• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Connecticutt to make having magazines illegal and a felony

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
Newer issue of Guns and Ammo - after a certain date, if it passes, having a10+ mag is a felony and citizens must turn them in.

If there's interest I'll go pull the issue and quote it and the HR number.

This is frightening. A couple of my HGs don't have low cap mags. Many people have got $500 worth of mags, or double that. I don't know of even well-off people who can just give up $1000 worth of gear.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
http://www.nssfblog.com/connecticut...sday-bill-sponsor-calls-gun-owners-criminals/

HB1094 if it passes...
If this bill passes, law-abiding gun owners will have to begin surrendering their magazines by July, or face confiscation by the state police and a felony charge. Again, this proposal would not only ban the sale of these magazines, but would make simple possession a felony. Any gun owner (including off-duty police officers) found in possession of any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will be in violation of this proposed law, regardless of whether it was legally purchased.
 

abechira

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
23
Location
Los Angeles County
Didn't they read the current FBI stats on high capacity mags and how there is no effect either way, good or bad to have such magazines?

Or is this some propaganda perpetrated by those who want to get rid of all firearms and live in a utopia that only exists in their delusional minds?:eek:
 

Mjodr

New member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
4
Location
Lakeland, Florida, United States
I'm confused.. what if a gun only has 10+ mags.

Does that mean something like the Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm Full Size High Capacity Pistol or the MAB Modele PA-15 High Capacity 9mm Pistol is now illegal? Or do guns like that allow lower capacity mags?

Yes, I am new to firearms.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I'm confused.. what if a gun only has 10+ mags.

Does that mean something like the Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm Full Size High Capacity Pistol or the MAB Modele PA-15 High Capacity 9mm Pistol is now illegal? Or do guns like that allow lower capacity mags?

Yes, I am new to firearms.

Many popular guns have 10-round magazines available, due to California's 10-round magazine limit. You can check the CA DOJ Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale to get an idea what's legal for sale in California. Anything on that list has been submitted by the manufacturer, so pretty much everything on that list has OEM-supplied 10-round (or less) mags.

It's worth noting that even California didn't go this far; in CA, it remains legal to possess standard-capacity magazines. It simply became illegal to sell or transfer magazines of greater than 10 rounds after a certain date.
 

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
Hey, Isn't there something in the Constitution about being deprived of property without due process and compensation? So the State of Conn. would be obligated to pay for those magazines at fair market value.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Hey, Isn't there something in the Constitution about being deprived of property without due process and compensation? So the State of Conn. would be obligated to pay for those magazines at fair market value.

Tell that to the folks in New London, Connecticut. The supreme court really screwed this up and only served to prove what Jefferson worried so much about. That the real means to do evil would rest in that court.

Ya' think one of our most cherished Founders was on to something?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Tell that to the folks in New London, Connecticut. The supreme court really screwed this up and only served to prove what Jefferson worried so much about. That the real means to do evil would rest in that court.

Ya' think one of our most cherished Founders was on to something?

IIRC, that ruling had to do with the authority to take, not compensation for it.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
Though in different parts of the country, the ruling that police can enter your homes, you can't resist and they can take your property without compensation, extended into the future depicts a scenario that is far worse than any 1984 vision that George Orwell gave us, or anything that Minority Report (Tom Cruise/Thought crimes/Philip K. Dick) shows.

We are doomed. :eek:

PS - who wants to go out in a blaze of glory? :p

COMMENT FROM ADMINISTRATOR: I know this was in jest but ... NO ONE on OpenCarry.org should want to go out in a blaze of glory. What WE want is to pass on countless legislative and judicial victories to our children and grandchildren while living long and free lives. Anyone who doesn't want this has found the wrong forum!
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
IIRC, that ruling had to do with the authority to take, not compensation for it.

Yep, and my point exactly as it pertains to the Bill of Rights and the supreme court, specifically the Fifth Amendment for this discussion. Over the years we have seen what perversions have emanated from that bench in all manner of decisions involving our civil rights. New London was a horrible perversion of the Fifth Amendment as would the confiscation of any property from individuals without due process or just compensation.
 
Last edited:

~*'Phoenix'*~

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
538
Location
Florida
This sounds in violation of AT LEAST 2nd and 4th amendments, and would be wholly unenforcable, legally. Any attempt to enforce should be destroyed in court.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
This sounds in violation of AT LEAST 2nd and 4th amendments, and would be wholly unenforcable, legally. Any attempt to enforce should be destroyed in court.

I would hope there are enough grass-roots clubs and organizations that someone would do a test case and pay lawyers and win big settlements and get stuff like that struck. It's such a slippery slope that it just can't stand. Even antis might get behind it if they are helped to understand the erosion it would cause and how cops and politicians could exploit it to create a two-tiered system where only rich people can bear arms, hire body guards and defend themselves. It's like Soylent Green, almost, in its oppressiveness.
 
Last edited:

hobie16

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
34
Location
Norwich, CT
never made it through

Hey guys- this proposal never even made it to vote in the judiciary committee. I believve it died apr 15. Tons of us emailed our reps in ct telling them this would not save lives and would only be followed by law abiding citizens. Over 200 showed up to testifyy against it and I believe about 5 people testified for it.. it would have been horrible if it passed. We just hope they are smart enough not to try this again.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Yep, and my point exactly as it pertains to the Bill of Rights and the supreme court, specifically the Fifth Amendment for this discussion. Over the years we have seen what perversions have emanated from that bench in all manner of decisions involving our civil rights. New London was a horrible perversion of the Fifth Amendment as would the confiscation of any property from individuals without due cause or just compensation.

And the New London decision, as much as you don't like it, has nothing really to do with this case. You are better than some of the harpers here, who have pet issues and try to tie them to every post, no matter how unrelated.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
And the New London decision, as much as you don't like it, has nothing really to do with this case. You are better than some of the harpers here, who have pet issues and try to tie them to every post, no matter how unrelated.

Actually, you should (not) talk. People with pet issues can be trolled - you've done that, right?

People with pet issues that involve anger management, impulse control and wish to harm others in pursuit of their happiness (anti-cyclists), 'fake' LEOs posting crap...they all help one exercise one's sleuthing skills and their debating skills. I can see why some people fail the 'internal logic' test. I can see why some OC-ers get arrested/detained more than others (though 90% of the time it's a testosterone poisoned LEO that starts it).

Me, I prefer to be honest and open, and maybe, sometimes I talk a lot.

You can't even get your gripe right - 'you're (NO) better than...'.

Sheesh. At least add something that isn't hypocritical and that is instructive like you used to do.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I said he is "better than...," and I meant precisely that. Please do not assume that I mean anything other than exactly what I post.

If you wonder if I meant something different than plain reading renders, feel free to ask what I meant. That would "be honest and open." 999 times out of a 1000, I will tell you that I meant what I posted. Typos that change meaning by 180 degrees are rare.

If you claim to "prefer to be honest and open," please post in such a manner. Thank you.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Didn't they read the current FBI stats on high capacity mags and how there is no effect either way, good or bad to have such magazines?

Idiots who propose laws like this are either illiterate or unable to make sense of reality such as found in FBI stats.

Or is this some propaganda perpetrated by those who want to get rid of all firearms and live in a utopia that only exists in their delusional minds?:eek:

Let's see... I mentioned "idiotic" and "illiterate." Thanks for reminding me of the third leg of the triad supporting these lotus blossom politics.


Hey guys- this proposal never even made it to vote in the judiciary committee. ... Over 200 showed up to testifyy against it and I believe about 5 people testified for it.

That's the way to do it! Hooray for the 200!
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Badger Johnson said:
Even antis might get behind it if they are helped to understand the erosion it would cause
But they think it won't happen to them.
They think that only guns are evil, so of course the gov't has cause to control their use.
(And by regulating them, that will stop criminals from having or using them.)
Why would anyone want to control someone's speech, or the content of a newspaper?
Or put obstacles in the way of someone voting?
And of course gov't agents will always have a warrant before entering your home, won't they?
So they see no slippery slope w/ potential erosion of other rights.
 
Top