Can this be reversed? New Gun Laws in CT?

I wonder if this will apply to smaller guns that offer an extended magazine for additional grip like the Shield or XDS?
Click to expand...
Extended magazines, heck... what about pinky rests? Does this mean that the infamous Beretta Model 1934 offensive assault pistol is now forbidden in CT? :rolleyes: ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
This one is kinda weird too:
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
Click to expand...

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....:rolleyes:
 
If there isn't a serious and devastating backlash in the next elections and a sweeping ruling from SCOTUS announcing strict scrutiny outside the home on the pending cert cases, I fear we are doomed.

Why should the antigunners even care what goes through congress when an unnavigable patchwork of laws can be created at the state level? We already know that the administration has engaging in unprecedented arm-twisting at the state legislatures.

I believe there is a limit to this level of unconstrained infringement beyond which many people will take a stand. I fear that the antis will poke, shove, and antagonize until an inevitable pushback wherein they can say, "Look, just as we said all along, these are violent, evil, antigovernment insurrectionists who cannot be trusted with 2nd amendment rights", backwardly justifying their own behavior which forced the situation in the first place.

I don't know what is more loathsome, that this level of disregard for rights could lead to violence, or that it never will.
 
Last edited:
Well said Maestro. I have thought of this myself and and living CT I feel I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I will most likely end up a Class D felon and have been a honest hard working man all my life.

I believe there is a limit to this level of unconstrained infringement beyond which many people will take a stand. I fear that the antis will poke, shove, and antagonize until an inevitable pushback wherein they can say, "Look, just as we said all along, these are violent, evil, antigovernment insurrectionists who cannot be trusted with 2nd amendment rights", backwardly justifying their own behavior which forced the situation in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
I have posted all of this before , BUT NOW it proves it !

2A is Extinct here in Connecticut

Voters, tax payers, Legal owners be dammed...........

Just watch... Gov Malloy will now be
promoted to be Obama's new shoe shine boy, as a reward for playing ball

I'm wondering if I should take down the stars & Stripes, and fly the Hammer & Sickle flag

Well done Legislators of Connecticut for stomping both the state & federal Constituions

All of this will be passed by Gov Malloy under the guise of 'Emergency' legislation.. Is this what DEMOCRACY is ?
 
Last edited:
as in new york, republican representatives in connecticut also caved and also support and will vote for this law. its not just liberals who are enemies of the second amendment.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
How is a magazine registry supposed to work again?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I think that sums it up well. I tried to do some surfing from my computer at work and I stumbled across a discussion about the proposed CT law, with a statement from a guy who I think was the chief Democrat pooh-bah in one of the chambers of the CT legislature. What they really want is to just not have ANY "large capacity" magazines in the state at all, so their view is that allowing people who already own them to keep them (with registration) and pretend they don't hold more than ten rounds is bending over backwards to be "fair."

And they view it as cutting off the flow. They apparently seriously expect the other 49 states to follow suit and outlaw "large capacity" magazines, and their goal (as we have always said) is to simply have them disappear through attrition.

I hope someone in CT gets this before the Supreme Court quickly, while it can still be argued that denying "The people" the right to use the weapons in common use (the language used by Mr, Scalia in Heller) is contrary to the Constitution.
 
Does anyone know if Colt is staying CT? I had heard rumors they were contemplating a move.
With this legislation coming down the pipes, I wonder, is that assured now?
 
And none of these new laws in any state would have stopped those insane people from killing. Not ONE.

It is truly hard to wrap one's head around the fact that there are people that have the power to make these laws in our government that have no more sense than that.

I hope 2014 and 2016 sees a lot different outcomes but it seems a lot of the country has no more sense than that either.

That is scary......
 
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.
Click to expand...
It also usually means it takes effect immediately rather than the normal delay (60/90 days or whatever is normal for that state).
 
I'm already contemplating how to get out of this state...at the very least, I have family in a few other more gun-friendly states, and I may need to try to get my rifle to them sooner rather than later for safe storage...

My major concern with this is losing Colt, Stag, Mossberg, etc...and watching our taxes hike as a result to make up for the lost revenue.

That and the cost of potentially having to register every magazine over 10 rds...and how? By "stamping" our mags?
 
I'd think if this passes they can kiss their fish and wildlife program and several million in license fees GOODBYE. No one will pay extra for a nonresident hunting license with these kinds of restrictions. Unchecked deer populations will bring other problems like CWD , crop depredation , more vehicle accidents and a lot of waste and needless animal suffering. On my part I will not be traveling through these East Coast Gun grabbing states nor buying anything from such states. Money talks real loud these days and the lack thereof practically shouts the message. New York ought not be allowed to call itself a state , they have sunk so low. No Guns and no large drinks. They are the laughing stock of this country and they don't even know it.
 
Jayster said:
It is truly hard to wrap one's head around the fact that there are people that have the power to make these laws in our government that have no more sense than that.
Click to expand...

You're presuming that it is because they lack sense that they are pushing for and intend to pass these laws.

It has nothing to do with that at all. These people want the population to be disarmed, not because they wish to improve our lots in life or anything so lofty, but because they fear an armed population.

When the government fears the population, there is liberty. When the population fears the government, there is tyranny. The people in question are attempting to ensure that the latter is the case, not the former.

These people want a subjugated population. They want to make the population subservient to the government. It's as simple as that.

I assure you, this is not an accident, and it is not stupidity. It is malevolence.
 
CT Gov Malloy I'm sure will use his 'Emergency' powers to enact
any additional gun grabbing laws , if the legislature does not provide him with 'His' desired results today...


Wed 03 April 2013 is the last day of 2A here in Connecticut

Democracy in action
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In Conn. would the Gov. have the power to mandate that all "High Capacity Magazines" and "Assault Weapons" may not be removed from the home, or MUST be turned in during a "state of Emergency" ?
 
Not really. "Emergency powers" only go so far, and things like confiscation of property set off Constitutional tripwires.

Even if that weren't the case, judges still know the difference between a "real" state of emergency (wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes) and the politicians' BS use of the word in order to short-circuit the normal procedure for creating laws.

If the CT governor tries to use a months-old shooting as the predicate "emergency" to justify confiscation or forcing people to keep their weapons locked in their houses, he's seriously going to get the "hairy eyeball" from the courts.
 
Didn't CT get hit with not one but two huge snowstorms this past winter? Also I thought "Super Storm Sandy" did some damage to CT as well, though not as bad as NY and NJ.

I am saying that this could be a slippery slope to confiscation, even without further legislation. We all know how hard it was for people to get their guns back after Katrina.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top