Connecticut high capacity magazine ban

Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
202
Likes
10
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
The "concept" was approved for debate at the PS&S Public hearing this week..It would need to pass them and pass Judiciary before going to house/senate floor......PS - The Votes are not there..not even close....A bill has not even been formed...
 
They had to just have that up there for what happened in Arizona I'm sure all states will have it up for an idea they can of have to. But like you said there will be no votes really no way ,not any time soon it will be even close to be put in motion if it ever is I'm sur 95% of all those topics were just that topics for a quick debate..
 
Was anyone one else there or here that this got really nowere. The more people I here from is better to assure us this this won't happen.
 
Anymore updates on this high mag. deal chim in if they here anything new after feb.10.. thx's I have been buying up 30rnd. pmags all day today at 3 different gun stores..
 
Just after the Tuscon shooting, one of the new Governor's pals said to the press "Wouldn't of happened here in CT because he would have been filtered out in the permit process." Doesn't sound like an administration that wants to start off by enraging gun-buying voters.
 
Here is the bill that we never thought would make it! We have to beat this one!!

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/s/pdf/2011SB-01094-R00-SB.pdf

AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
1 Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) As used in this section,
2 "large capacity magazine" means any detachable ammunition feeding
3 device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of
4 ammunition, but does not include: (1) A feeding device that has been
5 permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten
6 rounds, (2) a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, or (3) a
7 tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.
8 (b) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be
9 guilty of a class D felony.
10 (c) Any person who (1) prior to the effective date of this section,
11 lawfully possessed a large capacity magazine, and (2) not later than
12 ninety days after the effective date of this section, removes such
13 magazine from this state or surrenders such magazine to an organized
14 local police department or the Department of Public Safety for
15 destruction, shall not be subject to prosecution for a violation of
16 subsection (b) of this section.
Raised Bill No. 1094
LCO No. 3773 {D:\Conversion\Tob\s\2011SB-01094-R00-SB.doc } 2 of 2
17 (d) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to
18 the possession of a large capacity magazine by:
19 (1) Members or employees of organized local police departments,
20 the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Correction or the
21 military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in
22 the discharge of their official duties;
23 (2) A person, corporation or other entity that manufactures large
24 capacity magazines for persons specified in subdivision (1) of this
25 subsection or for export in accordance with federal regulations;
26 (3) Any person engaged in the business of selling or transferring
27 large capacity magazines in accordance with state and federal
28 regulations who possesses such magazines solely for the purpose of
29 such sale or transfer; or
30 (4) A gunsmith who possesses such large capacity magazine for the
31 purpose of maintenance, repair or modification.
This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following
sections:
Section 1 July 1, 2011 New section
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit the possession of certain ammunition feeding devices that
accept more than ten rounds.
[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline,
except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is
not underlined.]
 
so that means all my 30rd mags that i spent all that money on is worthless and need to hand in if this goes through..this will prob go through to...
 
There seems to be an issue of unlawful taking here. They're not going to compensate people for the loss of their valuable property?

BTW - according to the Brady Campaign we now call these 'assault clips'.
 
Yea I think what he posted up there is and idea they have to talk about and prob. wont go through I backgroun see no reason cause there only agrument is what happend in arizona but he would of never got a gun cause of his big psycological background that they run here in ct for a ct permit but in arizona anyone can walk in a store and buy one.. So will see this prob is nothing ever once in a while they do something ike this and it never goes through so wait and see i guess
 
I just verifed this and if it does go through we have to surander all magizines over 10 rnd's. no matter when we got them this is soo real we have to come together on this to stop it if theres a time we need to send email's to them and do what we can this is the time plz all of you do what you can here's the link.. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6340
 
I sent some emails..made some calls...At the moment it seems it just going to get a hearing...the votes are not there...that could change..but I doubt this is going anywhere..
 
Well I hope your right I really do.. I guess if I think its going to go through and its in my head if it does I wont be shocked and if it doesnt ill be happy so playing mind games with my self..lol..
 
There seems to be an issue of unlawful taking here. They're not going to compensate people for the loss of their valuable property?

BTW - according to the Brady Campaign we now call these 'assault clips'.

"Big bullet blasting boxes" is a new term they're using as well. No joke.
 
Proposed high-cap magazine ban

Lawful gun owners cannot be complacent on this. We can't say "it won't go through". We need to politely make our opinions known to legislators on the committee. They need to understand that this is just another "feel good" bill that can be touted to uninformed people as being anti-crime. When writing to legislators, please be respectful. Thank you. Jeff Crown CTGunLawyer.com



Yea I think what he posted up there is and idea they have to talk about and prob. wont go through I backgroun see no reason cause there only agrument is what happend in arizona but he would of never got a gun cause of his big psycological background that they run here in ct for a ct permit but in arizona anyone can walk in a store and buy one.. So will see this prob is nothing ever once in a while they do something ike this and it never goes through so wait and see i guess
 
I have just finished emailing every member of the Joint Judiciary Committee. Here is a link to the list:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=JUD

This is what I sent them:

Subject: Connecticut "Large Capacity" Magazine Bill S.B. 1094

Dear “Senator” or “Representative” _____________,

I respectfully urge you to oppose SB 1094 and any legislation that forces law-abiding citizens to surrender their property based upon the actions of criminals who will not abide by this proposed law.

Sincerely,

Stephen King
Address
City, State Zip
Telephone Number

We all need to step up to the plate and take the time to voice our opinion. Not one of us can afford to sit on the fence. Please, make your voices heard and spread the word.
 
I wonder if the "guns in common use" argument could be waged here, somehow. After all, normal mags are "in common use" in CT, and have been since the Federal AWB expired, and 10 years before that, as well.

-Mike
 
Here is what I know based on the below article:

http://radioviceonline.com/connecticut-legislator-proposes-ex-post-facto-law-for-gun-magazine-capacity-limit/

Based on the US Constitution, the law on it's face is unlawful.

If passed it will lose in the US Supreme Court. If it gets passed, the State will have a very expensive fight on its hands, and during a fiscal crisis, this isn't wise law making. I voiced that opinion to my Rep, Senator, and the Senator who introduced it (Sen. Looney).

Just out of curiosity, LEO's are exempt in the "discharge of their official duties." If they carry their issued weapon off duty, and it holds more than 10 rounds, since they aren't in their "official duty" anymore, are they too guilty of a Class D Felony? Will they arrest themselves?

This bill isn't well thought out, but this is CT. Nothing is well thought out here.
 
Here is what I know based on the below article:

http://radioviceonline.com/connectic...apacity-limit/

Based on the US Constitution, the law on it's face is unlawful.

IANAL, but I believe the argument given at the link is wrong. The ex post facto clause does not apply because the hapless magazine owner would not be punished for having the magazine the past, but for not turning in in the present.

The stronger Constitutional argument is that the ban runs contrary to the Heller decision.

As written, it seems to be an uncompensated taking of property, which is problematic, but which might squeak by since, in theory, they could be sold or moved out of state if done quickly.

A strong political reason to oppose the ban is that it would cost money which the state doesn't have. If you are democrat, you would also worry that it would cost seats in the next election.
 
IANAL, but I believe the argument given at the link is wrong. The ex post facto clause does not apply because the hapless magazine owner would not be punished for having the magazine the past, but for not turning in in the present.

The stronger Constitutional argument is that the ban runs contrary to the Heller decision.

As written, it seems to be an uncompensated taking of property, which is problematic, but which might squeak by since, in theory, they could be sold or moved out of state if done quickly.

A strong political reason to oppose the ban is that it would cost money which the state doesn't have. If you are democrat, you would also worry that it would cost seats in the next election.

Agreed. I wrote my senator and rep regarding the very high cost to defend against the myriad of suits that will be filed against the constitutionality of this bill.
 
I got this from a fellow gun owner, and was aked to pass it on. This is started to look bad for all of us.

Mark. Forwarding on to you. Can you distribute on any of your local forums like northeast and CT gun talk? This is not looking good and we need more people to write. I'm going to do some rounds with the gun shops to make sure they get the word out.

From: "Michael D'Angelo"
Date: Mar 4, 2011 9:18 AM
Subject: FW: Glock mags have jumped $9 in price. Currently selling for $27 @ Natchess and they are back ordered with a 10 mag limit.
To:


Below is from a friend. Keep calling people!

Mike D.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 19:51:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Glock mags have jumped $9 in price. Currently selling for $27 @ Natchess and they are back ordered with a 10 mag limit.


Update: Attorney Rich Kassack was talking to one of the Legislators today and he said this bill is beginning to grow feet (meaning many people are in favor of it) He said the gun guys better oppose this and have their voice be heard or else we will all be f***ed. Pass it on.

These are all the e-mail addresses: All you need is one letter and paste the addresses into the TO: column

[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
David Labriola <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
Representative David Labriola <[email protected]>


Dear Representatives:

After being made aware of, and reading, Senate Bill 1094 - An Act Banning Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines, I strongly oppose this bill. I find no substantive benefit in this bill that would make anyone safer. Furthermore it would, in effect, turn law-abiding citizens into felons overnight. This act does not not punish anyone for committing a crime, but rather punishes people for owning a certain object that in and of itself is no more or less dangerous than a magazine of a somewhat lesser capacity. I am all for creating and, more importantly, enforcing laws that punish crimes that result in a safer society. This act does not accomplish that; it makes criminals out of ordinary people with a hobby that some people find offensive. Please oppose this bill and support your law-abiding constituents, Thank You.

Fraternally yours,
 
So when will there be a vote for this Bill is there a set date for the vote and after the vote if it doesnt go through when can they vote again or is ti done for a few years or how does that work.
 
There has not even been a public hearing scheduled for this bill yet...still a long way from being voted on in Committee...then if passed it would go to House prob..then Senate..then Gov...
 
Last edited:
We all need to show up to this public hearing with well thought out constructive criticism on this bill. With issues like it will cost the state millions of dollars , It will take our votes away from you in your next election , and the law really won't stop someone from commiting a crime if they have there mind set into comiting it. Cause I'm sure there are many of us out there that have issues but aren't good at debating them and being very critical to them .And thats the last thing we need to do is threatin or insult them and get them mad. So people who are lawyers and are good at this we need you to step up ans sort of take the lead on this fight and do the talking so in other words we don't put our foot in our mouths..
 
Some good news....A bill removing "Selective Fire" from the CT Definition of "Assault Weapon" was voted out of committee today to the house floor...

What else does it say? What is the point? I don't see that it has anything to do with the common run of semi-auto rifles that the AWB is all about. More likely, it's to keep the CT AWB separate from the Federal Laws concerning full auto weapons, so that if the Feds say you can have an M-16, then the state won't get in your way.
 
Back
Top Bottom