Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: SB1076: Ammunition face to face only with registration

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50

    SB1076: Ammunition face to face only with registration

    You may only purchase ammunition suitable for your registered firearms and you cannot even possess ammunition that is not suitable for a registered firearm:

    Sec. 33. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2013) (a) On and after July 1, 2014, no person shall purchase or possess ammunition without having first obtained a registration card identifying a firearm suitable for use with that ammunition.

    (b) On and after July 1, 2014, no person shall deliver ammunition without having first verified that the ammunition purchaser possesses a registration card for a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm in accordance with sections 31 to 43, inclusive, of this act and the application is pending.

    Face to face purchase of ammunition only -- no more ordering through the internet:
    Sec. 23. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2013) (a) No licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer shall transfer ammunition to a person in this state unless such licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer has verified the identity of the transferee by examining a valid identification document of the transferee that contains a photograph of the transferee.

    (b) No licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer shall ship or transport any ammunition to any person in this state other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer.

    (c) As used in this section, "licensed importer", "licensed manufacturer", "licensed dealer" and "ammunition" have the meanings ascribed to them in 18 USC 921, and "identification document" has the meaning ascribed to it in 18 USC 1028(d).

    Now connect the above citations with this one, which means that if you have the wrong ammo floating around, you lose your registrations:
    Sec. 37. (NEW)
    (b) The department may grant or renew a registration card only if the applicant is in compliance with sections 31 to 43, inclusive, of this act and all other applicable federal and state laws relating to firearms and ammunition.

    I stated in a previous thread that this law is designed to be almost impossible to abide by completely and each infringement leads to revocation of all rights to register (and therefore own) any firearms. This thing is a gun grab from top to bottom. Do not let this one out of your sight. It must receive your highest attention.

  2. #2
    Regular Member cteaglesfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Branford
    Posts
    133
    So if me and a friend are going to the range that day, he can't pick up a little extra ammo for my gun and vice versa?? It sounds to me like they're attempting to make us say "HELL, it isn't even worth carry or shooting a gun in this sate" and give up.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by cteaglesfan View Post
    So if me and a friend are going to the range that day, he can't pick up a little extra ammo for my gun and vice versa??
    Nope. The ammunition has to be suitable for one of the firearms listed on your registration.

    Quote Originally Posted by cteaglesfan View Post
    It sounds to me like they're attempting to make us say "HELL, it isn't even worth carry or shooting a gun in this sate" and give up.
    Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Now you're gett'n' it.
    Last edited by LibertyUberAlles; 03-08-2013 at 04:40 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by cteaglesfan View Post
    It sounds to me like they're attempting to make us say "HELL, it isn't even worth carry or shooting a gun in this sate" and give up.




    BINGO!
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  5. #5
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    SB1076: Ammunition face to face only with registration

    ive always said, they wont directly take your gun but they will make your gun useless with ammo restrictions
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by PFC HALE View Post
    ive always said, they wont directly take your gun but they will make your gun useless with ammo restrictions
    Reading the registration scheme .. its designed to also take your guns .. anybody who initially registers needs their head examined

  7. #7
    Regular Member cteaglesfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Branford
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    Nope. The ammunition has to be suitable for one of the firearms listed on your registration.


    Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Now you're gett'n' it.
    In my best Forest Gump voice "i'm not a smart man"
    Last edited by cteaglesfan; 03-11-2013 at 02:25 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I think that the bill was introduced 1 day after the legislative deadline .... ooops.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think that the bill was introduced 1 day after the legislative deadline .... ooops.
    David - can you please provide more information on that deadline? Perhaps a statutory or constitutional citation so I can learn more about it?

    Nevertheless, can't the assembly and the gov'na simply pass a law retroactively setting the deadline a day later? Hmmm... yes... I do believe that I remember reading something about a retroactive something or other being passed into law in CT merely two years ago.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    David - can you please provide more information on that deadline? Perhaps a statutory or constitutional citation so I can learn more about it?

    Nevertheless, can't the assembly and the gov'na simply pass a law retroactively setting the deadline a day later? Hmmm... yes... I do believe that I remember reading something about a retroactive something or other being passed into law in CT merely two years ago.
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/lco/pdfs/2013/...nt%20Rules.pdf


    Meaning that they missed the deadline for many of the bills (for the raised bills) ... I thought it was the 5th of March .. they did most raised bills on 6th

    Also, the committee bills that were voted on on 7 FEB 13 (they were proposed bills then) -- They did not notice the 7 FEB 13 meeting within the time limits required (24 hrs prior to meeting ... they missed it by a few hours, only giving us only about 21 hrs) So the committee bills are not going to pass muster either IMO.

    The BIG one, SB 1076 ... is a raised bill...

    These time limits are important...

    So they would have to wait until next session...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-11-2013 at 07:17 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post

    The BIG one, SB 1076 ... is a raised bill...

    These time limits are important...

    So they would have to wait until next session...

    While this may be true, all I can say is - WATCH THE OTHER HAND.

    Semper vigilo.
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freiheit417 View Post
    While this may be true, all I can say is - WATCH THE OTHER HAND.

    Semper vigilo.
    Its like "whack-a-mole" ...

  13. #13
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freiheit417 View Post
    WATCH THE OTHER HAND.
    my thoughts exactly. deception is quite powerful over those that fall for it. and nearly ALL CT politicians are being intentionally deceptive
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    nearly ALL CT politicians are being intentionally deceptive
    I spoke with my state representative -- a republican -- yesterday at the LOB. He assured me that he had never heard about SB1076.

    "What's that you say? No, I never heard of that bill. I'll write the number down and take a look. A public hearing this week? I'll check into it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention."

    If I was a cynical person, I would agree that there may be a touch of deception. If I was less than cynical I would say that it was a sign of complete obliviousness. Either way -- it ain't a good sign.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    I spoke with my state representative -- a republican -- yesterday at the LOB. He assured me that he had never heard about SB1076.

    "What's that you say? No, I never heard of that bill. I'll write the number down and take a look. A public hearing this week? I'll check into it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention."

    If I was a cynical person, I would agree that there may be a touch of deception. If I was less than cynical I would say that it was a sign of complete obliviousness. Either way -- it ain't a good sign.
    If the guy is not on the PSS committee he is likely telling the truth ... they focus on what is on their committee ... when it gets out of committee then he become aware.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    my thoughts exactly. deception is quite powerful over those that fall for it. and nearly ALL CT politicians are being intentionally deceptive
    The legislative deadlines are mandatory deadlines ... if passed into law, a judge would be compelled to strike it down.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If the guy is not on the PSS committee he is likely telling the truth ... they focus on what is on their committee ... when it gets out of committee then he become aware.
    And I get that but I talked to him at around noon when I suspected that someone else would have raised it with him. Maybe nobody else in my district attended or spoke with him. If they had, they would have learned that they have a republican rep who told me he is in favor of universal back ground checks and likely a 10+ mag ban and a more restrictive AWB (with grandfathering).

  18. #18
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The legislative deadlines are mandatory deadlines ... if passed into law, a judge would be compelled to strike it down.
    I was referring to the potential of SB1076 deceptively being written bogusly after the deadline knowing it's bogus, but intending to appear real so as to take everyone's attention away from the real bills at hand.
    though the fact that they spent so much time writing it in statutory form in full length that it is, just pisses me off even more knowing how much tax payer's money was wasted.
    Last edited by motoxmann; 03-12-2013 at 07:02 PM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I was referring to the potential of SB1076 deceptively being written bogusly after the deadline knowing it's bogus, but intending to appear real so as to take everyone's attention away from the real bills at hand.
    though the fact that they spent so much time writing it in statutory form in full length that it is, just pisses me off even more knowing how much tax payer's money was wasted.
    They were waiting for a e-cert bill from the task force but...what??? No e-cert bill?? Oh crap...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Meaning that they missed the deadline for many of the bills (for the raised bills) ... I thought it was the 5th of March .. they did most raised bills on 6th
    http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php...ponsibilities/
    While leaders continue to decide what will be included in the bipartisan gun control bill, the Public Safety Committee is planning to hold a public hearing Thursday on several gun bills. The committee has until March 21 to move legislation out of the committee.
    So who is right?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    I'm talking about getting bills into the committee and they are talking about bills out ... 2 different deadlines ... let me look at the calendar .....lalalala........... column 9 .. JF deadline is 21 MAR 13

    So its unlikely that they'll have a second hearing for the bills being considered ... not enough time to re-write, re-submit, have hearings... or would be cutting it very close.

    Of course this is the deadline for the PSS committee ... for the Judicary its 19 APR 13....

    Calender is online ... http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/LegInfo.asp

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    Linked story is funny ... but they don't understand that 1/2 the bills being heard on 14th ... I think (and many others do too) they went past the mandatory deadlines and the other 1/2, that passed votes to make into bills on 7 feb 13, were not noticed properly back on 7 feb 13 ... so they have legal issues.

    This only leaves e-cert left ... don't forget this & keep on the "heat" with Rep. Sharkey ... who, last I spoke to his aide, was still on the fence about an e-cert of a bill.

Posting Permissions

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