CT: 50% Ammo Tax, No Internet Ammo Sales, Mag Cap Limits, New AWB Ban

Connecticut has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the United States. None of them stopped Adam Lanza from carrying out his heinous crime. That simple fact hasn’t so much as slowed the gun control industry’s relentless campaign to restrict law-abiding Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. In the aftermath of the slaughter, Nutmeg State legislators have wasted no time falling in line with the antis’ agenda. “Less than a week after the atrocity at Sandy Hook, a detailed and extensive package of proposed changes in gun laws has already been announced at the State Capitol,” wtnh.com reports . . .

The proposal would immediately expand the definition of Assault Weapon under current state law to apply to firearms which show one particular physical trait, as opposed to two, like the presence of a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon.

And despite the fact that there are perhaps thousands of legal handguns in the state with a greater than 10 cartridge magazine capacity, this proposal would prohibit the sale and possession of any magazine with a capacity of over 10.

The proposal would also call for a 50 percent sales tax on all ammunition, permits would be required to purchase ammunition, and the online purchase of ammunition would be prohibited.

My constituents have been screaming to do something…now.” [the proposals' author State Senator Beth] Bye said.

When the mob howls, politicians listen. Thankfully, the framers of the Constitution had that one sussed. Still, look for these measures to sail through; a template for federal action. [h/t Patrick Devine]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

95 Responses to CT: 5095 Ammo Tax, No Internet Ammo Sales, Mag Cap Limits, New AWB Ban

  1. avatarThomas Paine says:

    And despite the fact that there are perhaps thousands of legal handguns in the state with a greater than 10 cartridge magazine capacity, this proposal would prohibit the sale and possession of any magazine with a capacity of over 10.

    WTF!?

    • avatarRabbi says:

      I just sent this note to her at Bye@senatedems.ct.gov:

      Sen. Bye,

      I love the idea of making our community safer. Please explain to me how a firearm with a “pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon” or any “physical trait” makes one firearm more dangerous than one without such features.

      Also, how do you plan to “prohibit possession of any magazine with a capacity of over 10″, which would, without grandfathering, be illegal under 5th amendment?

      Had the same murderer rammed a stolen car into a playground of children, would you be calling for a ban on automobiles?

    • avatarsancahnim says:

      I know huh! There is so much we haven’t been able to read yet, this legislation could be a death blow if passed. I don’t know about you but I am not one to wan to pass the bill to see what is in it.

      • avatarRabbi says:

        We HAVE to pass it to know what’s in it!

        Remember, the same people that support the idiot that said those words will decide our future.

        • avatarsancahnim says:

          Unfortunately I know this all to well!!!!
          There is legislation being thrown together in Colorado, California, and I am sure other states. We are focused on what the federal government is doing but we should not loose site of our states either.

  2. avatarMatt b says:

    Prohibition of possession of mags greater than 10 rounds without grandfathering is illegal under 5th amendment ex post facto laws.

    • avatarMatt H says:

      Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 – “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress

      • avatarTRUTHY says:

        I read the ex post facto, and came up with a loophole they could use. I am, of course, not dumb enough to post it where they could read it.

        • avatarSammy says:

          And according to (what’s left of ) the Constitution the congress is obligated to pass a budget every year. Something that has not happened in 5 years.

    • avatarJR says:

      Not how it works. If they were to charge you next year after a (likely) ban is enacted for possessing mags in a period of time before they became illegal, say 2010, that would be ex post facto.

      They can ban them then make posession illegal from a certain point forward, like it or not.

      • avatarMatt H says:

        Yes, I was more adding that it wasn’t the 5th amendment as stated. Ex post facto laws are addressed in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 applies to the federal government, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 applies to the states.

        If they ban possession of high capacity magazines, I expect it to survive challenges in SCOTUS, if it even made it that far. No telling what side Robert stands on anymore, and Obama will probably add one or two Justices to the Court by the time his second term ends. These are sad times, indeed.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Aww, how cute. Someone who thinks the Constitution still applies to the US.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Matt b and Matt H, you two must have gone to some very sh!tty law schools. What? You’re not lawyers? Wow, I never would have guessed.

      • avatarMatt H says:

        You’re right, sorry for trying to contribute to the conversation and add some links for people to read.

        Now isn’t the time to strike out at one another. We are on the same side.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve spent quite a lot of time around them.

          Don’t take it personally. What Ralph (a lawyer, BTW) was suggesting was that your should be cautious about interpreting the law, especially stuff like this, and then sharing that interpretation with other people.

          We have enough lawyers ’round these parts to make it worthwhile to phrase these posts as a question rather than a statement, and ask them to confirm your understanding. That way, no misinformation gets spread and we all get a little more educated.

      • avatarG.R. Mead says:

        I R a Lawyer. Got all my teeth, too.
        The “militia” component of the 2d amendment is about to come to the fore. U.S. v. Miller held that a weapon protected under the Second Amendment must bear “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, ” implying that, if so “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. ”
        The Militia — has three functions — two military and one civil — “to execute the laws of the Union.” (Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 15). If you read Federalist 29, you find that Hamilton anticipated the formation of “select corps” of militia, in addition to the militia composed of the body of the people armed. “The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia,…”

        We now call those “select corps” of militia whose duty is “to execute the laws” — police, or generically, “law enforcement.”

        The Congress has the sole power (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 16)”To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

        Thus, to the extent that any rule governing the arms proper to militia at large must be applicable likewise to the “select corps.” It IS within the powers of Congress to prescribe the arming of militia — but that would apply equally to all law enforcement – both State and Federal. Any discrimination in favor of select corps and agaisnt the people generally would be challengeable under the 2d Amendment, under the 5th amendment equal protection (particularly as to effectiveness for self-defense), substantive due process and likely also the privileges and immunities clause (which has an even better basis for argument here than Gura made in Heller,.)

        A State could very likely challenge such discrimination under both the 2d and the 10th Amendments — because limiting arms in that way impairs the security of a state by limiting civilian arms at its disposal for law enforcement under posse comitatus powers (to deputize people = “call forth the militia”) to enforce the law or defend the state from lawlessness. The Southern borders of Texas Arizona New Mexico and California are the exact case in point.

        The legal battle is mapped out and is ready to be joined.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I like your reasoning. First time I’ve heard this particular legal theory, and it’s an interesting approach. Perhaps a little too reliant on Constitutional esoterica, but it wouldn’t be the first time a huge issue had been settled with such.

        • avatarJAS says:

          The NFA of 1934 was “intended” to be interpreted as a Tax (“Revenue Collecting Measure”), so claimed the U.S. Government. This is the same tactic that was used in the recent Obamacare case.

          Can the Government really circumvent our rights by calling every law they pass a Tax?

      • avatarMatt b says:

        There should have been an “and” separating ex post facto and 5th amendment, since (to my understanding) the 5th amendment requires just compensation for seizure, if they couldn’t afford a compulsory buy back, they couldn’t charge you

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      Does this mean they would go to your house and take your handguns with a mag holding 10 or more rounds? with a 50% tax on ammo, if you would normally pay$20 for a box you will now have to pay $40? (don’t think i am mathematically challenged. just baffled and confused.)

  3. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    Stupid politicians dont realize how creative engineers are. I remind you of the infamous California bullet button. Swap out stocks. Nine round mags. Mags ganged together with contraptions that make a swap easy and fast. Plus massive ammo sales prior to the law going into effect.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Don’t forget that CT is a relatively tiny state, and some bright boy is going to set up an ammo dealership 5 miles across the border next to an interstate highway.

      • avatarAnon in CT says:

        In NY? Uh huh.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          Rhode Island.

          While it’s still New England, the gun laws aren’t nearly as derpy as NY or MA.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          ~3.5 hours from Hartford CT to Scranton PA. I checked on Google Maps before I posted my comment, just to be sure.

          To put that in perspective, it takes me at least 4 hours to get to the nearest Nevada border from where I live, yet I do it several times per year when we go skiing. (And, um, shopping at the Cabela’s just over the border…)

        • avatarMatt says:

          only 1.5 hours from hartford CT to brattleboro VT

        • avatarBrian says:

          Was that sarcasm? While NYC might have strict laws, it’s a small part of the state. CTers already come across the border for beer, no reason why they wouldn’t do it for ammo

      • avatarAnon in CT says:

        Fine, add importation of ammo to thevstate to the list of newly banned things.

        See, that was easy.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          That’s very likely to be interfering with interstate commerce. I also have my doubts about states banning Internet sales of ammo. Would any of the lawyers around here care to let me know if I’m thinking about this the right way?

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that states can’t ban you from importing something that is legal for you to possess in that state.

          As a related example, CA restrictions on >10-round magazines apply to importation because doing so would introduce an illegal item into the state, a large-capacity mag which wasn’t covered by the grandfather clause. If you legally owned such a magazine pre-ban as a CA resident, you can take it out of state and re-import it.

        • Sorry to say, my understanding is that they can ban internet ammo sales if they ban them both in and out of state.

        • avatarAnon in Ct says:

          Ok then, you pass a law that all ammo used in CT has to have a CT tax stamp on it, like NY does with cigs. When the range checks your pistol permit, they are also required to make sure that all the ammo you brought is appropriately stamped.

          Ban transporting more than 500 rounds (or some other number) of any ammo in excess of .22 in a private motor vehicle unless you have HAZMAT placards. So you’ll be able to build your apocalypse stash with imported ammo 500 rounds at a time, but you won’t be able to shoot the stuff.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Connecticut is full of very intelligent engineers. The things that the guys and I could build out of boredom while at the fire station would surprise some people.

      Too bad this damn state forgot its herritage. I guess that wasnt hard since the Colt factory is a damn condominum now.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      its called a MARKET. it will adjust accordingly. M1A’s and mini-14′s anybody?

  4. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Whats with those grabbers,they were ok at the dance last night. Alright, thats an old one. This is their moment in the sun, do or die. I think they are losing steam. They say they have to move fast on the bans, yeah, before 10 million AR’s are sold, Randy

  5. People will in CT will drive to PA to buy ammo.

  6. avatarIn Memphis says:

    Dear Comunistecut,

    Thanks for giving this native even more pride for moving out of state! Thanks for giving me one more reason to never be homesick.

    The inly things I will miss is running from my apartment in New London down to Ocean Beach State Park and checking out all the Mitchell College Co-Eds on the way. I will also miss watching the Submarines leaving port and returning while making thoes runs.

    Otherwise, good riddance.

    -Me

    Oh I do miss driving to Providence, RI to eat at Fire and Ice but that has nothing to do with you.

  7. avatarTotenglocke says:

    Now when the predictable crime increase happens, they’ll still blame inanimate objects and push for even MORE bans.

    • avatarAPBTFan says:

      It’s a never ending circle for them. Gun bans intrinsically don’t work so then they want even more bans which don’t work so they want more bans which don’t work so they want more bans which don’t work……..

      • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

        I wonder if we could get an Amendment added to the Constitution to make redundancy in lawmaking illegal??!!
        Just a thought!!

  8. Yikes. I live in CT…The “Constitution State.”
    Guess we gun owners will have to change that to “Worse than New Jersey”.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Holy shit.

      We are fvcked.

      Query for NY NJ folks – when reg cp mags were banned there, were existing ones grandfathered?

  9. avatarChristopher Goodwin says:

    Obviously those of us who live in state will have to fight this, but I’m strongly considering a move to the Lone Star state.

  10. avatarJon says:

    Would a law like this (particularly the part about requiring a license to buy ammunition) really survive a legal challenge? It was decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states. It seems that a law like this would make it unreasonably difficult to exercise that right.

    • avatarRalph says:

      In MA, I have to show my license (or FID for riflemen) to buy ammo. Not some special license, just the firearms license that I already have. I think (hope) that’s what the CT a$$h0le was talking about.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        There is a proposal to ne making the rounds in California soon that will have similar effect. I a, assuming that a “handgun safety certificate” (required for the purchase of handguns) or a CCW will suffice, but the part that grinds is they want to tack on an annual NICS background check on renewal of your license. They also want to ban internet sales (face to face sales only with a license). Never have figured out why they want to do that; me thinks they think they will then be able to limit the types of ammunition you can buy (read: no hollow points for sale.) Another idiot has proposed banning “military type” and hollow point ammo; I haven’t figured out yet if he knows that the only thing left after eliminating FMJ and JHP will be wad cutters. Nor have I figured out how an internet sales ban passes constitutional muster under the commerce clause. Then of course we still have Senator Yee and his bullet button ban–promised to be even broader than the one that failed last year. And this was all before Sandy Hook threw gas on the fire of their ambitions.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          My sincerest holiday wish is for a major news outlet to run leaked photos of Leland Yee with a dead hooker or a live boy.

  11. avatarRepubAnon says:

    Let’s get real: firearms regulations are like fireworks regulations – someone will drive over to the spot where the regulations are lax, and bring back stuff for themselves and their friends. (Ohio has high alcohol taxes – lots of people drive over to Kentucky, stock up, and drive back.)

    Firearms are dangerous (that’s the purpose, after all). Societies regulate items that pose a danger to the community when improperly used. We therefore need firearms regulations to help ensure that the folks possessing these weapons have the necessary skills and training in their safe use and storage.

    Notice how few criminals use hand grenades and fully-automatic weapons? This is because they are heavily regulated and hard to obtain. Not that people can’t or don’t make their own – but the regulations make it difficult to do so.

    Australia passed laws making it very difficult to legally own high-capacity magazines and certain types of assault rifles. Apparently, it worked:

    The results are hard to argue with. According to a Harvard University study, 13 gun massacres (in which four or more people died) occurred in the 18 years before the law was enacted. In the 16 years since there has been none. Zero.

    The overall firearm homicide rate dropped from 0.43 per 100,000 in the seven years before the law to 0.25 in the seven years after. By 2009, the rate had dropped further, to just 0.1 per 100,000, or one per million.

    • avatarSammy says:

      I’m sick and tired of hearing about other places. This gun confiscation is a prep for far more nefarious plans the NWO has for the US. Just because these other countries’ citizens bowed to the collectivists is no reason we should. While yor checking stats check their home invasion rates and violent crime stats.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      right and its hilarious that you ignore the rate of assaults, robberies, and rapes.

    • avatarrelliknomlas says:

      Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

      In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
      Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
      Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
      Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

      Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
      During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
      Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
      Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
      At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
      Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

  12. avatarShire-man says:

    Ive never needed reminding of why I left CT years ago.

    I’m sorry for my friends and family who havent yet made it out.

  13. avatarThomas Paine says:

    Seriously though. Does this stop, or even slow down, a crazed lunatic who wants to shoot up a school? Just makes it harder for the law abiding citizen to defend him/herself.

    Even a defacto ban on everything wouldn’t stop a crazed lunatic. Look at Mexico.

    That is the question. Populist governance sucks.

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      You know, the crazed nutbag is always a penny pincher so that 50% tax should deter them. “What!? 45 ACP is now 45 bucks/box instead of 30? Screw this, I’m going to go home & take up knitting”

  14. avatarLance says:

    I agree with many a outright ban would be hard to survive post McDonald Case court scrutiny. This may be a new BIG Court case.

    • avatarKnoxville says:

      Agreed, especially since the court held in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms extends to firearms “in common use”. Given that ARs are the most commonly purchased rifle in the US, and are available at Wal-Mart, that seems like common use to me.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Connecticut WalMarts stopped selling guns including .22′s several years ago.

        But your point still stands.

  15. avatarLarry says:

    Any ban should be flat out ignored. Let’s see their reaction when we don’t turn them in. Then what? Are they ready for the next step? I know I am.

  16. avatarguzzimike says:

    So, if they say a pistol grip BELOW the action makes an “assault weapon” why not put it NEXT TO the action?

    Why not take the whole rifle & turn it upside down with the action BELOW the pistol grip?

    Rotate the pistol grip 90 degrees to the action so they’re both in the same plane. Like a motorcycle grip/throttle?

    I know they all sound simplistic and the ergos probably not very good, and I’m definitely not a firearms engineer, but if they can come up with crazy ideas to ban so can we to circumvent.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Or just buy a PS90. Not only is it in front of the action but its also in line with it too.

      • avatarguzzimike says:

        I had thought about bullpups but all the ones I’ve seen have the grip below the action. Below and forward but still below it in that it’s on a lower plane than the action though I think I see where you’re going with the train of thought.

        Based on the thinking of previous AWB they would look at existing stuff where the grip is directly below the action and think they have a home run, whereas an argument could be made w/bullpup that the pistol grip is below the barrel and not the action and therefore not as evil.

        BTW, anyone know if factory bullpup rifles were banned in the 1994-2004 AWB?

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          “BTW, anyone know if factory bullpup rifles were banned in the 1994-2004 AWB?”

          Not sure about the Clinton ban but when I still lived in CT bullpups were okay. I had interest in them at one point but wasnt sure if they were legal so I emailed the state and said as long as it meets the minimum barrel length.

          Of course that was about 6 years ago.

  17. Illinois/Chicago have had to pay out some hefty legal fees for their ill-advised unconstitutional legislation. The great attorney Alan Gura (born in Tel Aviv no less) is probably already hiring the architect for the new addition to his home, calling his Mercedes dealer to upgrade….

    Thanks to great attorneys who support the 2A (many of them Jewish…you know I have to plug it….) these states will have to pay a price for their “feel good” laws that do nothing but trample on rights and make the public less safe.

    A wise man learns from the errors of others, I guess CT missed the memo on IL’s folly.

    • avatarAnticommunist says:

      Yeah. Dianne Feinstein , Blumenthal, Liberman, Ackerman, Harman, and many more are furious antigun Jews, who want to have Israel in the US. They have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

  18. avatarAharon says:

    Time to learn how to re-load and buy the equipment.

  19. avatarJeffrey R. Frawley, Sr. says:

    All the state and federal governments are doing is making it practical for law abiding citizens to make the leap and become criminals. I never used to even think about doing things that would be considered illegal. But now it looks like the governments will be changing the rules so I won’t have to change anything and soon I will automatically become a criminal. Watch for me in a Post Office near you!

  20. avatarSlappy says:

    I was watching MSNBC earlier (yes it was difficult, but I want to stay on top of what the libtard media is saying) and some douche bag (don’t remember his name) who used to work for Chuckie Schumer was admitting that it will be difficult to pass an AWB at the Federal level. But, he said other methods should be used to “go after” gun owners. One of the suggestions he made was to regulate guns like cars and require gun owners to purchase liability and personal injury insurance for EACH gun we own. His intent would be to make gun ownership so expensive “all these crazies would not be able to afford guns”.

    Seems like CT is trying the same type of tactics with the sin tax on ammunition. Next they will be banning the use of lead. Good thing I hand about 500 pounds of ingots in my basement.

    Seriously thinking about moving to Wyoming or Montana!!

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      So how is gun insurance going to help me (sarcasm) when someone comes into my house in the middle of the night (breaking & entering), knocks me on the head (assault & battery), ties me up (kidnapping?), kills my dogs (property destruction – I would call it murder), proceeds to break into my gun safe (more property damage), steals my gun/guns (theft) and then goes to the local mall and shots the place up (murder)?

      I can see the headlines now… “Irresponsible gun owner responsible for the death of his dogs and untold numbers at local mall”.

      Eyewitness hand wringing… “if that evil man hadn’t had guns his poor dogs would still be alive and the psycho wouldn’t have been lured to his house to steal the guns and come to this mall and commit such horrors”

      Judge/jury… “it’s all your fault… death penalty for you… it’s only right for such an irresponsible gun owning, dog killing, psycho crook enabling bastard!”

    • avatarPascal says:

      Connecticut Constitution Article 1, Section 15 of its Constitution: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state”

      This will be tested along with second amendment. If a citizen has a right, can the state then tax the right if taxing the right would prevent him from exercising that right.

      I am not a lawyer, I am just questioning out loud.

      • avatarAnon in CT says:

        What’s the political makeup of the CT Supreme Court?

        There’s your answer as to what the State Constitution means.

  21. avatarArmedTrooper says:

    Read up – jury nullification. Time to act!

  22. avatardaveR says:

    Careful there. If we go too far down the “bans don’t work” road then the only alternate rout becomes mandatory registration and/or confiscation.

    • avatarPascal says:

      We already have registration in CT. if you are a gun owner and get stopped by the Police they ask “Do you have any weapons in the car?” although there is not suppose to be any database how would they know?. They know where the guns used in the shooting where purchased and the date of purchase. They even know the shooting ranges used by the mother and if the son also attended because you have to sign in with your name and permit number.

      The issue with confiscation is if the government can make something that was once legal illegal and then forcibly take it away. If the answer is yes, they can do it with anything and have unlmited power. Would the courts allow that to happen and would people see this as a slippery slope. Because what is to stop them from making you register violent video games and then confiscating them in name of public safety — or bloomberg from confiscating soda from every restaurant — where does it stop?

      • avatarDavid says:

        Can you choose to ignore that question and just ask why you were pulled over? It seems to me that the question isn’t pertinent to why you were pulled over and could cause you to forfeit your 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. Or could you just ask, “Why does it matter, Officer?” Because it seems to me that if there isn’t supposed to be a database for him to access then he shouldn’t know whether or not you have or own guns. Sometimes an officer will ask to search your vehicle even though he has only pulled you over for a traffic violation. You have every right to say,”No.” Your vehicle can then only be searched if he arrests you. In which case you need to remain silent and lawyer up so you can sue the officer and his department for false arrest. Here are two vids that tell people not to talk to the police. It’s a two part lecture, the first given by a law professor and the second given by a police officer.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

        Best regards.

      • avatardaveR says:

        “The issue with confiscation is if the government can make something that was once legal illegal and then forcibly take it away. ”

        This happened with recreational drugs.

  23. avatarPascal says:

    I live here in CT. I will be here to fight. I support CCDL and Connecticut Carry.

    For sometime, CT has been a reasonable gun state compared to the states it borders. I have started a writing compaign and have in the past taken days off to rally and have participated to support gun friendly politicians. We are organized and even have classes on how to testify in front of the legislature and we have attorneys to help.

    Emotions trump logic and the constant barrage of pictures from the local news station of the childrens funerals serve no purpose but to move the agenda of anti-gun. The falacy is that anything could have stopped what happened. If he was determined enough he could have simply waited for recess and driven over children in the playground or some other awfull thing. The cry is for “something must be done” but sometimes nothing can.

    It will be a battle. We may loose, but I plan to fight it the best that I can.

    Perhaps a little prayer our way if you can spare the time would help because if CT passes some stupid laws, it is only a matter of time for other states to do the same.

  24. The Supreme Court has already said that you can NOT TAX a Right. Especially to control that Right. The NRA will have to deal with Obama first. After they beat him, they can deal with CT.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      And in Arkansas we have extra taxes on smokes and alcohol(sin tax if you want to call it that), and is something I have been fighting for awhile. I go out of state to buy smokes, saving, on average, $12-$15 per carton x 4 cartons per trip = $48-$60 dollars saved.
      Cost’s me on average $8 in gas round trip, stop and eat for $25 so out of saving $60 on cost minus the $33 for food an gas I save $27 per trip, x 40-45 trips per year = $1080 to $1215 per year I save over buying in state. Wear and year on vehicle meh, still going to be traveling a lot of miles per year and I get to somewhat screw the state out of some of their stupider taxes.
      The average cost of a carton where I go out of state is $32 to $34 and in state is $49.50 to $55 a carton.

  25. avatarCA_Chris says:

    They’re preparing to severely infringe our 2nd Amendment Rights just as a massive set of tax hikes and service cuts will be taking place. Coincidence? Meanwhile, the last 11 years have been a disaster for the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    And what are the people doing? Pointing fingers at “liberals” and “conservatives” and each hugging tight to their pet agendas and crusades. Firearms are a right, speech is a right, freedom is a right, liberty is a right, justice is a right.

    • avatardaveR says:

      Agree. Neither “side” in the debate seems particularly committed to defending the BoR. Bush and his cronies may have defended the 2A, but they lead the charge against the 4th amendment.

      All this talk about “liberals” on TTAG is outdated rhetoric that is nothing more than a way of hiding ones head in the sand. Truth is, there’s very little difference between the two parties and if the wind blows against the 2A now, I guarantee that both parties will follow.

  26. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    CT law concerning military style rifles is confusing, is there de facto registration of them or is it at the county level?

    • avatarSteve (CT) says:

      CT has a feature ban & a list of firearms banned by name or type. If one was owned prior to passage of the law in ’93, it was required to register it with the state & it can only be sold to an FFL who then has to sell it out of state. An FFL cannot accept anything defined as an ‘assault weapon’ in the law if it doesn’t come with the state registration.

      There are no county governments in CT anymore.

  27. avatarTheSophist says:

    Dear Colt and Marlin,

    Why the hell are you still in that benighted state?

    Please immediately announce you will be moving lock, stock and barrel to Texas in light of the hostility of Connecticut to your fine products.

  28. avatarAnticommunist says:

    People you don’t understand. This is not about guns, ammo and all other stuff. This is only about your FREEDOM. The gun control is the first step to TOTAL, PERMANENT control. Read “1984″ by G. Orwell and see for yourself. The USA is going to be governed just like Soviet Union. Obama=New Lenin… Only God can save US. God Bless America.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.