Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Connecticut Carry - SB64 - Erosion of our liberties

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

    Connecticut Carry - SB64 - Erosion of our liberties

    SB 64 - AN ACT CONCERNING REGULATION OF FIREARMS

    The DESPP is once again trying to act to incrementally take away liberties from Connecticut citizens with no public safety or statistical concern.

    (a) (1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is [ten-hundredths] eight-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.

    (b) (1) No person shall engage in hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor. A person shall be deemed under the influence when at the time of the alleged offense the person (A) is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) has an elevated blood alcohol content. For the purposes of this subdivision, "elevated blood alcohol content" means (i) a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is [ten-hundredths] eight-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight, or (ii) if such person has been convicted of a violation of this subsection, a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is seven-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight. A person shall be deemed impaired when at the time of the alleged offense the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person was more than seven-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, by weight, but less than [ten-hundredths] eight-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, by weight.

    (e) Upon the sale, delivery or other transfer of any pistol or revolver, the person making the purchase or to whom the same is delivered or transferred shall sign a receipt for such pistol or revolver, which shall contain the name, [and] address and date and place of birth of such person,

    (b) Upon the delivery of the firearm, the purchaser shall sign in triplicate a receipt for such firearm, which shall contain the name, [and] address and date and place of birth of such purchaser, the date of sale [,] and the caliber, make, model and manufacturer's number and a general description [thereof] of the firearm.


    We need to send a strong message to our legislators. They have more important things to do than to try and take away our liberties. They can start with putting the teeth into the deadlines of pistol permits and working to fix the SPBI backlog (http://ctcarry.com/Issues/SPBIBacklog).
    We must insist that the DESPP does not get to erode our freedoms, particularly while they are totally denying liberties to so many people in Connecticut.

    View and track the bill here:
    http://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/...bill_num=SB-64
    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
    just buy your guns at a gun show ... problem solved.

  3. #3
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    We need to send a strong message to our legislators. They have more important things to do than to try and take away our liberties. They can start with putting the teeth into the deadlines of pistol permits and working to fix the SPBI backlog (http://ctcarry.com/Issues/SPBIBacklog).
    We must insist that the DESPP does not get to erode our freedoms, particularly while they are totally denying liberties to so many people in Connecticut.[/url]
    While I agree with this statement I am not so sure how this bill takes away any liberties. This statute is currently in place and all they want to do is lower the BAC threshold to match our DUI BAC. Surely you don't think carrying while impaired by alcohol is a good idea? Don't forget under the current statute and this proposed one that if you are carrying an unloaded firearm you are exempt from this, so this means if you go out and have a few and get over the "limit" all you need do is unload your gun and you are legal...

    ETA the other sections you not e and b simply add the purchasers DOB and place of birth, 2 things you already have to give if you buy from a gun store.
    Last edited by brk913; 02-16-2012 at 11:42 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SE CT
    Posts
    10
    I trust a business somewhat more than some random joe-shmoe with my personal information.
    Last edited by RCZJ; 02-16-2012 at 04:49 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    While I agree with this statement I am not so sure how this bill takes away any liberties. This statute is currently in place and all they want to do is lower the BAC threshold to match our DUI BAC. Surely you don't think carrying while impaired by alcohol is a good idea? Don't forget under the current statute and this proposed one that if you are carrying an unloaded firearm you are exempt from this, so this means if you go out and have a few and get over the "limit" all you need do is unload your gun and you are legal...

    ETA the other sections you not e and b simply add the purchasers DOB and place of birth, 2 things you already have to give if you buy from a gun store.

    Why on earth would you support any further restrictions on our rights to carry a tool for defense?
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by RCZJ View Post
    I trust a business somewhat more than some random joe-shmoe with my personal information.
    Over not supplying it in the first place?
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    While I agree with this statement I am not so sure how this bill takes away any liberties. This statute is currently in place and all they want to do is lower the BAC threshold to match our DUI BAC. Surely you don't think carrying while impaired by alcohol is a good idea? Don't forget under the current statute and this proposed one that if you are carrying an unloaded firearm you are exempt from this, so this means if you go out and have a few and get over the "limit" all you need do is unload your gun and you are legal...

    ETA the other sections you not e and b simply add the purchasers DOB and place of birth, 2 things you already have to give if you buy from a gun store.
    When you buy from a ffl, the ffl keeps these records until business is kapoot, then he sends his aft forms to the atf.

    And its a slippery slope when talking about BAC....these liberals would say the safest BAC = zero (handling a gun more of a safety issue than driving?)

    And its an argument that politicians may agree to ... ("did you vote to allow drunks to carry?")

    Then if you wish to carry you would have to be 100% sober 100% of the time.

  8. #8
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Why on earth would you support any further restrictions on our rights to carry a tool for defense?
    I don't, I guess I just don't see a further restriction here, carrying a gun for defensive purposes is more than just strapping it on and walking around. It's a way of life, it's the right mindset, it's being at the top of your game all the time, most people under the influence of alcohol just don't have the ability to physically use a firearm properly, never mind the right mental mind set. Again as the law is already there what difference does .08 make from .10? Additionally, think what the jury would think if you needed your defensive tool while intoxicated, even if you did everything right the police report is going to state, "as I approached the suspect I smelled the aroma of an alcoholic beverage on their breath." What do you think the jury is going to think? Most likey, "he was drunk and shot that guy" which will not be good for the shooter.

    As far as giving a stranger your info on the forms, anyone who wants your DOB and town of birth can get it pretty easily these days and if you really feel that way don't buy a gun from a private party, but remember, businesses are pretty lax with paperwork too, just go rummage through the dumpster at any bank and see what you find.

    All that being said I do not support any further restrictions and had this been an entirely new bill and not just a modification I would join the opposition, however, I believe you need to pick your battles and this is not one I think we should worry about, opposition to this makes it look like you want to give permit holders the right to "drink till drunk and carry"...not something the "mainstream population" would understand.

    ETA: I just looked at the paperwork required to do firearm (handgun) transfers and it appears that this information, DOB and place of birth is already on the form that we have all been filling out for years, looks like they are just adjusting the statute to reflect the form, kind of backwards but then again we are talking about the state here... http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/sl...ms/dps-3-c.pdf
    Last edited by brk913; 02-16-2012 at 08:39 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    I don't, I guess I just don't see a further restriction here
    I do. That is a lower standard for arresting people, taking their permit and making them a criminal for life.


    Again as the law is already there what difference does .08 make from .10?
    Well that is exactly the point. What difference is there? So why change the law? Why would we want to err on the side of less liberty?

    Additionally, think what the jury would think if you needed your defensive tool while intoxicated, even if you did everything right the police report is going to state, "as I approached the suspect I smelled the aroma of an alcoholic beverage on their breath." What do you think the jury is going to think? Most likey, "he was drunk and shot that guy" which will not be good for the shooter.
    Irrelevant. This does nothing but hurt that person's rights. A good shoot is a good shoot.

    As far as giving a stranger your info on the forms, anyone who wants your DOB and town of birth can get it pretty easily these days and if you really feel that way don't buy a gun from a private party, but remember, businesses are pretty lax with paperwork too, just go rummage through the dumpster at any bank and see what you find.
    I see, so then we shouldn't mind anytime the state decides on a whim to request more information from us then.

    All that being said I do not support any further restrictions and had this been an entirely new bill and not just a modification I would join the opposition
    That is funny, I think the fact that they hid this stuff in a 'clarification' bill is even more reason to oppose it.

    I believe you need to pick your battles
    I don't. I don't see opposing incremental erosions of our rights as something that is a finite quantity. The only way our rights have been preserved at all in this country is when people dug and said 'no more'. To say 'well maybe a little bit more' is just ridiculous.


    All of your argument is paramount to the incremental erosions of our liberties we have seen throughout history. Who needs machineguns? Who needs suppressors? Why not let them place a 60 round magazine capacity limit on us? After all, I only have 30 round magazines.

    The cliche "give them an inch, they take a mile" is a pretty applicable one here.
    Last edited by Rich B; 02-16-2012 at 09:02 PM.
    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

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Allow me to also reiterate: It is very disrespectful for DESPP to condone or encourage any further restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms in general, but especially when they are denying 1000+ people their right to bear arms.
    Last edited by Rich B; 02-16-2012 at 09:10 PM.
    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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cheshire, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    75
    Think of the Children.

    Don't you support "Common Sense" gun restrictions?

    The Gun Grabbers will be out in force with all the cliches they can muster.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnO View Post
    The Gun Grabbers will be out in force with all the cliches they can muster.
    Who cares? We have beat them before, we will beat them again. If we are going to constantly cower in fear at the thought of anti-rights cultists, we have already lost.
    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

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cheshire, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Who cares? We have beat them before, we will beat them again. If we are going to constantly cower in fear at the thought of anti-rights cultists, we have already lost.
    I agree.

    I was not implying it will be a lost cause. Only that the opposition will be there and we must never let our guard down.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    b) (1) No person shall engage in hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor. A person shall be deemed under the influence when at the time of the alleged offense the person (A) is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) has an elevated blood alcohol content. For the purposes of this subdivision, "elevated blood alcohol content" means (i) a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is [ten-hundredths] eight-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight, or (ii) if such person has been convicted of a violation of this subsection, a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is seven-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight. A person shall be deemed impaired when at the time of the alleged offense the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person was more than seven-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, by weight, but less than [ten-hundredths] eight-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, by weight.

    this bill would make it a crime to have any alcohol .. "under the influence"?? means if a cop thinks so, then it is so.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    101

    Sb 64

    [QUOTE=Rich B;1703194]SB 64 - AN ACT CONCERNING REGULATION OF FIREARMS

    The DESPP is once again trying to act to incrementally take away liberties from Connecticut citizens with no public safety or statistical concern.

    (a) (1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is [ten-hundredths] eight-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.

    (b) (1) No person shall engage in hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor. A person shall be deemed under the influence when at the time of the alleged offense the person (A) is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) has an elevated blood alcohol content. For the purposes of this subdivision, "elevated blood alcohol content" means (i) a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is [ten-hundredths] eight-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight, or (ii) if such person has been convicted of a violation of this subsection, a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is seven-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight. A person shall be deemed impaired when at the time of the alleged offense the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person was more than seven-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, by weight, but less than [ten-hundredths] eight-hundredths of one per cent of alcohol, by weight.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Aw heck! Why stop there? Why not just make it .01? Then we'd really be safer right? I sat here today to read both versions and almost missed it. Incrementalism at its best. I have to agree with the original post. As it is now it doesn't seem to take much to get your permit pulled, only to have to go through the agony of dealing with the state to get it back, which in most cases you will. At this rate a Benedryl could get you in trouble. It clearly states on the bottle, "may cause drowsiness."
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams

    "Here sir, the people govern." -- Alexander Hamilton (speech in the New York ratifying convention, 17 June 1788) Reference: The Debates of the Several State..., Elliot, vol. 2 (348)

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by LQM View Post
    Aw heck! Why stop there? Why not just make it .01? Then we'd really be safer right? I sat here today to read both versions and almost missed it. Incrementalism at its best. I have to agree with the original post. As it is now it doesn't seem to take much to get your permit pulled, only to have to go through the agony of dealing with the state to get it back, which in most cases you will. At this rate a Benedryl could get you in trouble. It clearly states on the bottle, "may cause drowsiness."
    Precisely. We lost the rights we once had to incremental erosion, and the DESPP need to learn that it needs to stop.
    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
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Why on earth would you support any further restrictions on our rights to carry a tool for defense?

    +1 big time. Its just a small adjustment, but its only a couple more increments before drinking at all is verboten and then just a little more to say no carry in a bar, a little more to no carry anyplace that sells alcohol. I'd like to see statistics showing that permit holders actually cause trouble while drinking & carrying. If it was an issue I think we'd hear about it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    I'd like to see statistics showing that permit holders actually cause trouble while drinking & carrying. If it was an issue I think we'd hear about it.
    Me as well, but even if they produced it (which they cannot and will not), I would be against this since a couple stupid actions by a couple stupid people should have no bearing on our rights.
    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

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Me as well, but even if they produced it (which they cannot and will not), I would be against this since a couple stupid actions by a couple stupid people should have no bearing on our rights.
    All it takes is one for these libitards to start suggesting legislation ...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Manchester, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    22
    Yep, I agree with the masses here. .08 won't be the end of it. No further infringements of our right to bear arms. Not even a little percentile here or there. Just remember folks, the fact that a pistol permit process exists is a blatant disregard to your right as a citizen. Let's not back down on this or any other issue.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem Oregon
    Posts
    19
    Pay close attention to what the new proposed law says, "or any drug". Ever take an allergy pill or other legal meds that warn not to operate machinery?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Naugatuck CT
    Posts
    90
    So what is changing just the stuff in []?

    I always thought it was weird that driving was .08 and guns were .10 figure it was a left over when driving used to be .10
    I figure someone would eventually see it and want to change it. Surprised it took this long.
    At least CT you have some freedom, most states are zero.

    I can understand why they wouldn't want 2 different sobriety test.

    My biggest problem with % alcohol law is how do you know what your level is it is just a guess it is like having speed limits but no one has a speedometer.
    You know when you are really speeding but you cannot tell when you are close.

    I carry this blood alcohol chart in my wallet.
    http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/topic...art-041205.pdf

    But what is a regular beer.
    And it doesn't say anywhere how fast your body processes the alcohol I remember hearing you body can process 1 drink per hour. Anyone know if that is correct.



    I'm against taking away any of our gun rights but I can see this one being a tough battle, other than if it isn't broke don't fix it.


    Slow reaction isn't going to cause an accident with a gun, it is not like driving where you always have to pay attention.

    When driving any delay in reaction can kill a whole family or more.
    With a gun you need to first intend to pull it before it can become dangerous and then at most an accident may kill 1 person.
    There is a difference.

  23. #23
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by willigun View Post
    Pay close attention to what the new proposed law says, "or any drug". Ever take an allergy pill or other legal meds that warn not to operate machinery?
    That's exactly what the current statute says now, no change there. Only change is the BAC level.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I can drink 100 beers .. it does not make me crazy and go out shooting up my town...I do that w/o drinking lol

    And that chart 4 beers and I'm dui ? How is a guy supposed to have any fun

  25. #25
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    SB 64 is not yet dead.

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/PSdata/ca...01100PS-CA.htm

    It will be heard in the committee meeting today. Write the public safety committee and urge them to stop this bill.

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

    Two main issues:

    - The BAC is being lowered for no reason. There is no good to come of this.
    - The bill gives the SPBI 60 days to complete background checks for Eligibility Certificates. It is only a matter of time before this becomes the rule for pistol permits. Background checks should be instant or inside of the FBI-promised 48 hours. We should strive for instant.

    Connecticut Carry's email (pdf):
    http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download...5-5cac065d4e77

    More info on this sessions legislation:
    http://ctcarry.com/Legislative/Session
    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

Posting Permissions

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