Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Connecticut Carry - HB 5268 moves forward

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Connecticut Carry - HB 5268 moves forward

    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    how has this even made it this far? so rediculous.

    I see a vote has already taken place, 10 yay, 4 nay, 5 absent/not voting. is that the vote for actually passing the bill to law? or is that a vote just for the change of reference as labelled in that pdf?

    what's the next step?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    I believe that vote just moved it along to the next committee. We need to keep up the pressure, but on the new committee.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Does the kind of insurance required even exist?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Weston
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Does the kind of insurance required even exist?
    It cannot be constitutional to impose a discriminatory tax selectively impinging on the expression of a fundamental Constitutional right, right? Heller already rejected the concept that the 2nd Amendment right can be treated as less worthy than the other fundamental rights--so ff this passes it will end up on the ash heap of CT bills being ruled unconstitutional. Unfortunately it will take several years and court cases to get there. A great way to waste taxpayers' funds while insulting the Bill of Rights.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I foresee people kidnapping the children of the legislators to ransom them for cash to pay the tax.

    Oh well....sucks to be them

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by SWY View Post
    It cannot be constitutional to impose a discriminatory tax selectively impinging on the expression of a fundamental Constitutional right, right?
    Right, but unless you can get a preliminary injunction against the requirement (has one ever been granted for a 2A case?) you're stuck with the mandated insurance for the duration of litigation (years), and possibly without a gun entirely if nobody offers it (which I presume is the hope of the authors of this bill). "Nobody offering it" could be helped along with changes in insurance regulations.

  8. #8
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    i foresee people kidnapping the children of the legislators to ransom them for cash to pay the tax.

    Oh well....sucks to be them
    we advocate for the law abiding only
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    we advocate for the law abiding only
    Not an advocation , just a foreseeing .. this bill has zero chance ... I will write a statement when it gets to the finance committee hearing

  10. #10
    Regular Member Ctclassic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Plainfield, CT, ,
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I foresee people kidnapping the children of the legislators to ransom them for cash to pay the tax.

    Oh well....sucks to be them
    ...........................Example #2

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    don't worry - i filed a FOIA request with the sponsor of the bill

    Asking him what the heck he is talking about and all records in respect to the bill ..

    I assume he has zero records, he's talking out of his ass will be the result

    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Inappropriate
    Last edited by John Pierce; 01-25-2013 at 04:51 PM.

Posting Permissions

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