HB 5935 -- safe req; 7rd mags; same chk when buying ammo as a gun; more crap

eneral Assembly Proposed Bill No. 5935
January Session, 2013 LCO No. 2347
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
Introduced by:
REP. FLEISCHMANN, 18th Dist.
AN ACT CONCERNING THE PURCHASE AND STORAGE OF
FIREARMS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
1 That the general statutes be amended to (1) require better mental
2 health screening of individuals seeking to purchase firearms who have
3 mental health issues themselves or who have immediate family
4 members sharing their residence who have mental health issues, (2)
5 require all firearm target ranges to have secure locking cases or safes
6 for the storage of semiautomatic firearms and assault rifles, (3) require
7 all firearm owners to have secure locking cases or safes for the storage
8 of their firearms when not in use, (4) require any firearm not being
9 carried to be stored at a target range or at home in a secure locking
10 case or safe, (5) prohibit the purchase, sale, use and transfer of
11 magazines holding more than seven rounds, (6) establish a task force
12 of legal scholars and jurists to examine the meaning of a "well13
regulated militia" and report to the General Assembly on a proposed
14 definition thereof, (7) require a criminal background check be
15 performed for purchasers of ammunition that is parallel to the check
16 required for purchasers of firearms, and (8) prohibit the purchase of a
17 firearm by a person convicted of cruelty to animals in violation of
Proposed Bill No. 5935
LCO No. 2347 {D:\Conversion\Tob\h\2013HB-05935-R00-HB.doc } 2 of 2
18 section 53-247 of the general statutes.
Statement of Purpose:
To reduce gun violence and gun deaths in the state.

davidmcbeth said:

(6) establish a task force
12 of legal scholars and jurists to examine the meaning of a "well13
regulated militia" and report to the General Assembly on a proposed
14 definition thereof,

Click to expand...

I'll save them the $millions$ and answer that in the way it has already been answered through the course of our country's existence since the day of it's birth and probably before then:
militia: any able bodied person over the age of 16
well-regulated: in communication with each other in some way, allowing discussions of various topics. (which is ever more possible now with internet and cell phones than it was back in the 1700's)

the term "regulated" being used in this context has absolutely no relation to the term "regulations". in this context, "regulated" is a much much looser version of the word "organised"

I like FLEISCHMAN'S ... In a freaking jar....

He's another doped up democrat....I don't think he got enough oxygen in his mommas womb.

I'll expand on my above post by quoting another member's post in a different thread:

MagiK_SacK said:

Furthermore in the United States v Miller decision this excerpt can be found:

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were EXPECTED to appear BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES and of the kind IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME."

So in short, as applied to the 2A, if you are called up for service in the militia you are expected to show up with your own firearm that is in common use at the time. Is it just me or aren't these so called "assault riffles" that are being attacked common arms of our time??

Click to expand...