Can this be reversed? New Gun Laws in CT?

Back to the question:
Can this be reversed?
Click to expand...

Its unlikely the new CT anti-gun law will be reversed in its entirety. Part/s of the law might be reversed on appeal. As for a legislative remedy: There's little chance a pro-gun legislature and governor will be elected in CT.
 
Here's a link to the actual proposed legislation: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-01160-R00-SB.htm

If you take the time to look through it, it revises some existing sections of the state statutes and it adds a number of new sections to the statutes. I sincerely hope that the sane people of Connecticut will get help from the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation to challenge some of these provisions in Federal court.

I need to spend a lot more time reading it. So far, what I see is that there doesn't appear to be any provision for people who already hold a handgun carry permit to be allowed to buy "long guns" under the new system. Same for buying ammunition. That means Connecticut residents will need to obtain, AND PAY FOR, three separate permits: One to carry a handgun, one to buy long guns, and a third to buy ammunition.

I can't wait to see what else is in there ...
 
All the "Gun" parts are off the wall, 2A is now a hospice patient here in CT

but further reading concerning the education safeguards...

are just plain nuts as well.. I can't believe that any of the teachers unions will let this lie still, making requirements to do "More"

and a parent serving on a committee , is not allowed information reported to the said committee "
Any parent or guardian serving as a member of a school security and safety committee shall not have access to any information reported to such committee,
Click to expand...


*read below*
b) For the school year commencing July 1, 2014, and each school year thereafter, each local and regional board of education shall establish a school security and safety committee at each school under the jurisdiction of such board. The school security and safety committee shall be responsible for assisting in the development of the school security and safety plan for the school and administering such plan. Such school security and safety committee shall consist of a local police officer, a local first responder, a teacher and an administrator employed at the school, a mental health professional, as defined in section 10-76t of the general statutes, a parent or guardian of a student enrolled in the school and any other person the board of education deems necessary. Any parent or guardian serving as a member of a school security and safety committee shall not have access to any information reported to such committee, pursuant to subparagraph (c) of subdivision (2) of subsection (c) of section 10-222k of the general statutes, as amended by this act.

(c) Each local and regional board of education shall annually submit the school security and safety plan for each school under the jurisdiction of such board, developed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
 
Well, it would appear that the CT state senate passed the bill...

still waiting to see the exact break-down of the votes...but rumor is that Malloy will sign it tomorrow.
 
The WSJ is reporting that the Conn. Governor's security detail isn't allowing him near the capitol for fear of gun right's supporters.

Said supporters were all chanting "Read the bill." Real threatening.

That might be the most singular act of cowardice I've ever seen form an elected official.
 
The only hope we have is that manufacturers are able to produce essentially the same weapons without the components that would classify them as "assault weapons", ie removing the bayonet lug. I have not been able to find the list of the additional 100 weapons added to the list or the elements that make them illegal. I hate this state....my wife won't leave.
 
Get active in politics with a goal to turn the state red. This crazy stuff is tied to a political machine. You can stop trying to find logic in the bill and see it as exploitation of a crisis, as a means to an end. IOW, its a start and not the end goal. Its a plan that has been in the drawer waiting for a chance. There are more bills in that drawer. Stop voting for gun control.
 
From my admittedly layman's viewpoint, i'd bet this will pass Supreme Court scrutiny, if it ever gets there. Under the proposed law, guns (some guns anyway) can still be purchased, carry permits can (ostensibly) still be obtained, there will simply a whole lot more process and "reasonable regulation" - but not an outright abrogation of the RKBA.

From a logical perspective, it's something else entirely. CT never gave up it's "assault weapons" ban, so the one i bought there has a fixed stock, no evil threads on the muzzle, and no fearsome bayonet lug. The weapon violation registry is a hoot; those laws are so seldom enforced they might as well be repealed, and felons and violent misdemeanants are already supposed to be in the NICS system anyway. So is CT now going to run their own substitute background check system paid for how? Then there is the magazine registration - they'll be years just keypunching all the forms into a computer system that will likely be antiquated and the resulting database useless. That's if anyone is dumb enough to register their mags. I think there is a Constitutional right against self-incrimination. And oh yeah, what exactly will this law do about getting help for nutjobs that have slipped through the cracks in the mental health system? Now THAT might actually prevent another Sandy Hook tragedy.

Boy i'm glad i left, and only just in time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1stmar said:
The only hope we have is that manufacturers are able to produce essentially the same weapons without the components that would classify them as "assault weapons", ie removing the bayonet lug. I have not been able to find the list of the additional 100 weapons added to the list or the elements that make them illegal. I hate this state....my wife won't leave.
Click to expand...
CT already has an AWB, allowing two "evil" features. It is worded as "a detachable magazine and not more than one of the following." One of "the following" is a pistol grip that protrudes from the stock, so all AR-15 pattern rifles have their two "evil" features right out of the box. Beyond the detachable magazine and pistol grip, they are (currently) not allowed to have any other "evil" features, such as: collapsing or telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs (I suppose Connecticut had an epidemic of drive-by bayonetings in the years preceding 1993), flash hiders or threaded barrels that can accept flash hiders, vertical fore grips. I think that's about it.

But now the new law will reduce it to ONE "evil" feature. So if a rifle has a detachable magazine, it will NOT be allowed to have a protruding pistol grip. Bye-bye AR-15.

Give it three months. Someone will design an AR-15 stock that fits and works and doesn't have a protruding pistol grip, it'll be legal in CT, and the anti-gunners will again start whining about evil manufacturers exploiting a "loophole" in the law.
 
Daugherty16 said:
From my admittedly layman's viewpoint, i'd bet this will pass Supreme Court scrutiny, if it ever gets there. Under the proposed law, guns (some guns anyway) can still be purchased, carry permits can (ostensibly) still be obtained, there will simply a whole lot more process and "reasonable regulation" - but not an outright abrogation of the RKBA.
Click to expand...
I think it won't, but who knows.

I base my opinion on Scalia's language from Heller to the effect that the 2A protects the right of the People to have for self defense those arms "in common use." And in the United States today, THE pistol in most common use is a double stack with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds, and THE rifle in most common use is the AR-15 type rifle with a 30-round magazine.

I also think it will fail because it essentially imposes a tax on a right. To buy ANY long gun you will need a new permit from the state. I didn't see any exemption for people who have already taken classes, paid the fees, had the background checks, and have pistol permits. Then the law requires ANOTHER permit, with fees and background checks, before you can buy ammunition. Again, unless I skimmed it too fast I don't see any exemption for people who have either a pistol permit OR a new long gun permit.

In essence, the new regulations really are NOT "reasonable," and taken together they would not have prevented sandy Hook so they don't further the intended purpose. And to pass SCOTUS review a law restricting a fundamental right has to be narrowly tailored to produce the desired intent with the minimum imposition on the populace. IMHO there's just no way this mess could meet that test. It seems the legislature is telling themselves it will pass scrutiny because it's reasonable. What makes it reasonable? In their twisted minds, what makes it reasonable is that they say it's reasonable.
 
I wonder if firearms manufacturers and other pro-2nd companies can be encouraged to boycott Conn. in the same manner as New York state?
 
Daugherty16 said:
So is CT now going to run their own substitute background check system paid for how?
Click to expand...
Two words: Permit fees.
Daugherty16 said:
Then there is the magazine registration - they'll be years just keypunching all the forms into a computer system that will likely be antiquated and the resulting database useless.
Click to expand...
Based upon reading the law, the penalties for violations are so onerous that the IMHO the registration system is likely not intended to function as an actual registry; the intent is to encourage CT residents to quietly dispose of restricted magazines out-of-state.
Aguila Blanca said:
I also think it will fail because it essentially imposes a tax on a right. To buy ANY long gun you will need a new permit from the state... Then the law requires ANOTHER permit, with fees and background checks, before you can buy ammunition. Again, unless I skimmed it too fast I don't see any exemption for people who have either a pistol permit OR a new long gun permit.
Click to expand...
+1; I think this is the crux of the matter. Although I am just now familiarizing myself with CT law, I gather that under the old system, only a pistol or revolver required a renewable permit and a fee. IOW if a person wanted to own a firearm without a permit and fee, he or she could buy a long gun.

However, I agree with Aguila's reading of the law- a gun owner will now need at least one permit or certificate to own or use a firearm, unless he or she is using ammunition stockpiled before the permit system goes into effect <incorrect info deleted>. Here's the key: as I read the law, the permits and certificates are granted by the same agency (the DESPP) using largely the same process, and are also revoked using the same process if the person is somehow disqualified from owning a firearm. :(

There are only two conceivable reasons to require three largely identical and parallel permit systems: (a) to ensure continued employment for bureaucrats, and (b) to make it a real nuisance the exercise a fundamental right. :rolleyes: I'm actually fairly confident that the courts will go with (b). :D

<edits in italics>
 
Last edited:
From the reading that I have done, and the hours of the debate that I listened to, a CT Pistol/Revolver Carry Permit trumps the other permits.

My understanding:

If you own a long gun and want to buy ammo, you can buy a $35 ammo permit, and purchase ammo until the permit needs to be renewed.

If you want to buy a long gun you will need the long gun permit (unsure on the fees) and with it, you can buy long guns and ammo.

If you have a pistol permit, nothing changes for you, you can buy hand guns, long guns and ammo. The was no talk of the fee changing or not that I heard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^ RCPFab, upon rereading the section, I believe you're right.

Aguila, I believe our reading was incorrect. I apparently got lost in the "ands" and "ors". :o From the law:
(c) On and after October 1, 2013, no person, firm or corporation shall sell ammunition or an ammunition magazine to any person unless such person holds a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver..., a valid permit to sell at retail a pistol or revolver..., a valid eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver..., or a valid long gun eligibility certificate... and presents to the transferor such permit or certificate, or unless such person holds a valid ammunition certificate issued pursuant to section 15 of this act....
Click to expand...
<emphasis mine>

Similar wording is found in the portion of the law that creates the long gun eligibility certificate program, but the ammunition certificate does not trump the long gun certificate.

In other words, there will be four types of permits or certificates available to average CT citizens who aren't LE officers or gun/ammo dealers. They are, in order of decreasing privileges:
  1. Permit to carry a pistol or revolver
  2. Eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver
  3. Long gun eligibility certificate
  4. Ammunition certificate
The permits or certificates that are higher on the list trump those that are lower on the list.

FWIW the fee for both the long gun and ammunition certificates is $35, and the law specifies that the Commissioner "shall issue" the permit to anyone who passes the background check and satisfies the other qualifications; however, the long gun certificate requires fingerprints and a training course, while the ammunition certificate does not.

(I'll make some revisions to my prior post in a minute.)
 
Today's news says the Governor is signing the bill today.
Sad, our country is being patchworked into pro-2ndA and anti.
This could impact CT tourist industry. Those with carry permits or traveling to shooting events or hunting will by pass the state entirely.
Nothing good will come from this.
 
carguychris said:
+1; I think this is the crux of the matter. Although I am just now familiarizing myself with CT law, I gather that under the old system, only a pistol or revolver required a renewable permit and a fee. IOW if a person wanted to own a firearm without a permit and fee, he or she could buy a long gun.
Click to expand...
Even Connecticut's old system was unconstitutional, under both the Connecticut and Federal Constitutions. The reason is that both (supposedly) guarantee a right to bear arms -- Connecticut even says "in defense of the self and of the State." But ... Connecticut residents cannot exercise that right AT ALL (neither concealed carry OR open carry) without a permit. Cases in other states (Ohio and, IIRC, Idaho) have held that where a right is guaranteed by the constitution, the state may regulate it but may not prohibit it. Thus, if concealed carry is not allowed (or requires a permit), open carry must be allowed without a permit. Or a state could allow concealed carry with no permit but require a permit for open carry, but I don't think any state has gone that direction.)

But Connecticut simply doesn't allow ANY carry without a permit. That's not regulating the mode of carry, that's regulating the act of carry.

That didn't get fixed in this new bill. CT didn't make anything easier for anyone -- they just made things a lot tougher. In a bill this long, they should also have included state preemption (which Connecticut doesn't have), but that didn't further the gun control agenda so that was never even discussed.
 
Here's the key: as I read the law, the permits and certificates are granted by the same agency (the DESPP) using largely the same process


Well.... I see unintended consequences that are good for our side: A state where everyone who ever wants to buy ammunition does so by getting a permit to carry a handgun... :D



Willie


.
 
Disgusting...

I really don't see any way for this to be changed. The citizens of CT will not vote out the current lackies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top