Did this pass or is it under review?
Did this pass or is it under review?
proposed..I don't see a public hearing date for it yet....I expect this bill will get lots of attention..
I already fired off an email and made some phone calls...
I am more curious why there is no name attached to it.
I believe the bill is proposed by anti-gun state Sen. Martin Looney (D)
its a Committee bill..Although I think its safe to say Sen Looney is behind this...He hates liberty very much..
i think this bill is going to be THE hot button gun control bill.
i don't think the authors comprehend how many people will be affected by this.
there are several hundred thousand pistol permit holders in CT. that's not counting long gun owners who don't have pistol permits.
you figure many popular pistols that are sold come with 2 or even 3 mags, many of which hold more than ten rounds.
do the math, and then you include folks who hoard mags ... i mean, there are likely millions of mags in state.
i know that this taking of property is not going to be a small sum, and it's going to affect a LOT of people.
Some one from another forum brought up a point I thought I would share. "It probably won't get passed as written as it is hard to take peoples property without an entirely good reason and get it passed thru a legislature" so i guess be on the lookout for a revised bill?(not really sure how that works)
I found this in the state senate bills also:
Basically it would make all machine guns illegal in the state of CT. I think they've tried this one before. It's in committee currently.
Really? Cause the way I read the bill it makes "Selective fire" weapons legal in CT again...seems like a good thing...
I wrote and called Mr Looney and my Senators and Reps about this
You can find yuor own officials here:
It has been referred to the joint Committee of the Judiciary
I am in the process of writing to them all
Heres a copy of my letter to Looney
Dear Representative Ryan
There is no justification for this act. It is based on hysteria and has no logical basis in reducing gun related deaths in the state of Connecticut.
As my State Representative I really want to know your opinions and how you will vote on this issue. I look forward to your reply
I bring to your attention
Copy Of letter sent to Senator M. Looney
Ref: Bill: 1094
BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES
I write to express my sincere dissatisfaction with the introduction of Bill 1094.
You clearly do not understand that this Bill will serve no one in reducing gun crime in the State of Connecticut. You are just using The Sen. Giffords tragic shooting as a means to an end which is to subvert my right to go about my day, with or without a legally purchased weapon with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds for my own and my family's protection.
As Rahm Emanuel said "Never let a good crisis go to waste"
Your philosophy is flawed as you also fail to understand that a magazine capable of holding 10 rounds allows for 11 in the gun as a whole. Since once the magazine is loaded into the pistol and the gun cocked, the first round enters the chamber and then round 10 can be replaced in the magazine - so your choice of 10 is obviously purely arbitrary.
Do you know how fast an empty magazine can be replaced with a loaded one? Probably not. 3 - 5 seconds. So 10 shots becomes 20 in a matter of seconds. See, you have not though this through.
I come from the UK and have been in the USA for 10 years now. I'm proud of that and the freedoms it provides. The UK's gun crime spiked directly after law abiding gun owners had to surrender their sporting guns, all legal of course after sweeping legislation made it illegal to have guns that shoot more than two rounds. So either guns were sawed up and melted down with no compensation to the owners or for shotguns were required to be modified at the owners’ expense to allow only two cartridges to be loaded at any given time.
I take great comfort in the fact that there are legally armed citizens willing to put them selves in harms way to protect others from serious injury or death by an errant gun wielding assailant.
Why would you want to handicap them?
If some perpetrator wants to commit a gun crime are they going to care whether the magazine holds 10 or 15 rounds?
As a man whose sister is an Inspector with the London Metropolitan Police Force I can tell you that gun crime in London now out numbers those significantly to that of New York.
So Senator, my questions are:-
1. How will this reduce gun crime or deaths by shooting in Connecticut?
2. How will the state compensate me for my new gun that you will render completely useless since low count magazines are not available?
3. How will the state fund these pointless and extraordinary processes of having police confiscate, from law-abiding citizens the millions of magazines already in the state?
4. When did you last hear of a shooting in Connecticut where more that a couple of rounds were used?. I think the local press would have call it a hail of bullets if even 10 rounds were fired don't you?
5. Why 10 rounds?, Why not 8 or 6 ?
6. How many of the gun crimes that are committed in Connecticut are with legally owned weapons?
7. Will you admit that this is just a precursor to a complete hand gun ban within the state, but you know full well that to come out right now and say that would cost you too much political capital?
8. Will you also immediately introduce a Bill making it a Class D felony to own a pitch fork with more than two prongs? A mad farmer could go on the rampage killing people in a shopping mall.
My research shows that you are a distinct career politician who quite apart from doing what's right for the state, is into preserving you own position by pandering to anti-gun pressure groups and lobbyists
I will muster significant support to defeat this affront you call a Bill
Currently, a MAC-10 doesn't fit the definition of an assault weapon in (1) only because it is not a "selective-fire" firearm.
How many of them become instant criminals, who knows.
This bill has been up for public hearing once last month. But, they were shady as hell on this one. This is the bill that had less than 24 hours public notice. 3:00 in the afternoon on a Thursday for a Friday hearing, if I remember correctly. The only hearing I missed so far.
Spoke at the capitol three times so far and tomorrow will be the fourth. Gonna keep my eye out for this one as well.
As far as do they know who they are affecting........ people should join us a the capital. I see less than a dozen of us speaking at any given time on a topic in a state with 172,000 permit holders.
I'm not saying everyone can get down there, but..... less than a dozen!!!!
I sure know for a fact we'll hear a lot of loud grumbling when the bill passes. We need to not wait until it's too late.
I sure as hell don't wanna hear any bitching from anyone that doesn't do a damn thing to fight this one.
At least contacting your reps. Even if it's Looney (name appropriate). He flat out lies on data when he speaks (I've already countered some of his testimony this year).
www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).
Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.
Connecticut legislator proposes ex post facto law for gun magazine capacity limit on Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 10:47am. Posted by Steve M on March 2, 2011 at 10:22 am | Share via e-mail
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution is clear concerning ex post facto laws, but that won’t stop the anti-gun left in Connecticut from making possession of high-capacity gun magazines – previously completely legal to buy and own – a felony unless you turn in the ones you own within 90 days.
Let’s look at the legal portion of this law and eventually we’ll get to the stupidity. As noted, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 specifically makes ex post facto laws – literally, after the fact – unconstitutional. You can not punish conduct that was lawful prior to the legislation becoming law. In the past, conduct – or in this case ownership of an item – that is made illegal in the future would be “grandfathered in.” In other words, if you owned it pre-ban, you could continue to posses and use the item.
Last edited by brk913; 03-03-2011 at 09:34 PM. Reason: Requested by author
I very much appreciate readers passing along my articles, but copying and pasting the full content of my article - and not posting a link to the source website - is considered bad Internet etiquette and a copyright violation.
In the spirit of keeping authors like myself writing, may I suggest you select certain brief excerpts from the original post and provide a link to the original content in your post?
Connecticut legislator proposes ex post facto law for gun magazine capacity limit
Come on, get creative. You know the other guys are brainstorming this to death.
Actually, I think they are proposing this legislation for a specific reason. When they come back and suggest the law ban the sale of high-capacity magazines in the future, they can claim they are "comprimising" which is a favored tactic of the progressive/liberal/statist left.
Of course, they still will be unable to provide any proof the legislation will do anything to stop a criminal from committing a criminal act, nor will it save even one life ... that could never be proven.
They they will require all high-capacity magazines sold in the future have some sort of stamp to show a born-on date or something.
And thank you brk913 for supporting authors who write on the subjects we all care about, and keep writing and calling state legislators...
Last edited by steve495; 03-04-2011 at 06:53 AM.
Steve, I appreciate you calling me out on my netiquette, I was in quite a rush when I copy and pasted that in and I do apologize for not giving proper credit where credit is due. I also adjusted it on another forum where I had done the same thing. Please keep up the good work.
Contacted both my Senator and Rep with this wording,
"I am unhappy to hear that the hysteria of the tragic shooting of Sen. giffords has brought about this bill in my state of CT. As a licensed, responsible gun owner i am shocked to be compared to the criminal who perpetrated this attack. I would like to know how and why you will vote on this bill. I hope you are getting inundated with emails and calls from the responsibly licensed firearm owners of CT that if this bill should be wrongfully passed will be considered criminals themselves for being in possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds that they legally purchased."
What are they gonna compromise on? Ban the sale of Mags after a certain date? Mags have no markings or serial numbers...How could a LEO possibly tell when they were produced? This bill is DOA...I see no way it passes the Jud Committee...In fact...I will be surprised if they even take a vote on it....
This is not an ex post facto law. An ex post facto law criminalizes and imposes sanctions on past behavior. An example would be if they passed a law tomorrow that said, "Anyone who possessed a large capacity ammunition feeding device in the years 1994-2011 is hereby guilty of a Felony." Making something illegal that you already legally own is another issue.
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
I think that this is the 'line in the sand' we always talk about. You know, the gun law that is so intolerable that there is no compromise possible, and the possibility of active, armed resistance is very high.
If people like Looney want blood in the streets, this bill will do it.
There has been some confusion as to the originator of this bill. I had a meeting with Sen. Looney’s Legal Advisor today and was assured he was not the sponsor. With his name in the electronic media and messages from other groups naming him as sponsor, he is receiving massive amounts of phone calls/e-mail. It was admitted they did address the prospect of submitting this bill, but felt it was not appropriate. The bill was not a Proposed bill but was Raised by Judiciary Committee. Note that CCS directed all communications to the Judiciary Comm, NOT to Sen. Looney. STOP communications on this issue with Sen. Looney NOW unless he is YOUR State Senator. It is not wise to unnecessarily upset the Senate Majority Leader.
Judiciary Committee Members 2011-12
Eric.Coleman@cga.ct.gov; Beth.Bye@senatedems.ct.gov; Doyle@senatedems.ct.gov; Gomes@senatedems.ct.gov; Meyer@senatedems.ct.gov, John.A.Kissel@cga.ct.gov; Michael.McLachlan@cga.ct.gov; Andrew.Roraback@cga.ct.gov; Jason.Welch@cga.ct.gov; Gerald.Fox@cga.ct.gov; David.Baram@cga.ct.gov; Jeffrey.Berger@cga.ct.gov; Charles.Clemons@cga.ct.gov; Patricia.Dillon@cga.ct.gov; Mae.Flexer@cga.ct.gov; Mary.Fritz@cga.ct.gov; Bob.Godfrey@cga.ct.gov; Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov; Auden.Grogins@cga.ct.gov; Gail.Hamm@cga.ct.gov; Ernest.Hewett@cga.ct.gov; Bruce.Morris@cga.ct.gov; Melissa.Olson@cga.ct.gov; Kelvin.Roldan@cga.ct.gov; Joseph.Serra@cga.ct.gov; Joseph.Taborsak@cga.ct.gov; William.Tong@cga.ct.gov; Toni.Walker@cga.ct.gov; Gary.Holder-Winfield@cga.ct.gov; Elissa.Wright@cga.ct.gov; John.Hetherington@housegop.ct.gov; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; DebraLee.Hovey@housegop.ct.gov; Themis.Klarides@housegop.ct.gov; David.Labriola@housegop.ct.gov; Arthur.ONeill@housegop.ct.gov; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; TR.Rowe@housegop.ct.gov;
Last edited by brk913; 03-05-2011 at 07:02 AM.
We WILL fight this!