Ccdl- an act banning large capacity ammunition magazines.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00124-R00-SB.htm

General Assembly


Proposed Bill No. 124


January Session, 2013


LCO No. 295


Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY


Introduced by:


SEN. LEBEAU, 3rd Dist.

SEN. MCKINNEY, 28th Dist.


AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.

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

That the general statutes be amended to prohibit individuals from possessing certain ammunition feeding devices that accept more than ten rounds.

Statement of Purpose:

To prohibit the possession of certain ammunition feeding devices that accept more than ten rounds.

as I believe this bill has the highest likelihood of passing, I would like to request extra effort in fighting AGAINST this bill by all citizens, organizations, and legislators. it is unfair, unjust, and simply stupid, among a lot of other things.
I'm sure this bill was written due to Newtown, but the writers and supporters really have no idea what or how much it actually affects for law abiding citizens.
two key points to support my ideas on fighting this bill:
1) it typically takes multiple rounds to take down an intruder/attacker. add a few rounds to factor in the possibility of not every round contacting the intruder/attacker. if there is more than 1 or 2 intruders/attackers, it will commonly require more than 10 rounds to stop all intruders/attackers, and often times extra magazines are not on hand, and often times there is not time to change magazines
2) a very large number of handguns are manufactured and sold with magazines capable of more than 10 rounds. most of these guns are purchased strictly because of this factor alone, and often times the purchaser will also purchase additional magazines of the same capacity. percentage-wise, I don't know how many handguns retain more than 10 rounds from the factory, but my guess would be around half of all handguns come from the factory with magazines capable of more than 10 rounds. I can definitely say from a personal standpoint that the ENTIRE reason I bought my main handgun is because its factory magazine holds 15 rounds

and a third point that I'm sure politicians will be deaf to: rifles: they say rifles have no need for more than 10 round mags. really? refer to the entire purpose of the 2A to defend this. and remember when the japanese were considering invading the US. I for one would never want to be limited to 10-round magazines if our country were ever invaded, and same applies to defense from a corrupt power-hungry tyrannical government within our own borders

Valid arguments Rich ... but they won't win the day. Think of something else and I'll comment.

Rich didn't post that, I did
(we use the same avatar thingy, I'm helping ctcarry with some stuff, so he gave it to me to use)

all comments are always welcomed and encouraged

motoxmann said:

Rich didn't post that, I did
(we use the same avatar thingy, I'm helping ctcarry with some stuff, so he gave it to me to use)

all comments are always welcomed and encouraged

Click to expand...

Gotcha ... my eyes are getting old ...


Maybe focusing on the law enforcement exemption .. why cannot we have 30rd mags when cops do currently have them? Not in doubt in Weston ... so...the affect of the law would be to limit our ability to defend ourselves from the government (now THAT's an argument never struck or ruled counter to the 2nd amendment -- they want to "allow..yes, thank you masta" us pea shooters and they have proper arms).

Why do I need 30 rd mags? Because 30 government folks might be bearing down on me trying to violate my rights ! That's why I need a 30 rd Mag ...

I'd argue that the regulation of an inanimate object towards it's law abiding citizenry is down right tyrannous.

foxhound81 said:

I'd argue that the regulation of an inanimate object towards it's law abiding citizenry is down right tyrannous.

Click to expand...

Be careful ! People might call you crazy on this board for this comment.

I agree though....for most inanimate objects. (Pictures of Rose O'Donnell is an example of one thing I could see needing to be banned for example).

Honestly though, is it too early to start writing my legislators about this? I want to get a nice write up that my friends and colleagues can copy and paste to an email so they will be more inclined to do so.

foxhound81 said:

Honestly though, is it too early to start writing my legislators about this? I want to get a nice write up that my friends and colleagues can copy and paste to an email so they will be more inclined to do so.

Click to expand...

I have already visited them so its not too late to write.