Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Response to Magazine Ban Proposals

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

    Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Response to Magazine Ban Proposals

    From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/b015...f-0c133625c45c

    Response to Magazine Ban Proposals

    The legislature fails to take into account rights, responsibilities or common sense

    Hartford, Connecticut, March 9th, 2013:

    Serious questions about the sobriety of the discussions taking place in the Connecticut Legislature are being asked by our members and by the public at large. One of the main focuses of these questions is why the legislature is even considering the topic of magazine bans or magazine limitations.

    Proposing magazine bans in this state brings forth a huge variety of questions that need to be answered before even considering a proposal, but it is clear that the legislators supporting and proposing these kinds of bills are not considering these questions and the impacts that will follow. They have instead made it a point to propose every ridiculous manner of gun ban that they could dream up with no consideration of the impacts of such bills.

    The legislature needs to consider:

    * If they think the citizens do not need certain weapons or certain sized magazines in their possession, why does Law Enforcement? If these are ‘weapons of war’, then what war is Law Enforcement waging and against whom? Will those Law Enforcement officers turn in their magazines and abide by the same laws when they are not on duty?

    * How many rounds in a magazine or in your home defense weapon is ‘enough’ when multiple attackers enter your home with firearms and start shooting you?

    * How can a 30 round magazine be too much in a single person’s hands against home invaders when multiple police officers commonly need well over thirty rounds (in some cases 41 rounds) to stop a criminal with a fake gun?

    * Why has violent crime continued to decrease steadily nationwide since the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban sun-setted? Why was there no appreciable effect on violent crime during the Federal ‘Assault Weapons Ban’?

    * Why do these magazines suddenly need to be limited when they have existed for many decades and violent crime has been decreasing since the 80’s?

    * Why did school shootings become more common after the Federal government implemented an ‘Assault Weapon Ban’ and the ‘Gun Free School Zone’ laws? Why continue failed policies?

    * Will the legislators take personal responsibility and legal liability if they pass a magazine capacity limitation law and someone is found dead with their firearm empty after trying to defend themselves against an attacker who did not follow the law?

    * Do criminals commonly follow laws? Why would a criminal bent on invading a home, committing a rape or murdering someone care more about a law against their firearm magazine than the violent felony they are committing?

    * Why would anyone place a premium on following a law that restricts their magazine capacity and seeks to make them less capable of their defense against criminals than their life or the lives of their loved ones?

    * Since the DC v Heller decision in 2008, when SCOTUS ruled that firearms in ‘common use’ such as M16s (the select-fire, full auto version of the civilian AR-15) could not be banned constitutionally, and the McDonald v Chicago case in 2010 incorporated this into applying equally to the states, what gives the Connecticut legislature the idea that they have the power to implement such legislation?

    * Where does the State of Connecticut, which is in a financial crisis, plan to obtain the financing necessary to defend the legal challenges that will come if they were to pass these laws?

    * Where will State of Connecticut get the money to enforce these overreaching laws when the Connecticut State Police are underfunded and understaffed and their background checks are heavily backlogged?

    * Are the legislators who are supporting such proposals ready to be honest with their constituents that they are pushing an agenda and willing to make the tax payers of Connecticut pay for their mistakes through court decisions? Do they have any shame in gambling with other people’s money to push an agenda that hurts people?

    If the legislature would like to discuss these issues or get answers to these questions, Connecticut Carry would be happy to assist.

    More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com

    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 defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Contact:
    Richard Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203-208-9577
    Email: rich@ctcarry.com
    http://ctcarry.com
    Last edited by Rich B; 03-11-2013 at 10:09 AM.
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post

    * Are the legislators who are supporting such proposals ready to be honest with their constituents that they are pushing an agenda and willing to make the tax payers of Connecticut pay for their mistakes through court decisions? Do they have any shame in gambling with other people’s money to push an agenda that hurts people?

    Heck no ! Of all the members of the public safety committee that I filed FOI requests with, only two even replied...and one said that he does not have to give out the records he disclosed that he has...

    Looks like I got a lot of FIC complaints to write up...

    Gun magazines are part of the gun ... they are protected under the 2nd amendment. No one is going to modify or toss their mags away...what are we, Canadians?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post

    * Since the DC v Heller decision in 2008, when SCOTUS ruled that firearms in ‘common use’ such as M16s (the select-fire, full auto version of the civilian AR-15) could not be banned constitutionally, and the McDonald v Chicago case in 2010 incorporated this into applying equally to the states, what gives the Connecticut legislature the idea that they have the power to implement such legislation?

    ]

    Here's some quotes for ya with some analysis:

    “..guns are appropriate to hunting and target shooting but not to the community..” Sen. Neyer, 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. Gleischmann wishes to live in China … it’s east, have a good journey comrade.

    “..First amendment. …yelled Fire! .. Subject to arrest” Sen. Cye 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. Hodfrey (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.

    (all names have 1st letter popped to next letter in alphabet)
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-11-2013 at 04:52 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    (all names have 1st letter popped to next letter in alphabet)
    Why? To avoid search engine hits? I would WANT them to find that we are calling them out as dolts and dictators.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    Why? To avoid search engine hits? I would WANT them to find that we are calling them out as dolts and dictators.
    I'm a dictator wanna-be

Posting Permissions

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