Connecticut is at it again!

D

Daugherty16

New member
SB 1094 was introduced yesterday, proposing to make possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds a felony. Yep, a felony. The bill specifically calls for a brief period when owners can turn them in, after that you're a criminal. Without doing a single thing, without committing a single crime, BAM! you're a felon.

No sooner do we draw a breath, thinking the Mandatory Registration has been quashed, than another lunatic fringe bill is introduced. I emailed every single member of the Judiciary Committee this morning with a host of reasons to kill the bill, hoping only that since this isn't really an issue split on party lines, maybe common sense will prevail.

I gotta get out of this state before it becomes just like NY and MA.
 
That's pretty serious - atleast the California Philosopher-Kings only made it illegal to sell/transfer them, allowing owners of hi-caps to grandfather in.
 
And this is one of the reasons I moved from the North East having lived in N.Y. N.Y. and Taxachussets.
 
So that effectively turns anyone that owns most 9mm handguns into a felon. Hope it gets voted down.
 
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-01094-R00-SB.htm
here is the proposed bill, I cant see it going through like this, but im sure they will get something in to tighten the already tight laws
AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) As used in this section, "large capacity magazine" means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, but does not include: (1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds, (2) a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, or (3) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

(b) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(c) Any person who (1) prior to the effective date of this section, lawfully possessed a large capacity magazine, and (2) not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, removes such magazine from this state or surrenders such magazine to an organized local police department or the Department of Public Safety for destruction, shall not be subject to prosecution for a violation of subsection (b) of this section.

(d) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity magazine by:

(1) Members or employees of organized local police departments, the Department of Public Safety, 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;

(2) A person, corporation or other entity that manufactures large capacity magazines for persons specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection or for export in accordance with federal regulations;

(3) Any person engaged in the business of selling or transferring large capacity magazines in accordance with state and federal regulations who possesses such magazines solely for the purpose of such sale or transfer; or

(4) A gunsmith who possesses such large capacity magazine for the purpose of maintenance, repair or modification.
Click to expand...
 
hopefully it will fail....

as for Ct's laws.... actually I don't find them that bad... much better than S.C.s

I carried for a week in Hartford in Feb. and did not have to worry about stepping into the wrong place and breaking the law.
 
I know nothing about CT politics, but this bill seems so draconian that it strikes me as political posturing- i.e. propose an over-the-top ban that has no realistic chance of passing, wait until the next election cycle, and accuse your opponents of blocking "common-sense gun restrictions that would have prevented events like the AZ tragedy." :rolleyes:

Does it have co-sponsors? Are any of the sponsors on influential committees with business relating to this legislation?
 
blume357 said:
as for Ct's laws.... actually I don't find them that bad... much better than S.C.s

I carried for a week in Hartford in Feb. and did not have to worry about stepping into the wrong place and breaking the law.
Click to expand...
You did have something to worry about, and you probably didn't even know it. Hartford is near New Britain. I was astonished to learn recently that New Britain (along with New London and some smaller towns in Connecticut) have local ordinances that prohibit carrying a firearm -- even if you have a Connecticut permit.

I've had a Connecticut permit for several years, and I didn't know that. Now I've been obsessing over whether I might have traversed New Britain while traveling around Connecticut. I have not been to New London for many years so I'm pretty sure I never transgressed there, but New Britain? Next door to West Hartford where the Colt factory is, and home to several gun and magazine manufacturers? I may very well have been an inadvertent scofflaw, and that's not a comfortable thing to find out.
 
Are you kidding? How can they get around the state preemption? At least in Rhode Island, I have been told that municipalities can't write a law that contradicts state law. If the state allows you to carry throughout the state, the town cannot limit that right.
 
Friend of mine in CT just got her carry permit a few months ago and sh just narrowly lost an election against her Democrat incumbent opponent. I have a feeling a she is already on this. I almost feel sorry for state Sen. Martin Looney. If he thought high capacity magazines were dangerous wait till he has to meet and explain to the CT Tea Baggers. The fun is just starting.
 
SwampYankee said:
Are you kidding? How can they get around the state preemption?
Click to expand...
Connecticut does not have state preemption. There is another bill proposed this year to create it. (I think I read that here, as a matter of fact.)
 
There is no town law that can prevent you from carrying a firearm if you have a permit. I have friends who live in New Britain, carry guns on permits every day. All the town code does is make reference to the state law (53-206) that covers weapons offenses. The town law does not make it a crime to carry a handgun with a state permit.
 
It appears as though New Britain is very, very confused.

From their town ordinances:

Sec. 16-76. Permit for carrying weapons.
Any person who has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack upon his person or upon any member of his family, may apply to the chief of police for a permit to carry a firearm. If such permit is granted, it shall be for a limited period of time only, and the issuance of this permit shall be entered in a record kept for this purpose by the chief of police.
(Code 1970, § 15-8)
Click to expand...

But they then make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon:

Sec. 16-80. Carrying concealed weapons.
(a) No person shall wear under his clothes, or conceal upon or about his person any deadly or dangerous weapon including, but not limited to any pistol, dagger, metal knuckles, razor, slingshot, blackjack, sword or canegun. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any person who is found with any such weapon or implement concealed upon his person while lawfully removing his household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another, nor to any person while actually and peaceably engaged in carrying any such weapon or implement from his place of abode or business to a place or person where or by whom such weapon or implement is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to his place of abode or business with such weapon or implement after the same has been repaired.
(b) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his duty. (Code 1970, § 15-12)
Click to expand...

It appears that Sec 16-80 is missing the very important clause, "nor shall the provisions of this paragraph apply to individuals legally licensed by the state of Connecticut to carry a concealed firearm upon their person". The two clauses are in direct conflict as they are written.
 
I agree with carguychris, I believe this bill was written to fail for political posturing. I have even talked to some mildly anti-gun people who thought the bill was draconian. These anti-gun folks said they would only support magazine restrictions if there was grandfathering in it.
 
What is says, verbatim, is:

Sec. 16-80. Carrying concealed weapons.
(a) No person shall wear under his clothes, or conceal upon or about his person any deadly or dangerous weapon including, but not limited to any pistol, dagger, metal knuckles, razor, slingshot, blackjack, sword or canegun. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any person who is found with any such weapon or implement concealed upon his person while lawfully removing his household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another, nor to any person while actually and peaceably engaged in carrying any such weapon or implement from his place of abode or business to a place or person where or by whom such weapon or implement is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to his place of abode or business with such weapon or implement after the same has been repaired.
(b) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his duty. (Code 1970, § 15-12)
State law references: Similar provisions, G.S. § 53-206(a).
Secs. 16-81--16-100. Reserved.
Click to expand...

The term "State Law references" is not the same as "we follow the state law" or "just go look at the state law". Were that the case, there would be no need for the ordinance. They have CLEARLY written an ordinance that contradicts state law. It is sloppy. Does the state law prohibit concealed carry? The words "similar provision G.S. § 53-206(a)" would lead me to believe so. What should happen is a New Britain citizen should approach the City Council and have this rectified, the town solicitor has to know it would not stand in court, assuming there is a state preemption, which is still in doubt? Any idea what Code 1970 means? I would assume that was the year the law was codified. Was there CCW in CT in 1970? Perhaps this is sloppy because it is simply outdated?

I've written a few town ordinances in my time and cleaned up a good number of others. This is sloppy and lazy.
 
Last edited:
Conn. Trooper said:
There is no town law that can prevent you from carrying a firearm if you have a permit. I have friends who live in New Britain, carry guns on permits every day. All the town code does is make reference to the state law (53-206) that covers weapons offenses. The town law does not make it a crime to carry a handgun with a state permit.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not what the Sergeant in charge of YOUR department's firearms unit told me less than two weeks ago. I called him in regard to collecting some general statistics about numbers of permit holders but, in the course of a very cordial conversation, he confirmed that Connecticut does not have a preemption law and he volunteered the information that carry is prohibited in New Britain and New London. Regardless of having a state permit to carry.
 
There's been talk of these types of legislation coming from all over the country. Next is lead ammo causing second-hand exposure. After that...?
Be ever vigilant, and send NRA-ILA an extra sawbuck or two.

-7-
 
SwampYankee said:
What should happen is a New Britain citizen should approach the City Council and have this rectified, the town solicitor has to know it would not stand in court, assuming there is a state preemption, which is still in doubt?
Click to expand...
There is no state preemption, and there is no doubt. If there were a state preemption, why is there a bill pending this year to enact state preemption?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/H/2011HB-06377-R00-HB.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top