SB 1160 posted - E-Cert gun ban

Here it is, in all of its glory: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/s/pdf/2013SB-01160-R00-SB.pdf

Rich B said:

Here it is, in all of its glory: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/s/pdf/2013SB-01160-R00-SB.pdf

Click to expand...

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 It was never repealed.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.

Tactical9mm said:

If the courts don't overturn this, it will stand. Ugly, obnoxious but truth.

Click to expand...

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/connecticut-gun-ban-signifies-new-phase-history

Up to 9 proposed amendments so far:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillst...elBillType=Bill&bill_num=1160&which_year=2013

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05463-R00-AMD.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05457-R00-AMD.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05456-R00-AMD.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05453-R00-AMD.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05462-R00-AMD.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05460-R00-AMD.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05461-R00-AMD.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05459-R00-AMD.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/lcoamd/2013LCO05458-R00-AMD.htm

OLR bill analysis:

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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??

motoxmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LibertyUberAlles said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Shawn Mitola said:

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??

Click to expand...

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

motoxmann said:

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".

Click to expand...

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/chap529.htm#Sec29-38c.htm

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.

Rich B said:

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/chap529.htm#Sec29-38c.htm

Click to expand...

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

motoxmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rich B said:

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.

Click to expand...

Then how would such a shotgun be determined? or a 30rd AR mag?

motoxmann said:

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.

Click to expand...

May as well get the extender tube, right?

motoxmann said:

Then how would such a shotgun be determined? or a 30rd AR mag?

Click to expand...

Who knows? That will be decided through case law.

Rich B said:

Who knows? That will be decided through case law.

Click to expand...

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.