Want something that will make you "Fill your shorts" ? Read our Connecticut Senate

A

adamc

New member
Guns & Ammo magazine posted Connecticut at #45 for bad gun states

our CT leadership wants us to be BEHIND District of Columbia

Want something that will make you "Fill your shorts" ? Read our Connecticut Senate bill SB1076
registering of all guns, permits for rifles for $$$, renewal fees, mandatory safety classes for long gun permits, finger printing at time of sale AND pick up
Assault weapon expanded definitions, mandatory jail sentences for infractions.
all this for on the floor now SCARY

Here in Connecticut, 2A is soon to be extinct please read this scary document it is UNBELIEVABLE !!!!! please read the bill at the link

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-01076-R00-SB.htm

I have been frequently contacting our 'leadership' and they have already done the 'deal'
on the local news about the protests, there was an (obvious) anti-child holding a sign
"NRA KILLS"


I wish I were in a position to move to one of the "GOOD" states

Connecticut was the cradle of the US gun industry ,

now it will be just a pine box :-(
 
Last edited:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/03/19/news/doc51473cc2ef491256593916.txt

The above link is to a lengthy article on the (Connecticut) governor's task force report recommendations, which they just released. It reads like a gun grabber's wet dream. Connecticut seems to be heading in the opposite direction of most of the country (although in lock step with its neighbors, New York and Massachusetts).

These people don't even comprehend how the legal structure works in the U.S. The Supreme Court already ruled in Heller that requiring guns to be locked in the home is unconstitutional. So? ... They want to require that all guns be locked up in the home.

It's beginning to appear that New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts need to separate from the United States of America and form their own little banana republic.
 
I've seen some people posit that HOW its required to be locked up cold make a difference in their interpretation. For example, if you're not actively toting it around.. or if you can have one out, and the rest must be locked up etc. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that the idea is out there.
 
JimDandy said:
I've seen some people posit that HOW its required to be locked up cold make a difference in their interpretation. For example, if you're not actively toting it around.. or if you can have one out, and the rest must be locked up etc. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that the idea is out there.
Click to expand...
The Heller decision did not get into nuances of how guns must/should/might be locked up.

SCOTUS said:
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. ... Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

...

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
Which still doesn't implicitly disallow a law requiring SOME firearms be locked up as long as SOME firearms are allowed to be accessible. In other words, if you can only carry one AR-15 around the house, they could mandate any beyond the number of non-prohibited persons in the house be locked up, etc.
 
That would have to be tested in court -- and it has not been. I live alone, so your guideline would be that I can have ONE firearm that's unsecured. My preference might be to have multiple, loaded firearms rather than to have to reload in the event of a confrontation. Or I might prefer to keep a firearm in each of several rooms rather than carry a gun from room to room. That's my plan for self-defense.

If self-defense is a "core right" (which the SCOTUS has now deemed it, in both Heller and McDonald, then any law infringing on HOW an individual elects to provide for his/her self-defense in the privacy of his/her home is going to have some high hurdles to overcome.
 
My preference might be to have multiple, loaded firearms rather than to have to reload in the event of a confrontation. Or I might prefer to keep a firearm in each of several rooms rather than carry a gun from room to room. That's my plan for self-defense.
Click to expand...
Mine, too. Currently, multiple loaded handguns, a shotgun with rounds in the tube but not chambered, and an AR-15 located in close proximity to a loaded 20-round mag. As the fella' said, "If I get killed, it won't be for lack of ammo."
 
That would have to be tested in court -- and it has not been.
Click to expand...

That was the point I was making. That was not my guideline, but it was the subtle distinction I've seen in relation to the gun lock portion of the Heller ruling. And that it hasn't been tested in court. Which for now, would make it legal.
 
I was just looking this one over. One mentioned that a comitee was held (another one) which included parents of sandy hook victims. For that i am compelled to say that police, firefighters in some places, judges, lawyers among others are legally barred from being involved in certain things such as legal cases/ emergencys and such when personal involvement is evident due to the nature of emotional involvement and resulting bias. I cant say i blame these parents for their outcry, but does their emotional involvement not cloud their judgement and thus produce the obvious bias that we seem to see not to mention that which the media chooses to portray?
 
Perhaps more interesting, I read today that the CT State Police have so far refused to brief the legislature or the Governor's task force on the findings of their investigation, but the head of the CT State Police attended a national conference of state police commanders and had no problem briefing them on what has been discovered.

One of the attendees spilled the beans to a reporter, who reported it -- and the CT commandant is upset because he said the attendees weren't supposed to talk about it.

Being a dedicated conspiracy theorist, I have to wonder: WHY keep it a secret from the very people who are trying to craft laws to address it?

Here's the article that got the Colonel so upset: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408
 
Well I guess the whole "The video games made no difference" theory is out the window.
They're quite effective training simulators, aren't they.
I only had one of my kids interested in these games. I watched once, felt sick and tossed them all, told him "new rule, no games that have you shoot anything that looks like a human."
 
This needs to cause a lot of outrage by the parents of the sandy hook victims (first person shooter games).

Why doesn't it?

Because a lot of these parents either play these games or probably had their tiny tots playing them or at the least watching their older siblings or parents playing them.

They would have to actually change their lifestyle so they wouldn't be a hypocrite...... and we can't have that can we.

But yeah they do make excellent trainers so far as increasing reflexes, desensitivity, and shot placement. However no substitute for marksmanship.

The US military toyed with computer simulators before the first gulf war and we all know what happened there. So to say they don't increase your ability to kill would be a denial.

Than would come to the question of hard core action films. Once again citizens of Connecticut would have to drastically change their lifestyles to help reduce the influence of these films on their kids.
 
update
On Friday 22 March CT Gov Malloy
issued statements to the press that he was 'Upset' that his committee
wanted further information about the Newtown killings, and he just wants them to hurry up and make decisions..

There have been several local news stories and blogs

Shouldn't all the information be reviewed BEFORE any decisions or rulings be made ?
 
scrubcedar
I only had one of my kids interested in these games. I watched once, felt sick and tossed them all, told him "new rule, no games that have you shoot anything that looks like a human."
Click to expand...

Bingo! Parents need to shut down the assumptions that go with this "entertainment" early and hard. Well-socialized kids are not an accident!

My 6 year old daughter knows the four rules of safe shooting and to always first unload any weapon she encounters. However, when we visit my in-laws house (serious anti-gunners), they let their kid play FPShooter games and shoot airsoft pistols at other kids. It astounds me.
 
Paint ball and Airsoft get my goat also...

IMO don't shoot/point anything at ANYBODY. Muzzle safety ? 1st rule ?

My son's friends all paintball & Airsoft , but their parents have fits
if I suggest the kids take a Hunting or shooting course..
all play assassins creed, etc. as you can tell I'm not much on
the violent video games.

"ANTI" hypocrisy
 
I will not argue that violent games do to some extent desnesitize children. I'm and advent fan of these games (Please don't judge), however, I was taught from an extremely young age that life is important and how to discern fantasy from reality.

Each child will handle things differently. I dare ask those of the more mature generations that grew up with old western movies and so on why it is we didn't have all the problems of mass shootings back then if violent media plays such a strong role in degrading a persons moral fiber and ability to control their actions that they would willingly and easily take someones life.

Why? I say it's because we had parents that were actually parents, there was a time in this country where people cared for each other, looked out for each other. Society has become very self centered and selfish, it's all about what "I" want.

IMO it's not that guns or video games have become more prominent in society, it's that the value of family and morality as decayed to the point that society has become deeply ill. This is a social problem that did not exist 30-40 years ago.

That's my take on it, playing video games does not make you a murderer, it does not entice me to go out and shoot someone. It still horrifies me even after over a decades worth of playing "violent" games and watching "violent" movies when something like Sandy Hook occurs, let alone when someone meets their end too soon period.

IMO blaming the media and video games is almost as bad as blaming the gun for the evils that man commits, ultimately it's the individual who decides to pick up that weapon. Children these days are left to their own devices and the TV and video games have become the new nannies of modern day families. It's no wonder that these kids grow to be messed up, especially those that are not taught how to handle stress and the problems they encounter in life responsibly.

Just my two cents (or couple dollars worth)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top