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/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB-64

just buy your guns at a gun show ... problem solved.

Rich B said:

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]

Click to expand...

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.

I trust a business somewhat more than some random joe-shmoe with my personal information.

brk913 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would you support any further restrictions on our rights to carry a tool for defense?

RCZJ said:

I trust a business somewhat more than some random joe-shmoe with my personal information.

Click to expand...

Over not supplying it in the first place?

brk913 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rich B said:

Why on earth would you support any further restrictions on our rights to carry a tool for defense?

Click to expand...

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/slfu/firearms/dps-3-c.pdf

brk913 said:

I don't, I guess I just don't see a further restriction here

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

JohnO said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Rich B said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Sb 64

Rich B said:

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."

Click to expand...

LQM said:

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."

Click to expand...

Precisely. We lost the rights we once had to incremental erosion, and the DESPP need to learn that it needs to stop.

Rich B said:

Why on earth would you support any further restrictions on our rights to carry a tool for defense?

Click to expand...

+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.

Leverdude said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rich B said:

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.

Click to expand...

All it takes is one for these libitards to start suggesting legislation ...

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.