Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Anybody prepared any testimony for the 14th MAR hearings ?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Anybody prepared any testimony for the 14th MAR hearings ?

    I would like to read .. get ideas for mine ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member Ctclassic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Plainfield, CT, ,
    Posts
    172
    WHAT? Am I reading this correctly?

    YOU of all people, want to get "ideas" from others on here so you can write your testimony? I can't believe David McMeth is at a loss of words, say it ain't so!! The world is gonna end!!!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ctclassic View Post
    WHAT? Am I reading this correctly?

    YOU of all people, want to get "ideas" from others on here so you can write your testimony? I can't believe David McMeth is at a loss of words, say it ain't so!! The world is gonna end!!!
    I have 1/2 a page left ... so looking for more ideas ... my testimony would, to the objective person, prove that the goal of these bills has nothing to do with safety but all to do with gun grabs and trying to erase the 2nd amendment from history.

    if Ctclassic wishes to read mine PM me with email ... if you are willing to share yours ....
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-10-2013 at 04:51 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Columbia, CT
    Posts
    21

    Testimony

    anyone have a link to submit mine via the web? (I'm out of the state tomorrow)

    Here's the draft

    Testimony: SB 1076

    I strongly appose SB 1076.
    Section 32 is exceptionally disturbing and potentially illegal:

    Summary of Section 32 - This section is essentially mandatory registration of ALL firearms! Not just semi auto sporting rifles! Everything from your grandpas .22 single shot rifle, to single shot shotguns and everything else. Failure to register will be a class D felony! You will need to register each firearm with a background check and thumb print every year for a yet un-disclosed fee. If you are late on re-registering - you have to turn in that firearm or the police will come and confiscate it.

    This is a slippery slope and will cause CT citizens to be instant felons for possessing currently legal personal property. My grandfathers’ rifle hanging over the fireplace will become illegal. The bill describes confiscation as a result of not complying. This isn’t just about firearms – it’s about property rights and civil rights

    The registration process will be an economic nightmare for CT. Where will CT get the funds to enforce it? The DPS is already overwhelmed with over 29,000 background checks in December and 31,800 in January. How will they keep up with registering / background checks for the initial 2,000,000 plus firearms people legally currently own in CT? All firearms purchases through a dealer in CT is already on file via the DPS-3 form
    No additional registration is needed

    Another part of the economic nightmare will be the lawsuits against the state should this bill move forward – just see what is happening in NY

    As far as adding to the assault weapons ban - Connecticut already has one of the most restrictive “so called” assault weapons bans in the US (“so called” because the definition of an assault rifle if the capability of firing full auto/machine gun and the ones targeted by this bill does not meet this criteria).

    Magazine Capacity – Modern semiautomatic firearms accept standard capacity magazines. That means the firearm was designed around a certain magazine capacity. Standard capacity magazines for most modern rifles are 20 & 30 rounds. Standard capacity magazines for most modern pistols are 12-19 rounds. Limited capacity magazines (10 rounds or less) have no place in and mid to full sized handgun or rifle. There are many modern firearms that do not have limited magazines available.

    The 1994 ban on magazines proved to have no effect on crime.

    SB1076 requirement of limiting magazines and making possession of standard magazine illegal is another civil & property rights issue. Making possession of a currently legal metal or plastic box with a spring illegal is just wrong. There has to be a provision to grandfather currently owned property without cost to the owner

    Connecticut already has one of the most restrictive hand gun laws as well. You can’t even purchase a handgun in CT without a state issued permit. You need to go through an extensive and expensive process which takes months and federal background checks to complete. I am a firearms safety instructor and am well versed on this topic. So you already can’t exercise your basic civil right to arm yourself in CT without a permission slip from the state.

    In closing – I am VERY disappointed the CT legislature and Gov. Malloy for exploiting the death of children to further their anti civil rights agenda. There are millions of single issue voter that will be watching closely and voting accordingly…

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    My writing's section concerning the registration (ya know ya gotta renew like 90 days before the 1 yr exp. date or your screwed):


    So what are the goals of the legislature and its members? This can be answered from examination of individual legislator’s statements that this author has obtained through FOIA requests over the past several weeks. Lets examine a few..
    “..guns are appropriate to hunting and target shooting but not to the community..” Sen. Meyer, who clearly believes that the 2nd amendment applies only to hunters and target shooters; it’s an affront to this state’s citizenry.
    “…handguns and rifles that are more than .22 caliber, can hold more than 7 rounds, or can be semi-automatically fired banned. Guns already in circulation that fall into these categories must be placed in target range lock-down cases. Possession of such weapons outside of target ranges banned as of Oct 1, 2013…” Rep. Fleischmann who wishes to ban almost all guns and remove them from citizens’ possession. Clearly Rep. Fleischmann wishes to live in China … it’s east, have a good journey comrade.
    “..First amendment. …yelled Fire! .. Subject to arrest” Sen. Bye But one can yell “fire” w/o being arrested if there is a fire; and speaking of fires, I don’t not have a fire in my kitchen right now so does this mean I do not need an extinguisher? That’s the mentality of our legislature now, trying to dictate what arms and equipment we need without considering why we need them or even being able to state when an arm could be needed and under what circumstances it would be. Preposterous. Also, in oral arguments in the Heller and McDonald cases before SCOTUS, the court noted that the 1st amendment rights have also caused deaths, so this “guns kill people” argument is a moot point when speaking about our natural rights and rights acknowledged by our courts; and its wrong altogether.
    “...guns in lawful compliance paying liability premiums would invariably protect their second amendment rights…others ..would … eliminat(ing) possession of firearms…” obtained from Rep. Godfrey (concerning insurance mandates) indicating his enthusiasm with gun grabs which is a similar viewpoint of the gun registration scheme of SB 1076; it’s a gun grab when one considers that it’s a yearly requirement to be re-applied for months before the registration lapses. This is the purpose behind the registration processes noted in that SB 1076, there is no doubt. Rep. Godfrey’s records indicate that he clearly thinks that the second amendment does not even exist.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Columbia, CT
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    My writing's section concerning the registration (ya know ya gotta renew like 90 days before the 1 yr exp. date or your screwed):


    So what are the goals of the legislature and its members? This can be answered from examination of individual legislator’s statements that this author has obtained through FOIA requests over the past several weeks. Lets examine a few..
    “..guns are appropriate to hunting and target shooting but not to the community..” Sen. Meyer, who clearly believes that the 2nd amendment applies only to hunters and target shooters; it’s an affront to this state’s citizenry.
    “…handguns and rifles that are more than .22 caliber, can hold more than 7 rounds, or can be semi-automatically fired banned. Guns already in circulation that fall into these categories must be placed in target range lock-down cases. Possession of such weapons outside of target ranges banned as of Oct 1, 2013…” Rep. Fleischmann who wishes to ban almost all guns and remove them from citizens’ possession. Clearly Rep. Fleischmann wishes to live in China … it’s east, have a good journey comrade.
    “..First amendment. …yelled Fire! .. Subject to arrest” Sen. Bye But one can yell “fire” w/o being arrested if there is a fire; and speaking of fires, I don’t not have a fire in my kitchen right now so does this mean I do not need an extinguisher? That’s the mentality of our legislature now, trying to dictate what arms and equipment we need without considering why we need them or even being able to state when an arm could be needed and under what circumstances it would be. Preposterous. Also, in oral arguments in the Heller and McDonald cases before SCOTUS, the court noted that the 1st amendment rights have also caused deaths, so this “guns kill people” argument is a moot point when speaking about our natural rights and rights acknowledged by our courts; and its wrong altogether.
    “...guns in lawful compliance paying liability premiums would invariably protect their second amendment rights…others ..would … eliminat(ing) possession of firearms…” obtained from Rep. Godfrey (concerning insurance mandates) indicating his enthusiasm with gun grabs which is a similar viewpoint of the gun registration scheme of SB 1076; it’s a gun grab when one considers that it’s a yearly requirement to be re-applied for months before the registration lapses. This is the purpose behind the registration processes noted in that SB 1076, there is no doubt. Rep. Godfrey’s records indicate that he clearly thinks that the second amendment does not even exist.
    Dave - my testimony is about registration on section 32

    I need to know where to send my testimony to get it on record tomorrow... can you direct me where to send it?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepinMaxx View Post
    Dave - my testimony is about registration on section 32

    I need to know where to send my testimony to get it on record tomorrow... can you direct me where to send it?
    You can email to either or both:

    kirstin.breiner@cga.ct.gov or

    publicsafetymail@cga.ct.gov

    kristin is the clerk ... make sure you note what bill its for and the hearing date (14th) and the committee (public safety & security)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by JeepinMaxx View Post
    SB1076 requirement of limiting magazines and making possession of standard magazine illegal is another civil & property rights issue.
    SB1076 does not include a removable magazine capacity restriction.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    SB1076 does not include a removable magazine capacity restriction.
    Look again ... at the first few pages .. it bans guns with a 10rd+ detectable mag.

    So it does it sneakily ...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Look again ... at the first few pages .. it bans guns with a 10rd+ detectable mag.

    So it does it sneakily ...
    Citation please. If you can find it in the bill, please paste it here. The only capacity restrictions I see in that bill deal with fixed magazines, not removable magazines.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    Citation please. If you can find it in the bill, please paste it here. The only capacity restrictions I see in that bill deal with fixed magazines, not removable magazines.
    It does it through expanding the definition of assault weapons .. IMO

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    It does it through expanding the definition of assault weapons .. IMO
    Please explain your opinion on this. I do not ask to be confrontational, rather to understand where my analysis may be lacking. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that in light of the response by the PSS committee members to the testimony over the last two days (including your's David at about 12:10am on Friday morning) that 1076 will not see an assembly vote. But I have no doubt that the "leadership" is working on a nefarious bill that will certainly ban magazines of a certain capacity and that it will be rammed through by e-certification.

    The only questions that remains, in my opinion, are (1) whether that bill will require the sale or confiscation of certain magazines; and (2) whether it will go even farther than a simple magazine ban by banning "any firearm capable of firing 10 rounds without being reloaded (i.e. 10 shot magazine because you can carry 10 +1!with a 10 round magazine) as the governor is apparently pushing for.
    Last edited by LibertyUberAlles; 03-15-2013 at 08:55 PM.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, I would have liked to have told them where they could put the bills ... one only has 3 minutes so you can really only either talk generally or pick one or two topics...

    So I choose to complain about metal detectors on the 28th of Jan (and I spoke to James Tracy today & he reviewed 1-225 and still says he can have them .. I told him no again) ... this will be decided by a court as I have filed a complaint

    And the second issue was about the prohibition of a gun in a household that has anyone who has mental health issues ... it's hard to argue that this would not result in gun owners children not getting the medical treatment they may need or of gun owners not adopting children with special needs.

    I pretty sure that they got the message that I was pro-freedom ... I spoke to several outside in the hallway as well...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-16-2013 at 12:37 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
  •