Can this be reversed? New Gun Laws in CT?

Sorry for our friends in CT....however, I'm scared more of us are going to get a good dose or regressive 2A laws in the near future.
 
For many, moving is not an option.
Click to expand...
On top of that, if all the pro-gun folks leave, who's going to stick around to fight this?

Suggesting someone move as a solution is shortsighted and it's not helpful. Posts will be deleted for that.
 
Registration, plain and simple

So that CT-legal AR i bought, which has the pinned stock, plain muzzle, and no scary bayonet lug, is now illegal. But the good news is, i could keep it there if only i'm willing to comply with their registration scheme, including a thumbprint. if only it didn't have that pesky protruding pistol grip, i could avoid registration.

So it's pretty clear that the real intent behind all of this is to so heavily burden the right as to render it inoperable. They've learned not to make the ban so sweeping that it is a de facto denial of the right, or to make it so expensive that it is effectively the same. Nope, they are burying the right in paperwork, elgibility certificates, licenses, bureaucracy and delay,all in the name of reasonable regulation. Then for those of you crazy gun nuts who navigate this web of fees and background checks, you play right into their registration scheme and are all set for confiscation when they get around to that.

and this from the home of Sharps, Colt, Marlin, Winchester, Mossberg, and i forget how many other fine manufacturers of firearms from a better day.
 
I am not surprised that politics has taken what should have been simply closing loopholes to another level. Anyone bend on harming people and causing the kind of carnage done in Sandy Hook School is going to be next to impossible to stop.

You can say that limiting the magazine to 10 rounds helps or that all transactions should be recorded. The problem is that people who are mentally sick don't care about these details. Who was at fault in this case in my opinion? the mother of Adam Lanza. Why would you buy and show how to shoot and use an Ar to a kid that obviously had mental problems? I read stories where it actually said that when the parents needed to go out and hired a baby sitter, they would tell her not to turn her back on their kid. Didn't that ring any bells to them?

Living in Newtown Ct, I can tell you that this horrific event has taken a tbig, big oll on this town. I spend 6 years going to Sandy Hook School to pick up my kids so I knew, not personally but knew a lot of those kids by sight. I had seen their parents picking them up while I was picking my kids up. So needles to say, even now its very emotional to write about this.

These are my neighbors, great people who loved their kids, did everything right and find themselves trying to understand why this happened to them.

Yes, politicians have taken advantage on what happened here but we were hit so hard that we did not have time to react. Did I expect what we got? no way. I thought it would be just closing the loopholes on gun shows and limiting mags to 10 rounds. Sadly now as a gun owner, I will have to pay the price of someone else crazy act.

No disrespect to any of my fellow posters here. Just my 2 cents.
 
New Laws Lack Thought

Saw this article in CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/us/connecticut-gun-law-overhaul/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

So it appears that standard capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds may be kept but have to be registered and you cannot load them with more than 10 rounds outside your home. This and all sorts of new purchasing permits that get taken away for 1 firearm violation (loading more than 1 round outside your home?).

This is ridiculous and outrageous!

Imagine if there was a gas shortage, but instead of rationing gas, the government enacts a law that makes it illegal to fully load you vehicles' gas tanks and you can only have it half-filled at any time! So now cops can pull you over, check you gas tank level indicator, arrest you if you are one drop over the limit and forever ban you from driving a car.

I smell a boycott coming.

This only proves that the USA is fast becoming a nation of laws, not a nation of justice. These new laws do no justice to law-abiding firearms owners.
 
Last edited:
So if I'm understanding this correctly...because I'm a soldier, I can keep my LCMs unregistered? And I can continue to buy them?

Fantastic, but isn't that about as anti-2a as you can get?
 
So if I'm understanding this correctly...because I'm a soldier, I can keep my LCMs unregistered? And I can continue to buy them?
Click to expand...

Probably not. I haven't read the text of the bill yet, but generally, any time there's an exception for active-duty military, it also includes the caveat "while in the performance of their official duties".

So while our military commands can continue to buy and use magazines of whatever capacity, I doubt that would give you or me the ability to buy them, or to avoid registration on ones we already have.
 
All of this gun grabbing here in Connecticut,

Nobody makes a stink about this though...

Before the Dec. shootings, Gov Malloy was Preening
"BUSHMASTER" here in Connecticut with tax breaks and incentives

wow how things change
 
ScottRiqui said:
I haven't read the text of the bill yet, but generally, any time there's an exception for active-duty military, it also includes the caveat "while in the performance of their official duties".
Click to expand...
Military and most LE actually get a pass from some of the regulations. The law uses this language in the sections concerning the purchase of assault weapons and large capacity magazines (which I'll call AWs and LCMs for short):
[AWs or LCMs may be purchased by] Members or employees of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties or when off duty;...
Click to expand...
<emphasis mine>

Interestingly, the off-duty provision very specifically does NOT apply to employees of, or security contractors employed by, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For some obscure reason, the law is very carefully worded to prohibit anyone associated with the NRC from possessing an AW or LCM at any time except when on-duty (*presumably excluding grandfathered personally-owned "pre-ban" firearms and magazines).

Military and LE are NOT exempt from the registration requirements for AWs and LCMs. The law does, however, give active-duty service members a temporary 90-day pass from some of the registration deadlines if the person is stationed out-of-state when the deadlines take effect.

The off-duty provision does NOT apply to the purchase or possession of so-called armor piercing bullets (APBs). I'm going to address APBs in a future post.

[*Added note with subsequent edit.]
 
Last edited:
Military and most LE actually get a pass from some of the regulations. The law uses this language in the sections concerning the purchase of assault weapons and large capacity magazines (which I'll call AWs and LCMs for short):
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, Chris - I think that's the first time I've seen something gun-related explicitly allowed for off-duty use.
 
For many, moving is not an option. Many people have families, children, jobs, schools and other such things to consider.
Click to expand...

It's always an option but it would most likely be an inconvenient and life altering option. This is why they get away with the oppressive things they do, knowing people can't or won't change their life. I'm not disagreeing with you Spats but all that's left to effect them is a vote that they don't seem to fear.
 
Last edited:
No, for some folks, it's really not an option, at least not for the foreseeable future. Would you suggest that the family pack up and move without a place to stay, without a job on the horizon? What if none of the adults in the family can find a job in a less restrictive locale?

For some folks (like me), the license that lets them make a living is only valid in the state in which they currently live. If I, for example, needed to move to another jurisdiction, I would have to give up the practice of law (which pays the best money that I can reasonably expect to make with my skill set) until I get my license in the new jurisdiction. Until ~10 years ago, Arkansas didn't even have reciprocity with any other state. That meant that if I wanted to move to another state, I would have to either take their bar exam, or give up the practice of law. What if I (or someone in my position) had moved out of state and failed the bar? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a little unwilling to send my entire family out on a limb that could leave them homeless.

Besides, if all of the gun owners move out of the more restrictive jurisdictions, who will fight for gun rights there? I'm not sure where you're located, Punisher, but consider this: if every single gun owner vacated CA, NJ, NY, and IL, that would put the anti-gun folks in total control there. Those of us in less-populous jurisdictions should try to avoid that, due to the voting mechanism in the House of Representatives.
 
With all these new laws and restrictions in the New England area it looks like the anti-gun folks are already in control there. What I'd like to know is why, on a topic of a constitutional right, the citizens don't get to vote on law proposals like this.
 
Punisher 1 said:
With all these new laws and restrictions in the New England area it looks like the anti-gun folks are already in control there. What I'd like to know is why, on a topic of a constitutional right, the citizens don't get to vote on law proposals like this.
Click to expand...
Because, in theory, we have elected representatives to do that for us.

Unfortunately, the process has been corrupted beyond all recognition. Like the NY law, the new CT law was a backroom deal that was all worked out in secret. It was presented as a fait accompli to the full membership of the CT House and Senate late on Monday, for a vote on Wednesday. The bill was 139 pages long. Despite the fact that the Sandy Hook incident was an aberration, a one-of-a-kind event that CT had not seen in 350 years of its existence, and the event took place nearly four MONTHS ago, the legislative power-brokers presented the bill as "emergency" legislation and had it certified as such, which allowed them to railroad it through with NO public hearings on the actual language of the bill, and most of the usual legislative process for new laws suspended.

It was like Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare all over again: "We'll have to pass it to find out what it says."

I suppose I'm naive, but I don't believe that's the way the gentlemen who set up this country intended things to be done.
 
Last edited:
So I was just reading the law. I have a mini 14, no folding stock, so that is not an assault rifle. But it has a flash suppressor so it is an assault rifle, if the barrel is threaded. I just took a punch and removed the flash suppressor, so it is not an assault rifle. But if I don't fill the punch hole and keep the suppressor, it is an assault rifle.
Here is the law, or a lot of it. See if your weapon is on the list and then name it "Lucille" and it will be fine:

http://www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/special_licensing_and_firearms/assault_weapons.pdf


"First they came for my neighbor because he murdered his wife with a frozen pork loin, and I said nothing. Then he called me to bail him out, and I said nothing. Then they asked me to testify and I said nothing. Then his 27 year old daughter came over in a bikini looking to be comforted, and I said nothing."

Oh, I could go on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top