Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Senator Bye, Representative Godfrey to Introduce Package of Firearms, Ammunition Laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Senator Bye, Representative Godfrey to Introduce Package of Firearms, Ammunition Laws

    In the wake of the tragic December 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton which killed 20 children and six adults, state Senator Beth Bye (D-West Hartford) and state Rep. Bob Godfrey (D-Danbury) said today that they will introduce in the upcoming 2013 legislative session a comprehensive series of proposals focused on limiting access in Connecticut to high-capacity weapons, assault weapons and ammunition.

    Sen. Bye and Rep. Godfrey‘s proposals—which will be packaged as one bill—will seek to:
    •Prohibit the sale and possession of any rifle, shotgun or pistol magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds;
    •Expand the definition of an ‘assault weapon’ under current Connecticut state law to apply to firearms which exhibit just one particular physical trait, as opposed to two (i.e., the presence of a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon);
    •Require the registration with state law enforcement officials—and the biennial registration renewal—of all firearms by model and serial number;
    •Institute a 50-percent sales tax on the sale of ammunition and firearms magazines;
    •Require a permit to purchase ammunition;
    •Prohibit the online purchase of ammunition;
    •Prohibit the purchase of ammunition in Connecticut by anyone who is not legally authorized to possess a firearm in Connecticut;
    •Prohibit the storage of firearms and ammunition in a manner that allows access by persons under age 18.

    “Every constituent I have spoken to since this horrific event has demanded action,” Sen. Bye said. “They simply cannot fathom why we continue to pay such an awful price for such free access to firearms. I cannot either, and I plan to work very closely with both national and state experts to craft meaningful laws and reforms that will have a real and lasting effect on stemming the access to dangerous weapons here in Connecticut.”

    “We have a unique opportunity to revisit our regulations and update them. We must focus on what are truly weapons of mass destruction, as we tragically learned last week, “ said Rep. Godfrey, who sponsored Connecticut‘s original assault weapons ban and the ‘Kids and Guns Act’ in the early 1990s. “The 1993 ban on assault-style weapons was upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court, but more needs to be done. We need to look at the definition of what is an assault weapon.”

    “Beyond that, we will also need to look at mental health services and create more opportunities for intervention—in and out of our schools—before violence happens,” Rep. Godfrey added. “And we must as a society work to remove the stigma wrongly associated with mental illness.”

    “We are in the middle of a mental health services crisis here in Connecticut and across America,” Sen. Bye said. “This is a serious problem which requires a serious, long-term solution. Until that solution is crafted, however, we must do everything in our power to ensure that those people who have a desire to cause harm to others cannot do so with a firearm. It is our responsibility to act now to prevent future gun violence, and it will be our everlasting shame if we do not.”

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    138
    just emailed the crazy old lady and gave her a piece of my mind on how I feel about her proposals. We should be flooding our representatives emails and offices.

  3. #3
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Mitola View Post
    just emailed the crazy old lady and gave her a piece of my mind on how I feel about her proposals. We should be flooding our representatives emails and offices.
    what's the best way to go about doing that? specifically; what email address to send emails to, and/or what address to send letter mail to?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Joeygee23's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    East Hartford
    Posts
    35

    I don't where to begin....

    I see this passing....

    •Require the registration with state law enforcement officials—and the biennial registration renewal—of all firearms by model and serial number;
    Read: Most Unionized State Employees

    •Institute a 50-percent sales tax on the sale of ammunition and firearms magazines;
    •Prohibit the online purchase of ammunition;
    Read: Money Grab.

    •Prohibit the purchase of ammunition in Connecticut by anyone who is not legally authorized to possess a firearm in Connecticut;


    •Prohibit the online purchase of ammunition;•Prohibit the purchase of ammunition in Connecticut by anyone who is not legally authorized to possess a firearm in Connecticut;
    Read: Reasonable. I am not oppsed at all.

    •Prohibit the storage of firearms and ammunition in a manner that allows access by persons under age 18.
    Read: Read. Ridiculous. Guns and bullets dont kill people...people do.

    Im off to renew NRA membership. Sure they can use some coin.
    I don't particularly care if cops are comfortable with armed citizens or not. It's well established by now that a cop will in all likelihood not be coming to your rescue should you run into serious trouble. Assume that the police will arrive just in time to cordon off the crime scene. You are the first (and often last) line of defense when it comes to your own survival.

  5. #5
    Regular Member BFDMikeCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bridgeport, CT
    Posts
    58

    Senator Bye, Representative Godfrey to Introduce Package of Firearms, Ammunition Laws

    Posted as part of a quote by senator Bye-"we must do everything in our power to ensure that those people who have a desire to cause harm to others cannot do so with a firearm. It is our responsibility to act now to prevent future gun violence,"

    I guess according to her only gun and firearm violence is bad! If they use a bat or a knife its less offensive. The things these people say are absolutly ridiculous! They must not hear the words that are coming out of their mouth. .

  6. #6
    Regular Member Joeygee23's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    East Hartford
    Posts
    35

    While they're at it.....

    License and registration checks at all gas pumps
    I don't particularly care if cops are comfortable with armed citizens or not. It's well established by now that a cop will in all likelihood not be coming to your rescue should you run into serious trouble. Assume that the police will arrive just in time to cordon off the crime scene. You are the first (and often last) line of defense when it comes to your own survival.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313
    I have emailed my State Senator, who I believe will still be the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Comm next session, Senator Kissel. I don't have anything nice to say to Senatoy Bye or Rep Godfrey so I will save thoughts for Members of the Jud Comm and the Public Safety Comm if this has to go through there first. We need to kill this in Committee...I expect a massive public hearing on this. This upcoming session is the budget session and a longer one then even numbered years so they have more time to pass Legislation...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    I emailed the following letter to my State Senator and Representative and plan to send similar letters for Rep. Larsen and our senators, not that I hold out much hope that they can be swayed at all. I tried sending a similar letter to Senator Bye but kept getting an error on her web site (I plan to try again). I hope others will send similar messages.

    Dear Representative Rigby,

    I am writing to comment on a gun- control bill which Representative Godfrey has announced will be introduced in the next legislative session.

    I believe we need to seriously discuss the causes of violence in our society today, but I am convinced that if we act on impulse instead of facts we will make the situation worse, not better. I also believe we do the memory of the victims of the recent tragedy in Newtown a disservice if we take action in their name that is ineffective or damaging and unrelated to their loss.

    Across the country, even before we knew the name of the monster or the details of the loss, many voices were raised with “the answer” to the “problem”. I read in the proposed legislation just those “answers”, even though it is my belief that not one of those proposals would have done one thing to prevent or even mitigate the tragedy at Newtown. My specific concerns include:

    •Prohibit the sale and possession of any rifle, shotgun or pistol magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds; I have never understood what is magic about 10 rounds? There are very few firearms whose “standard capacity magazine” happens to equal 10 rounds, many with more and many with less. If we cannot specify how 10 rounds is a critical number, imposition of an arbitrary and senseless requirement will damage the credibility of our legislature and the legislation. The monster had at least 18 minutes to wreak his carnage. Having to make 8 magazine changes instead of the reported 2 magazine changes, at less than 5 seconds per change, would have made absolutely no difference to the tragedy.

    •Expand the definition of an ‘assault weapon’ under current Connecticut state law to apply to firearms which exhibit just one particular physical trait, as opposed to two (i.e., the presence of a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon); What is magic about ¬any¬ of the cosmetic features currently listed in the arbitrary definition of “assault weapons”? A pistol grip may make a semi-automatic or other rifle look unusual, but I do not see how such a feature changes a rifle from a hunting rifle to an “assault weapon”. Such a grip does make the rifle more comfortable to shoot, which was its original purpose, but semi-automatic rifles without pistol grips have been used by civilians (before the military, actually) since at least 1908. The presence or absence of those enumerated features does absolutely nothing to change the rate of fire of semi-automatic rifles. Again, this is an arbitrary and senseless requirement with no benefit to the public safety and the lack of a pistol grip on the murder weapon would have had absolutely no effect on the outcome at Newtown.

    •Require the registration with state law enforcement officials—and the biennial registration renewal—of all firearms by model and serial number; Canada proved the absolute wastefulness and ineffectiveness of this requirement over more than a decade before abolishing the program recently. To my knowledge, no firearm registration program has ever resulted in any benefit to public safety, particularly as the Supreme Court has ruled that criminals cannot be convicted for not registering firearms since it would be self-incrimination. Further, how would the cost of this senseless requirement be funded other than by law abiding citizens of Connecticut who will not benefit from the requirement. Because of Connecticut’s comprehensive requirements on the purchase of firearms, the state knew immediately who legally purchased and owned the firearms stolen by the monster after killing his mother and would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy.

    •Institute a 50-percent sales tax on the sale of ammunition and firearms magazines; Thank you for imposing an onerous and senseless tax on me, a law-abiding citizen and gun owner. How would such a tax limit acquisition of ammunition and magazines by criminals or monsters? The monster stole the guns and ammunition used in Newtown, so such a tax would have had no effect on the outcome and is just a state money grab.

    •Require a permit to purchase ammunition; Again, thank you for imposing another onerous requirement on law-abiding citizens which will be completely ignored by criminals. Please ask Massachusetts to provide data demonstrating that such a requirement has had any measureable effect on their public safety before we establish such a requirement here. The ammunition used in Newtown was stolen and no permit requirement would have prevented that.

    •Prohibit the online purchase of ammunition; Once again, thank you for adding additional burdens on law-abiding citizens by removing price competition and imposing new inconveniences. Please ask Illinois to provide data that their prohibition on on-line sales, repealed this year, added to the public safety before implementing such a requirement here. I have seen no report that any ammunition used in Newtown was purchased on-line, before it was stolen.

    •Prohibit the purchase of ammunition in Connecticut by anyone who is not legally authorized to possess a firearm in Connecticut; Not necessarily a bad idea, but do we believe that someone who is willing to rob and murder would be inconvenienced by such a prohibition. It has not worked for stopping the purchase of drugs “by anyone who is not legally authorized to possess” drugs in Connecticut. And again, the ammunition used in Newtown was stolen so this requirement would have had no positive effect there.

    •Prohibit the storage of firearms and ammunition in a manner that allows access by persons under age 18. Once again, please ask Massachusetts if their storage laws have had any beneficial effect on public safety before we implement such a requirement here. In Newtown, the monster was reported to be 20 years old¬ so this requirement would have had no effect.

    Rather than supporting an agenda unrelated to the actual tragedy, I would ask you to instead initiate action to determine just what gun, and other, laws have been proven to help prevent just such tragedies or otherwise reduce violence against law abiding citizens, so Connecticut’s legislature could debate how best to implement them here. I have read estimates that there are over 30,000 gun-control laws alone in various jurisdictions in the US. It would seem that those gun-control laws which are effective in reducing violence and crime must have generated data proving that effectiveness. I am sure that there is also reliable data available to demonstrate which laws have not proven effective. We should repeal those laws if they exist in Connecticut and we definitely should not implement them just to be “doing something”. I have access to some data, and I am sure that your staff and the staffs of other legislative members could do a far better job than I, with the hope that they will collect and study all the data instead of just information that reinforces their current understanding of the issue.

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on this very important topic. I would be glad to continue the discussion in greater detail if you wish.

    Very truly yours,

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    here's my letter to my state senator -- she's a pro-mag limit - she'll feel someheat

    Dear Senator,

    Several years have past since the 2008 Heller case and the McDonald case before the United States Supreme Court. These have started to clear up the haziness left by these two cases as further cases in federal appellate courts have begun issuing out their rulings.
    The rulings current out indicate that some of the more recent discussions by our state’s politicians and contents of bills to be proposed would be in violation of out 2nd amendment rights.

    I have recently spoken to your aide regarding these subject matters. I asked her what the 2nd amendment actually means and she responded with the following:
    - to allow the colonists in the revolutionary war to form armies to fight the British
    - that it is over 200yrs old and is no longer relevant
    - that it is not an individual right; its meant for states to form militias

    Our constitution was written after the revolutionary war, is still relevant (like all the other amendments written over 200 years ago), the 2nd amendment is an individual right, and that it is the right of the people (i.e. individual citizens) to be able to form militias.
    Your aide is citing the anti-gun mantra of 30 years ago that has been shown by our supreme court to be an incorrect viewpoint of the second amendment.

    The second amendment does not give us our right to keep and bear arms, we have had this right as people since well before our nation existed. The 9th amendment also highlights our right to keep and bear arms as this is a natural right all individuals possess; in other places this right is being denied.

    As numerous courts time and time again have stated, our right to keep and bear arms is to allow individuals to defend themselves. And the focus of the 2nd amendment is that it is a right to defend ourselves from government.

    Now one cannot say that a citizen can have only a 10 round magazine and still allow the government(s) to have 30 round magazines and still say that this in not in violation of the 2nd amendment. You can have pea shooters but we can have bazookas is the equivalent of this type of legislation.

    Millions of soldiers have died fighting for our freedoms. The errant actions of one ill man killing 20 children and 7 school employees at Sandy Hook School does not change the 2nd amendment at all. It still stands and is still relevant. In fact, thousands of children could be killed and it does not change the wording or meaning of the second amendment.
    The supreme court in the Heller and McDonald cases detailed that our 1st amendment has also resulted in a significant number of deaths but the amendment remains what it was.

    The question of if an AR 15 is covered under the second amendment was answered prior to it being in existence. The US V. Miller, 1939 US Supreme Court ruled that guns that have military value are indeed protected guns under the 2nd amendment. We currently have an existing assault weapons ban in CT, passed long before the Heller and McDonald cases before SCOTUS. And the law was examined by our supreme court in the Benjamin case many years ago. However, the case law cited in the Benjamin case were all struck down as bad case law by SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald cases. I know that our current assault weapons ban is bad case law. You should too. So why make laws that you know will not stand up to judicial scrutiny? Instead you should be standing up and suggest that our assault weapons ban should be repealed, not added or amended to make it even worse.

    I have written several freedom of information requests within the past 24 months of towns looking into the guns that they have available and in inventory. They have M16s, AR15’s, M4’s and other guns that legislators are now considering banning for us citizens. And they have 30 rd magazines etc. that are the subject of legislation banning for Connecticut citizens. What you may not be aware of is that the US DoD and DOJ have been arming local PDs and also training soldiers to take over the direction of local PDs. In fact, during hurricane Katrina local PDs and DoD personnel went door to door stealing people’s arms. The courts admonished this government activity but still many have not gotten their firearms back.

    Magazines, scopes, and other needed accessories of firearms are actually part of the core right of the 2nd amendment; a weapon is useless if you cannot feed it ammunition and use optics that are required for the firearms’ operation. The AR15/M16 for example was designed around a 30 rd and 100 round magazines.

    And we can own fully auto M16s (pinned only to fully auto and not functional in a semiautomatic mode) in CT. Making a maximum of a 10 round magazine would make this gun unusable as it needs a larger magazine than a 10 round one, the gun fires at a 600 rd/min. rate and 10 rounds would be exhausted in less than 1 second. You may think this is fine but the 2nd amendment does not. You need to put aside your emotional feelings and look to the 2nd amendment.

    If the goal of limiting magazines to 10 rounds is to lower deaths by the guns I think you would find it quite the opposite. Studies have shown that about 75% of gun owners who have >10 rd magazines would not comply with the unconstitutional law. And this would simply make criminals out of patriots. And also increase the likelihood of deaths due to people being willing to defend their rights through force.

    I have not heard anyone suggest that the police give up their arms. In facts, the explosion of AR sales is the likely result of the federal and local governments stocking up on arms themselves – its an arm race within the US and it has been happening for about 20 years. It’s a consequence of our failed “war on drugs” which has actually become an actual war with military tactics being used by local PDs. And it’s a failed war. You may wish to considered legalizing a few drugs to end this war. There has been more innocent children killed by this war than in all of the mentally ill people attacking children in all of our nation’s history.

    The 2nd amendment demands that citizens have the same access to weapons as local PDs and other governmental bodies. This would include firearms that have military value and their accessories.

    The deaths of the children at Sandy Hook School? Would a ban on AR have saved any lives? No. In fact the gun choice of the shooter was a poor gun choice; a shotgun with buckshot is a more formidable firearm than an AR in this environment. So if you think it will prevent or have some type of lowering of a death toll in these scenarios, you would be wrong. It would only increase such a death toll.

    But there are changes need to our gun laws in CT. Currently, we cannot go outside the four walls of our dwellings with out handguns without obtaining a permit under CGS 29-28. One cannot transport a gun without a permit to a range (see CGS 29-38). Yet being able to practice and acquire proficiency with our firearms is a core right of the 2nd amendment.

    But there are changes needed to our gun laws in CT. Currently, we cannot go outside the four walls of our dwellings with out handguns without obtaining a permit under CGS 29-28. One cannot transport a gun without a permit to a range (see CGS 29-38). Yet being able to practice and acquire proficiency with our firearms is a core right of the 2nd amendment.

    “…The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. Several passages in Heller support this understanding…” Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F. 3d 684 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011

    The right to train is certainly a core right; and CGS 29-28 requires a person go to a safety class prior to the issuance of a permit; however, a recent court opinion indicates that this requirement is not constitutional when it pertains to a core right.

    “..Attend a firearms training or safety course providing "a total of at least one hour of firing training at a firing range and a total of at least 4 hours of classroom instruction." § 7-2502.03(a)(13)(A)… All of these requirements, such as the mandatory five hours of firearm training and instruction, § 7-2502.03(a)(13)(A), make it considerably more difficult for a person lawfully to acquire and keep a firearm, including a handgun, for the purpose of self-defense in the home — the "core lawful purpose" protected by the Second Amendment, Heller, 554 U.S. at 630…. With respect to ..7-2502.03(a)(13)(A)…the judgment is vacated and this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion…” Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2011.


    The current scheme of statutory requirements regarding the ability to train with your handguns when examined against recent appellate court rulings concerning our second amendment details that the need for a safety training course that is required to obtain a permit that would allow one to transport a gun to a range can no longer be considered as a reasonable requirement to getting a permit.

    Additionally, one can purchase a handgun with either a certificate of eligibility or by already having a handgun permit, obtained under 29-28. But both of these require safety training and this was seen by the appellate federal court to be in violation of the 2nd amendment.

    The safety training provisions regarding handguns needs to be stricken.

    It’s axiomatic that the state encourages people to train but then will not allow them to be able to do this without spending a considerable sum of money.

    Any bills that limit firearms and firearm accessories that do not also limit the governments, local PDs, federal employees, US military to the same limits would be in violation of the 2nd amendment. Individual citizens have the right to the same armaments as our government. Our federal government has limited itself not to have chemical and biological weapons and these are the weapons that are available for citizen regulation. AR 15’s, 30 round magazines, 100 round magazines are in widespread use in CT and the rest of our nation by its citizens and governmental bodies and I think it should stay that way.

    Additionally, the last federal assault weapons ban was reviewed by the FBI 10 years after its passage and the FBI report issued then indicated that there was no positive effect of such a ban. Why? Because the bans do nothing but violate the 2nd amendment.

    Gun laws do need to be changed in our state but not to limit or make more restrictive but to make the law in Connecticut in line with the second amendment by eliminating some laws that restrict our citizens unlawfully.

    If you wish to examine the records I have regarding my 2 yr FOI request responses that detail the assault rifles that our local towns have I would be willing to have a meeting to disclose and discuss the results.

    I may also follow up with additional opinions as bills are being introduced in the next session.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 12-22-2012 at 12:38 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •