Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: SB 1160 posted - E-Cert gun ban

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

    SB 1160 posted - E-Cert gun ban

    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 Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    First, my condolences to the gun-owning citizens in Connecticut. The passage of this bill is yet another betrayal by Connecticut politicians. The betrayal that caused me to leave the State was Weicker's income tax passage back in 1991. Like that betrayal then, everyone assumed the consequences for it would be paid at the next election. The reality was that the majority of the people who voted for it retained their seats, and the law remained on the books. It was never repealed.

    I hate to say it, but this will be the case here. Connecticut has been teetering on the precipice for quite some time. When I lived there for six months (about two years ago), I saw it with the ammo capacity limitation bill they tried to pass. They just needed something to happen to force the guillotine blade to drop.

    One madman shooting up a school of kids was that tipping point. We all know that it is wrong to hold law abiding gun owners responsible for the actions of a madman. Yet they are doing it in Connecticut, Colorado, and attempting it Federally as well as in other States (to varying degree).

    Connecticut is joining the New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts axis of darkness. If the courts don't overturn this, it will stand. Ugly, obnoxious but truth.

    Again, condolences to all citizens. I mourn with you today.
    Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. -Hávamál 38

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical9mm View Post
    If the courts don't overturn this, it will stand. Ugly, obnoxious but truth.
    This has always been the truth here and was the founding cause for Connecticut Carry, Inc.

    These battles will be fought and won in court, not in the LOB (although it never hurts to try). We were founded on the idea that we need to prepare for a long drawn out legal war, and we will continue towards that goal even if the legislative front did not hold for as long as we had hoped it would.

    The preparations have been ongoing, and they will continue. Hopefully people will get behind the effort as well.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/conn...-phase-history
    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 Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    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

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Fiscal notes:

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/FN/2013SB-01160-R00-FN.htm

    The bill results in a cost to the state of approximately $200,000 - $300,000 in FY 13, $8. 6 million - $9. 6 million in FY 14, and $7. 3 million in FY 15.
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    I found a few very ridiculous discrepancies in the bill. I'll post up later when I get out of work and can re-review them to be sure.

    but so far it looks as if they will confiscate any "assault weapons (by the new definition within the bill)" that were LEGALLY purchased after January 1st 2013 [page 46, lines 1393-1406, specifically lines 1401-1404], no matter what, because according to the wording you cannot apply for a certificate of possession for an assault weapon that was purchased after January 1st 2013, thus making it immediately illegal (felony) no matter how legal the purchase was.

    it also forces everyone to immediately be a felon who has an "assault weapon" or mags capable of more than 10 rounds until they register them and get a possession certificate, both of which's system currently does not exist.

    it also allows a search and seizure warrant for all firearms on your person/property if you open-carry a handgun, also deeming you ineligible to possess any firearms for various lengths of time depending on the situation and discretion of the courts/LEO's

    there are no exceptions for sales/transfers between immediate family members
    Last edited by motoxmann; 04-03-2013 at 02:44 PM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    138
    where do you see the open carry rule I haven't been able to find it. This in effect makes it illegal to open carry? unless you want to be stopped by every cop and have your Mag checked??

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    but so far it looks as if they will confiscate any "assault weapons (by the new definition within the bill)" that were LEGALLY purchased after January 1st 2013 [page 46, lines 1393-1406, specifically lines 1401-1404], no matter what, because according to the wording you cannot apply for a certificate of possession for an assault weapon that was purchased after January 1st 2013, thus making it immediately illegal (felony) no matter how legal the purchase was.
    Are you referring to the language at lines 1401-1404? It states there:

    "(2) The person lawfully possessed the assault weapon on the date 1401 immediately preceding the effective date of this section, under the 1402 provisions of sections 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, in effect on January 1403 1, 2013; and"

    That means that if, as of April 2, 2013, you possessed the AWB in accordance with the law at that time (because this law repeals the old law and replaces it), then you can continue to possess it with restrictions (e.g. registration). So it does not make illegal the possession of a firearm now declared to be an AW that was lawfully purchased between Jan. 1, 2013 and April 2, 2013.

  10. #10
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyUberAlles View Post
    Are you referring to the language at lines 1401-1404? It states there:

    "(2) The person lawfully possessed the assault weapon on the date 1401 immediately preceding the effective date of this section, under the 1402 provisions of sections 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, in effect on January 1403 1, 2013; and"

    That means that if, as of April 2, 2013, you possessed the AWB in accordance with the law at that time (because this law repeals the old law and replaces it), then you can continue to possess it with restrictions (e.g. registration). So it does not make illegal the possession of a firearm now declared to be an AW that was lawfully purchased between Jan. 1, 2013 and April 2, 2013.
    yes, that is what I'm referring to. but it states "inclusive, in effect on January 1, 2013", essentially stating that the person needs to have possessed it before January 1st 2013.

    it also states (I have to re-read it and get all the dates organized, it's intentionally written to be confusing) that possession of an assault weapon is immediately effectively a felony without a certificate of possession, which currently doesn't even exist, and won't exist for quite some time. I do need to re-read this part though to determine if they did in fact determine a specific cutoff date. it does say you have until January 1st 2014 to get a certificate, but it also states that you cannot posses the weapon without a certificate. very confusing

    edit: the above is incorrect, I didn't read it properly. it simply means that the firearm needs to have been purchased before april 4, 2013, and at time of purchase needed to be legal and purchased according to the laws that were in effect on January 1, 2013
    Last edited by motoxmann; 04-08-2013 at 10:59 AM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    gonna have to get a new stock for my AR and switch it to belt fed? to be out of the assault weapons designation ... maybe that's right?

  12. #12
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Mitola View Post
    where do you see the open carry rule I haven't been able to find it. This in effect makes it illegal to open carry? unless you want to be stopped by every cop and have your Mag checked??
    section 33: lines 1663-1710, in reference to the request and issue of a warrant to search and confiscate all firearms and ammunition, and what factors make the request and approval justified.
    specifically lines 1692-1694: "the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person".

    literally ANYthing can be deemed wreckless out of the mouth of an LEO. IE: riding a motorcycle with no jacket, handgun is visible with an OWB holster, and is visible for all to see. and say a motorist in a vehicle performs a movement that puts the motorcyclist at high risk of danger or injury, obviously the motorcyclist is going to be pissed, and often lays the horn and/or screams at the motorist. they can never once touch their handgun, or even imply that it might be used, but the mere fact that the weapon is visible and the motorcyclist is angry at almost being killed by the motorist, that could easily be seen as wreckless display of a firearm.
    and even simpler, OC'ing in walmart. if a child (or parent) sees a person OC'ing and complains/tweaks out/gets scared because they don't know anything about guns or gun laws, that can bee deemed wreckless display of a firearm. it goes way beyond the reach of breach of peace like used in the past. breach of peace usually required an actual breach of peace. but wreckless display of a firearm could simply mean a firearm is visible and someone, anyone, doesn't like it for any odd reason
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  13. #13
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    specifically lines 1692-1694: "the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person".
    I believe you are simply quoting the risk warrant statute which is already law. And that is not at all what it means.

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap5...#Sec29-38c.htm
    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    also notice that as expected, the new restrictions added to the AWB are ALL 100% COSMETIC (they removed the bayonet lug from the list).

    I also just realized another thing: shotguns with more than a 5 round magazine are now classified as "assault weapons". but they do nothing to actually define this. for example: a relative of mine recently purchased a standard Remington 870 chambered for 3" and 2 3/4" shells. just a normal pump shotgun, normal shotgun stock and all...
    BUT: the mag tube only holds 5 rounds of 3" shells. which according to this bill is NOT an AW, and is fully legal. BUT if you load it with 2 3/4" shells it will hold 6 shells in the mag tube, making it classified as an AW. so this gun is essentially two completely different guns strictly according to what ammunition you feel like loading it with that day.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  15. #15
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    I believe you are simply quoting the risk warrant statute which is already law. And that is not at all what it means.

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap5...#Sec29-38c.htm
    Ah, I suppose I am. still interesting that it's included in this bill, somehow making a change to that statute. the change of which I do not yet see
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I also just realized another thing: shotguns with more than a 5 round magazine are now classified as "assault weapons". but they do nothing to actually define this. for example: a relative of mine recently purchased a standard Remington 870 chambered for 3" and 2 3/4" shells. just a normal pump shotgun, normal shotgun stock and all...
    BUT: the mag tube only holds 5 rounds of 3" shells. which according to this bill is NOT an AW, and is fully legal. BUT if you load it with 2 3/4" shells it will hold 6 shells in the mag tube, making it classified as an AW. so this gun is essentially two completely different guns strictly according to what ammunition you feel like loading it with that day.
    This is no different than with a rifle really. A 30 round AR-15 magazine can hold 30 .223 rounds or 10 .458 SOCOM rounds.
    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

  17. #17
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    This is no different than with a rifle really. A 30 round AR-15 magazine can hold 30 .223 rounds or 10 .458 SOCOM rounds.
    Then how would such a shotgun be determined? or a 30rd AR mag?
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    also notice that as expected, the new restrictions added to the AWB are ALL 100% COSMETIC (they removed the bayonet lug from the list).

    I also just realized another thing: shotguns with more than a 5 round magazine are now classified as "assault weapons". but they do nothing to actually define this. for example: a relative of mine recently purchased a standard Remington 870 chambered for 3" and 2 3/4" shells. just a normal pump shotgun, normal shotgun stock and all...
    BUT: the mag tube only holds 5 rounds of 3" shells. which according to this bill is NOT an AW, and is fully legal. BUT if you load it with 2 3/4" shells it will hold 6 shells in the mag tube, making it classified as an AW. so this gun is essentially two completely different guns strictly according to what ammunition you feel like loading it with that day.
    May as well get the extender tube, right?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    Then how would such a shotgun be determined? or a 30rd AR mag?
    Who knows? That will be decided through case law.
    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

  20. #20
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Who knows? That will be decided through case law.
    that's what I'm afraid of. someone getting arrested for it, and no previous case law to go by, so that new case then becomes the case law for future events. meanwhile the initial person suffers the arrest and their gun being taken, and all the legal fees, and time off work, and so on and so forth. all because the legislators have their heads so far up their &^%*@ that they can't comprehend simple mathematics or common sense.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    the AR platform is so versatile ... I talked to my legislator about how a AR mag can hold -- you cannot say --- what?? was his reply

    these legislators who voted for this bill don't give a flying crap ...

    and the feeling is mutual

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ...these legislators who voted for this bill don't give a flying crap ...
    Right. And they will be coming back for more next year! Whatever they can get away with.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Danbury CT
    Posts
    7
    At this point all I hope for is that every state official body guard/cop/etc.. has to adhere to the same laws and policies. Maybe when the thugs and scum of this state start to rain bullets down on them will they see just how stupid this was. Not one single law on the books regards to the 2nd admin rights has an impact on criminals. F this state......

  24. #24
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooks P View Post
    At this point all I hope for is that every state official body guard/cop/etc.. has to adhere to the same laws and policies. Maybe when the thugs and scum of this state start to rain bullets down on them will they see just how stupid this was. Not one single law on the books regards to the 2nd admin rights has an impact on criminals. F this state......
    every restriction in the entire bill exempts all law enforcement and government employees, and various forms of security personnel. tyranny at its finest. see signature below
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    14
    Am I reading this amendment right? You will be able to utilize LCMs for pistols up to seventeen rounds?

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/20...59-R00-AMD.htm

    Strike subdivision (6) of subsection (f) of section 24 in its entirety and substitute the following in lieu thereof:

    "(6) While transporting the large capacity magazine between any of the places set forth in this subsection, or to any licensed gun dealer, provided (A) such large capacity magazine contains not more than seventeen bullets, in the case of a large capacity magazine intended for use within a pistol or revolver, or not more than ten bullets, in the case of a large capacity magazine intended for use within a firearm other than a pistol or revolver, and (B) the large capacity magazine is transported in the manner required for an assault weapon under subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 53-202f of the general statutes, as amended by this act; or"

    Strike subdivision (7) of subsection (f) of section 24 in its entirety and substitute the following in lieu thereof:

    "(7) Pursuant to a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver, provided such large capacity magazine (A) is within a pistol or revolver that was lawfully possessed by the person prior to the effective date of this section, (B) does not extend beyond the bottom of the pistol grip, and (C) contains not more than seventeen bullets. "

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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