shall receive.

Sen. Andres Ayala (D) YES
Sen. Dante Bartolomeo (D) YES
Sen. Toni Boucher (R) YES
Sen. Beth Bye (D) YES
Sen. Steve Cassano (D) YES
Sen. Clark Chapin (R) NO
Sen. Eric Coleman (D) YES
Sen. Joseph Crisco (D) YES
Sen. Paul Doyle (D) YES
Sen. Bob Duff (D) YES
Sen. Len Fasano (R) YES
Sen. John Fonfara (D) YES
Sen. L. Scott Frantz (R) YES
Sen. Terry Gerratana (D) YES
Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R) NO
Sen. Toni Harp (D) YES
Sen. Joan Hartley (D) YES
Sen. Rob Kane (R) NO
Sen. Kevin Kelly (R) YES
Sen. John Kissel (R) NO
Sen. Gary LeBeau (D) YES
Sen. Carlo Leone (D) YES
Sen. Art Linares (R) NO
Sen. Martin Looney (D) YES
Sen. Joe Markley (R) NO
Sen. Andrew Maynard (D) NO
Sen. John McKinney (R) YES
Sen. Michael McLachlan (R) YES
Sen. Edward Meyer (D) YES
Sen. Anthony Musto (D) YES
Sen. Cathy Osten (D) NO
Sen. Gayle Slossberg (D) YES
Sen. Andrea Stillman (D) YES
Sen. Jason Welch (R) NO
Sen. Donald Williams (D) YES
Sen. Kevin Witkos (R) NO

 

[CTGunner]

Thanks. I don't see my rep's name listed.

 

[19-3Ben]

Perhaps I missed one when copy/pasting, or perhaps your rep couldn't make it out today?

 

[GlowinPontiac]

You can have a hunting license at 16 but cannot possess a gun until 21. This bill was written and passed so fast I doubt most of the legislators even got time to read it all the way through.

as to the mag registration they just want to find out how many there are for when they confiscate them all next legislative session. Several groups are already calling for full confiscation of all "assault weapons" and mags over 10 rounds.

If this does not get shot down in court then within 3 years there will be only single shot .22 rifles allowed in CT. And a one box of 50 rounds per year limit on buying ammo.