therealdeal
New member
if someone's state passes a law like this, does that mean that existing guns must be registered as well that were bought when the law wasn't in effect?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gun Registration Soon Mandatory in CT!
- Thread starter Daugherty16
- Start date
orionengnr
New member
Sounds like a good place to start.I have not actually read the proposed statute.
Don't know how old you are, or how long you have lived there.I would guess it has about 0 chance of passing. Our new Gov is not going to add more work ( more work=more people) to the state budget. I would hazard a guess it will go nowhere. There have been no new gun laws passed in a long time in CT.
I grew up in CT quite some tme ago, and up until 25 years ago, it was a pretty reasonable state (for New England, what was once the "cradle of Liberty")
All of New England (and especially CT/MA) have gone downhill big time in the last 25 years.
My sister, brother-in-law and some childhood friends still live there. I left in '77, and will never go back.
Conn. Trooper
New member
Sorry you left. I have been here 15 years. Besides the assault weapons ban, nothing has changed in gun laws since I have been here. There has been lots of talk and no real changes. Which is ok with me.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's not correct.Conn. Trooper said:Sorry you left. I have been here 15 years. Besides the assault weapons ban, nothing has changed in gun laws since I have been here. There has been lots of talk and no real changes. Which is ok with me.
Just last year or the year before Connecticut enacted a law requiring reporting the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours of when the owner knew or should have known (I wonder who gets to determine that) the loss or theft occurred.
Perhaps you don't think this is a "real change," but I have friends in Connecticut who regard that as a very real, and abhorrent, change. And again ... what does it accomplish? Nothing.
CortJestir
New member
Word from the public hearing on the 10th is that this most likely will not pass. The money alone for the DPS to administer such a database was/is a concern to the PS committee.
As always, we should be vigilant about this and keep a watchful eye.
As always, we should be vigilant about this and keep a watchful eye.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Don't believe it.CortJestir said:Word from the public hearing on the 10th is that this most likely will not pass. The money alone for the DPS to administer such a database was/is a concern to the PS committee.
The Connecticut Department of Public Safety already has the database. They've had it for years ... and I'm sure Conn. Trooper can tell us how many crimes involving firearms have been solved as a result of the database.
If they get legislation that allows them to charge a fee for every gun they enter, and then charge another fee every five years to just look and say "Yep, still there" ... it won't in any way enhance public safety but the State Police will run it as a cash cow.
Conn. Trooper said:Registration and confiscation are two different things.
While that is true, registration is a precursor to confiscation.
But even if it does not go that far, there are problems. The first has already been pointed out: an expensive PITA that will accomplish little to fight crime.
There are others short of confiscation. If you have to register guns, then the state must say which ones can be registered. They must have a "Safe Guns List" like the one in California (the one that outlaws guns for being left-handed versions, or the wrong color).
The state must also say who may register guns and set penalties for failure. One result has already been pointed out: people like me who tend to overlook paperwork at times could procrastinate our way into a felony. Felony procrastination? Another result will be continued attempts to restrict who can register - another crowbar between citizens and guns.
A scheme of dubious benefit that is subject to a wide variety of potential abuse. I'm glad to hear it has little chance of passage.
Conn. Trooper
New member
Oh no doubt it could be abused. But I would bet real money it's not going anywhere. More people on the state payroll is not happening. No chance as far as I can see.
We do have a weapons database, it shows guns transferred through licensed dealers and all handgun sales. It's never been accurate or up to date. They are swamped and overrun in the weapons unit.
We do have a weapons database, it shows guns transferred through licensed dealers and all handgun sales. It's never been accurate or up to date. They are swamped and overrun in the weapons unit.
Daugherty16
New member
Define "Passage"
The bill was approved by the PS committee; from there its path is less certain. ConnTrooper makes a good point, in that adding tasks to an already overwhelmed dept is not going to fly, and with a budget deficit that there is no hope of closing this year, the bill might never come to vote in front of the entire legislature.
However, there are LOTS of dems in the legislature who vote on misinformation and emotion, for whom "gun" is a scary 4-letter word, and who never saw a gun-control bill they didn't vote Aye on.
I don't have a clue where Malloy (gov) stands on firearms. I intend to have this bill killed before it gets any further traction and could use some help!
Remember: in US v. Haynes (USSC, 1968) a convicted felon was granted immunity from prosecution for both possessing an unregistered firearm and for failing to register it, both predicated upon his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. So the only people who can be compelled to register their guns are law-abiding people, who as a reward for obeying the law don't have the 5th Amendment defense.
Perhaps Conn Trooper can tell us how many gun crimes are committed each year by previously law-abiding citizens (no criminal record), with guns they legally purchased and owned? If the number in CT isn't infinitesimal i'll be shocked.
So what evil exactly is this bill supposed to cure?
The bill was approved by the PS committee; from there its path is less certain. ConnTrooper makes a good point, in that adding tasks to an already overwhelmed dept is not going to fly, and with a budget deficit that there is no hope of closing this year, the bill might never come to vote in front of the entire legislature.
However, there are LOTS of dems in the legislature who vote on misinformation and emotion, for whom "gun" is a scary 4-letter word, and who never saw a gun-control bill they didn't vote Aye on.
I don't have a clue where Malloy (gov) stands on firearms. I intend to have this bill killed before it gets any further traction and could use some help!
Remember: in US v. Haynes (USSC, 1968) a convicted felon was granted immunity from prosecution for both possessing an unregistered firearm and for failing to register it, both predicated upon his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. So the only people who can be compelled to register their guns are law-abiding people, who as a reward for obeying the law don't have the 5th Amendment defense.
Perhaps Conn Trooper can tell us how many gun crimes are committed each year by previously law-abiding citizens (no criminal record), with guns they legally purchased and owned? If the number in CT isn't infinitesimal i'll be shocked.
So what evil exactly is this bill supposed to cure?
HotShot.444
Moderator
Say that it is to "perteckt the chirrenz."
My Glocks are already 27-round "Committee on Public Safety and Security?" Everyone around them is safe, except perps with weapons themselves.
My Glocks are already 27-round "Committee
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's lovely for you.ronto said:I left CT in 1969 and moved to a free State...So I don't care what those busy-body morons do either.
I still have family in Connecticut and I am not prepared to say that I will never visit my brother. I hold a Connecticut carry permit. I have reason to care what those busy-body morons do ... and so do a lot of other people who are potentially affected by the idiocy.
Besides being a gun law, which parties of the public safety obsession type always like, could it not also be a cash cow for the state, rather than a drain?
You have said, the database already exists, and what fees and fines are possible down the road if this becomes law? Raising taxes on everyone is unpopular, and the "regular" sin taxes are already reaching diminshing returns in some areas, another fee that only those willing to pay will pay, seems like it could appeal to lawmakers in this cash strapped time.
And it is unlikely that the courts will find registration fees excessive until they come close (or even pass) the cost of the gun! And maybe, not even then!
You have said, the database already exists, and what fees and fines are possible down the road if this becomes law? Raising taxes on everyone is unpopular, and the "regular" sin taxes are already reaching diminshing returns in some areas, another fee that only those willing to pay will pay, seems like it could appeal to lawmakers in this cash strapped time.
And it is unlikely that the courts will find registration fees excessive until they come close (or even pass) the cost of the gun! And maybe, not even then!
Conn. Trooper
New member
The state doesn't even go after people that skip bail. They are not going to hire people to follow up on gun registration issues. The fine for DWI is usually only $500, and it costs a whole lot more than that from start to finish.