Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: H.B. No. 5158 : AN ACT CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Here is the bill..

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillsta...hich_year=2010

    Send

    Here is links to email addresses of the Committee Members..

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/Membe...p?comm_code=PS


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    Looks like another do-nothing feel-good measure. None of the things it purports to protect the public from aren't covered in other statutes or federally mandated NICS checks.

    How about enforcing the laws and get the firearms out of the hands of the prohibited persons? preaching to the choir again.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    I sent out an email to the whole committee today... I urge others to be in contact..there is a public hearing next week I believe

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I urge you to oppose Section 10 of HB 5158. This is a backdoor attempt at long gun registration and with the 14 day waiting period on long gun sales it puts people's lives at stake who might need a firearm for protection, especially victims of domestic violence. It would also prevent the sale of long guns between friends and family members which in turn could make otherwise law-abiding people into "criminals". I lastly remind you the three states in the USA with the least per-capita violent crime are VT, NH, and Maine. All three of these states allow sales of handguns and long guns between friends and family without a waiting period, a permit, or Government approval. This will do nothing to ensure Public Safety, in fact it makes the public less safe, and I strongly urge to strike out this section. I thank you for your time and service to the people of Connecticut and have a great day.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    I urge everyone to protest the entire Bill. From What I was told the DPS Raised this Bill. And the Governor Entered Bill 28 to get rid of the Pistol permit Board, also please protest this Bill. please correct if this Information is not correct. thanks

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    An update provided by those in attendance at the Public Hearing (today) is that Section 10 of the legislation (long gun registration) has been stripped from the bill.

    It's a start, but there's more to go...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    Funny story: I was at Bridgeport Rifle Club for the NRA pistol league last night and we got to talking about the bills coming down.

    The rangemaster believed that long gun registration was already mandatory, DPS3 must be filled out, one copy sent to DPS one for the seller to keep and two for the purchaser (one that he was supposed to give to his local PD). I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I tried to say "for a pistol yes, not long guns" but they (2 of them) were both adamant that it was already a required.

    We have a lot of education to do.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    You only need to fill out the DPS-3-C for retail purchases of long guns under current law. FTF sales are exempt.

    This may be where the disconnect was.

  8. #8
    Regular Member atrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Yalesville, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    What about asking the legislature to repeal some of these gun restriction we have now. I think the following list are "reasonable" to start with and may even get good public support:

    1. No background check for Retail long guns.

    2. Add to primary school law the phrase “during school hours.” (I.e. so you can go on school grounds with firearm when school is not in session).

    3. Allow teachers, professors, and staff to carry at schools and colleges.

    4. Reduce felony for carry of pistol to $200 infraction. (Raise revenue measure).

    5. Allow carry on state forest and parks, and other lands.

    6. Allow state employees to carry. (Subject to departmental review.)

    7. Better Castle Doctrine like say FL or TX (I am guessing they have better ones, someone correct this).

    8. Knife and other hand weapon restrictions repeals.

    9. Reduce age of buy and carry of firearms from 21 to 18.

    10. Repeal "assault riffle" bans.


    What are some other easy ones?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    gluegun wrote:
    You only need to fill out the DPS-3-C for retail purchases of long guns under current law. FTF sales are exempt.

    This may be where the disconnect was.
    No I said that. If you buy from a dealer you have to do the DPS-3. No private sales too. Rather than piss off the rangemaster I said "Oh I didn't know" and walked away shaking my head.



  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    28

    Post imported post

    Opening to testimony



    Opening Comments to testimony to be given by Peter Kuck in opposition to Raised Bill No. 5158 before the Public Safety Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature on February 18th, 2010.[/b]

    My name is Peter Kuck and I am here today as a citizen of the state of Connecticut. I am also a member of the Board of Firearms Permit examiners and in the name of full disclosure one of the individuals who has filed a Civil Rights suit against the Department of Public Safety in Federal Court. I last appeared before this committee on February 24th 2009. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this proposed legislation is from the Department of Public safety (not the public) and that it was rejected by the legislature last year.

    Before June 30th of this year the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on whether the individual rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the constitution are binding on the states in the same manor as the other nine rights enumerated in the bill of rights.

    At some point in the near future there will also be a ruling from the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in two Civil Rights cases which were heard on September 17, 2009 (Kuck V Danaher & Goldberg V Danaher). These cases involve due process rights regarding firearms and will also directly impact current laws, regulations, policies and practices of the State of Connecticut.

    For the State of Connecticut to enact any firearms related legislation without first knowing the outcome of these cases would be at best irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer’s time and resources.

    There is no current need or crisis that compels the legislature to pass additional firearms laws since Connecticut currently has in place a workable set of firearms related laws and regulations that if understood and followed by public officials and members of the public, provide sufficient ways to protect the Public Safety and guarantee Connecticut citizens their rights under the Connecticut Constitution.

    If anything, this legislature in this legislative session must be prepared to comply with and fund any court mandated changes that may become necessary to assure the due process and constitutional rights that may be addressed in any of the expected decisions.

    The biggest problem with legislation presented you by the department of public safety is that it continues to concentrate power in the hands of the Department of Public Safety and in doing so strips power from local chiefs of police and the citizens of Connecticut.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    CCS proposed reinstating the auctioning of confiscated firearms. CCDL is likely to support this, though nothing official has been announced.

    CCDL proposed a strong Castle Doctrine to a member of the Judiciary Committee who seemed interested.

    Carry in state parks and forests will take some time, but I suggest later this year, we plan some very peaceful, polite, not in-your-face events in the National Parks and Wildlife Refuges in CT. They are federal land and as of Feb. 22, carrying of firearms in accordance with state law is lawful. We can use these events to show that nothing bad would happen from allowing guns in state parks and forests.

    Other suggestions would have quite a bit of pushback and I don't think gun owners have the political cloat for them yet.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    I would propose just3 things to change CT laws at first.

    1. Eliminate 14 day waiting period on long gun sales from FFL..its outdated and pointless.

    2. Eliminate the need for any kind of permit to buy a handgun for use at home/business...its a violation of our rights.

    3. Repeal the AWB.

    I would like to see more of course..but I believe those goals are good..personally

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    What does all this mean?? Only one section of the Bill was rejected! There are still many items that are in this bill that need to be removed if not the entire Bill that the State Police Raised.

    I thought that is why we have our House of Rep and Senate to make laws.
    Not the State Police.

    There is Still Bill SB 28 that needs to be address. Along with (e.g., OPM051.doc; OPM052.doc) that will outlaw open carry.

    Are there more hearing? If so when and where? Who can we contact?

    This Fight is far from over and I believe that the items still on the floor are worst than Section 10 ( Though I am glad it is gone) was this a bone tossed in by the State Police to make us happy? I think not.

    The State Police do not believe in a balance system as with any group with power they want it all and then ....... need More.

Posting Permissions

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