BREAKING: Connecticut Gun Ban Bills Revealed

Gun ban (courtesy americablog.com)

Summary of Gun Violence Prevention Provisions

[via wtnh.com]

1.   The bill establishes a first in the nation statewide dangerous weapon offender registry

The bill creates a first in the nation statewide dangerous weapon offender registry (a handful of cities across the country have their own gun offender registries). This has been the top priority of urban mayors and the Police Chiefs Association for the last several years. Under the bill, individuals must register with DESPP if they have been convicted of any of more than 40 enumerated weapons offenses (mostly gun offenses) or another felony that the court makes a finding involved the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon . . .

Individuals must register with DESPP for a total of five years after their release into the community. During that time they must keep their registration address current at all times, and they must check in once per year, on the anniversary of their release, with local law enforcement in the town where they currently reside. Unlike Megan’s List, this registry will not be public. Instead, it will be available to law enforcement only.

2.     The bill requires “universal background checks” for the sale of all firearms immediately, upon passage.

Under current law, private sales of rifles and shotguns are completely unregulated (while the sale of any pistol or revolver or the sale of a rifle or shotgun by a licensed dealer requires a criminal background check). Under the bill, this glaring loophole is immediately closed, and all private long gun sales must be preceded by the buyer passing a national criminal background check.

Immediately upon passage, no pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun can be sold to any Connecticut resident until the buyer undergoes and passes a national criminal background check — whether such sale is private, at a gun show, or through a dealer.

3.     The bill significantly expands the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban.

Currently, Connecticut is one of only a handful of states with a state-level assault weapons ban. Under current law, an “assault weapon” is defined as one of 66 different specified firearms, or any other semiautomatic weapon that contains “two or more” of a list of physical characteristics.

Under the current bill, a) an additional list of more than 100 new specified weapons will be designated as banned assault weapons, in addition to all of the other weapons captured by the “physical characteristics” test. Also, that characteristics test is being amended to add some new banned military-style features, and also to require an assault weapon to have ­only one of the listed features in order to fall under the ban.

Thus, many more weapons – well over a hundred additional models — will now fall under the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban. Therefore, under the bill, effective on passage, they will no longer be allowed to be bought or sold in Connecticut nor imported into the state (with some law enforcement exemptions). Those currently legally possessed will have to be registered with DESPP, and their legal use and transport will be tightly limited.

4.     The bill immediately bans the sale or purchase of large capacity magazines, and imposes extremely stringent restrictions on the use of those currently possessed.

Only 7 states and the District of Columbia have any limits on the legal size or use of ammunition magazines. The definition of those regulated large capacity magazines (“LCMs”), with regard to the threshold capacity, varies. New York recently went down to 7 rounds, but apparently is going to go back up to 10. Maryland is at 20 rounds, and may go down to 10 via a Senate bill currently pending in the House. New Jersey and Colorado are at 15 rounds. California and Hawaii are at 10, but the Hawaii law only applies to handguns.

Under the bill, Connecticut will now join these states. An LCM will be defined as one that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Immediate ban on sale, purchase or importation of LCMs: effective on passage, it will be a class D felony to sell, buy, transfer or import an LCM into the state (other than to turn it in or trade it in to law enforcement or a licensed gun dealer). Going forward, possession of any LCM not possessed as of the effective date will be a class D felony.

LCMs that are currently possessed must be registered with DESPP by January 1, 2014 to remain legal, and even when registered will be subject to extremely strict usage limitations:

·       Possession of such magazines must be declared to DESPP by January 1, 2014. After January 1, 2014, any LCM that has not been the subject of such a declaration cannot be legally possessed under any circumstances (even if it had been possessed before the effective date).

·       Even with regard to such legally declared LCMs, upon passage the bill will immediately impose the following stringent limitations on their use:

o       Except for in an individual’s home or on the premises of a shooting range, an LCM can never be loaded with more than 10 bullets.

o       Even if an individual has a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, they can never carry, other than at a shooting range, a pistol that has an LCM loaded with more than 10 bullets.

o       If an individual with a carry permit has a pistol that they purchased prior to the effective date that accepts an LCM, they can carry the LCM in that pistol, but only loaded with 10 bullets. Moreover, under no circumstances can the LCM in such pistol extend below the pistol grip.

o       If an individual has a pistol purchased after the effective date, an LCM can never be carried with that pistol other than at a shooting range. Instead, the individual must use only a magazine that takes 10 or fewer bullets in any pistol purchased from the effective date forward .

5. The bill requires new state issued eligibility certificates for the purchase of any rifle, shotgun or ammunition.

Long guns: The bill establishes a new revocable state-issued “long gun eligibility certificate”, which will require the applicant to undergo a firearms safety training course, be fingerprinted, and undergo a national criminal background and involuntary commitment /voluntary admission check. Under the bill, as of April 1, 2014, such long gun eligibility certificate will be required to be presented for the purchase of any rifle or shotgun (in addition to the aforementioned now-“universal” criminal background check).

Ammunition: The bill establishes a new revocable state issued “ammunition eligibility certificate”, which will require the applicant to pass a national criminal background check. The bill requires, as of October 1, 2013, that any sale of ammunition or an ammunition magazine to a Connecticut resident be accompanied by the presentation of either a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver, a long gun eligibility certificate, a firearms dealer permit, or a combination of an ammunition eligibility certificate and a state issued photo ID.  Therefore , as of October 1, 2013 there will be no legal sales of ammunition or magazines to any Connecticut resident who has not passed a national criminal background check, and is in good standing with regard to such check (i.e. their state issued certificate has not been revoked).

6.  The bill expands the scope of Connecticut’s firearms safe storage law.

Under current law, the legal duty to securely store a firearm applies only when a person under 16 years of age is likely to gain access to the firearm, The bill significantly expands the scope of that duty, to situations where the firearm owner knows or should know that: 1) any resident of the premises where the firearm is stored is ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law, or 2) that a resident of the premises poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals.

7. The bill significantly increases penalties for many firearms trafficking and illegal possession offenses.

8. The bill expands the membership of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, and expands due process for local authorities in front of the board.

In addition to the current 7 members, the bill adds a mental health professional appointed by the governor but nominated by DMHAS, and a retired Superior Court judge chosen by the Chief Court Administrator. Moreover, the bill allows an issuing authority to receive one continuance for good cause shown.

9.  The bill changes the status, with regard to the legal possession of firearms and permits therefor, of individuals who have been either involuntarily confined in or voluntarily admitted to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495 of the general statutes.

Involuntary committals: under current law, an individual who has been involuntarily committed by order of the Probate Court to such a hospital within the previous 12 months can neither possess a firearm nor receive a permit or eligibility certificate. The bill expands that look back period to 60 months, for those receiving permits or eligibility certificates after the effective date.

Voluntary admissions: current law does not address voluntary admissions. Under the bill, an individual who has been so admitted will not be able to receive a permit or eligibility certificate for 6 months thereafter, nor will they be eligible to possess any firearm for those 6 months following their release from the hospital.

10.  The bill strengthens Connecticut law with regard to firearms in several additional respects.

·       The bill establishes the offense of illegal possession of ammunition, so that an individual who is ineligible to possess a firearm will also now be ineligible to possess any ammunition.

·       The bill requires applicants for a temporary permit to carry a pistol or revolver to apply only in their town of residence (as opposed to also where they work), and further limits such applications to only one per twelve months.

·       The bill establishes a new age limit for the purchase of centerfire semi-automatic rifles (other than banned assault weapons). Under the bill an individual will have to be at least 21 to purchase such a rifle, as opposed to the current federal age limit of 18.

·       The bill bans the sale of armor piercing ammunition, and makes it a class D felony to carry a firearm loaded with any such ammunition.

·       The bill amends the Earned Risk Reduction Program to ensure that violent felons, including those who committed crimes with firearms, serve at least eighty-five percent of their original sentences.

Summary of School Security Provisions

K-12 Language

·       Establishes the School Safety Infrastructure Council which develops safety standards for school building projects.

o      The Council must have the initial standards developed by January 1, 2014 and then update them annually as necessary.

o      Requires projects reviewed by the Department of Construction Services after July 1, 2014 to comply with the school safety infrastructure standards developed by the School Safety Infrastructure Council.

o      Requires the already existing School Building Projects Advisory Council to include the school infrastructure safety standards developed in the model blueprints they have available to schools.

·       Reauthorizes the school security infrastructure competitive grant program to reimburse towns for upgrades to school security infrastructure.

o      The reimbursement rate is the same as the districts reimbursement rate under school construction (between 20% and 80% depending on the municipality).

o      Authorizes the issuance $15 million of bonds for the program.

·       Requires the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in consultation with the Department of Education to develop school security and safety plan standards by January 1, 2014.

o      Annually the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection submits a copy of the school security and safety standards along with any recommendations for legislation to the Public Safety and Education Committees.

·       Requires that school security and safety plans be developed at each school.

o      These plans must be submitted to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

·       Requires safe school climate committees established by the bullying law to investigate instances of disturbing and threating behavior reported to it.

·       Requires the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to maintain a registry of school security consultants operating in the state.

Higher Education Language

·       Requires all state and independent colleges and universities in Connecticut to submit their security plan to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

·       Requires a security and vulnerability assessment every two years.

·       Requires the creation of threat assessment teams.

·       Requires the Board of Regents for Higher Education to study the creation of a police department for the community colleges.

·       Requires security audits of the state universities and community colleges to be performed by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

Summary of Mental Health Provisions

With regard to mental health, the proposal focuses on helping individuals and their families overcome obstacles to accessing treatment and support.

·       Requires DMHAS, in consultation with SDE, to administer a mental health first aid training program that teaches people to recognize the signs of mental disorders in children and young adults and connect them with services. Also allows boards of education to require teachers and other school employees to participate in mental health first aid training.

·       Allows boards of education to offer mental health first aid as an in-service training.

·       Requires the Commissioner of Education to consider whether mental health first aid training should be included in the teacher preparation program leading to certification.

·       Creates a task force to conduct a comprehensive study of Connecticut’s mental health system, with a special focus on the vulnerable 16-25 year old population. Research topics will include: early intervention, gaps in insurance coverage, the mental health workforce, outpatient commitment, mental health professionals’ reporting responsibilities, services provided in the schools and stigma. Task force will report by 2/1/14.

·       Expands DMHAS’s Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program to three additional locations. ACT teams are currently operating in three cities and provide recovery-oriented treatment and support services through a mobile, multi-disciplinary team.

·       Adds additional slots for case management and coordination to assist people with mental illness who are involved with the probate system. (The Melissa’s Project currently provides these services in some probate courts.)

·       Establishes the ACCESS-MH program, modeled after the Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Project and similar programs in 26 other states. This program will provide training, support, and professional consultations for pediatricians to help them intervene with children who have mental health conditions.

In addition, the bill contains several changes to commercial insurance based on the recommendations of the Program Review and Investigations Committee and bills from the PRI and Insurance Committees:
o      Requires Insurance Department to evaluate and report on its method for determining compliance with the state and federal mental health parity laws.

o      Requires that certain mental health and substance abuse services be considered “urgent care” requests and shortens the review time for these requests from 72 to 24 hours.

Institutes a more robust definition of “clinical peer” with regard to the review of mental health and substance abuse services, to ensure that the health professional reviewing the claim has similar qualifications to the mental health professional who prescribed the treatment.

o      Designates disorder treatment criteria for mental health and substance use, so that coverage decisions are more consistent from carrier to carrier and consumers are given a clear reason for a denial.

o      Requires insurers to inform consumers that they have the right to appeal a denial, they can request additional information, and they can contact the Office of the Healthcare Advocate for assistance.

[h/t Pascal who writes "Not much to say except we are officially ******"]

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.

158 Responses to BREAKING: Connecticut Gun Ban Bills Revealed

  1. avatarAndrew says:

    Why didn’t they make mass shooting illegal too

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      Oh, hell, man. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that yet!?! You’ve solved it!

      • avatarRon Smith says:

        Whatever happened to the part that says “shall not be infringed” Sounds like an infringement to me…. Once people start taking from you they never stop. Rise up – email – contact reps and vote their a$$’s out next term. Laws like this only hurt lawful gun owners. Thugs wont pop in a 10 round clip to follow the law when they are rampaging and killing.

  2. avatarCT_Glock says:

    Already looking at job openings in other states…

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      What do you do? Tennessee is great. I moved from Connecticut and my jaw dropped when I learned how much I didnt know about guns (what is legal vs what I thought wasnt).

      • avatarneiowa says:

        4.5% unemployment in NE Iowa

        • avatarJSIII says:

          Iowa is.not a state that is going in the right direction…seriously Iowa and Minnesota will be the next Colorado, overrun with Liberal carpet bagers. Consider Florida on TN or IN before Iowa.

        • avatarS.CROCK says:

          ca has… oh ya, nothing but sun, liberals, high tax, no freedom, and high unemployment. sadly people think the sun is a good enough reason to stay.

      • avatarGyufygy says:

        Around these here parts, we can look AND touch!

        Guns, that is. Anything else is at your own risk.

      • avatarPeter in W TN says:

        And TN has no state income tax.

    • avatarAnmut says:

      WI has jobs and freedom.

    • avatarDavidT says:

      New Hampshire has jobs and you are even used to the climate (just a little more snow).

  3. avatarJohn Fritz says:

    You guys are fucked.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Big time. Elections have major consequences.

    • avatarShenandoah says:

      Simple, yet eloquent, and straight to the point. Well said.

    • avatarHal says:

      This.

      CT patriots (real ones, not the statists in patriots’ clothing):

      There is nothing for you there now. It is time to go.

      To remain is to indicate to your “leaders” that you condone this. They have abdicated their authority to govern and as such they must be starved out. The way to do that in CT will be by harming their revenues. Since the taxes are mighty high there anyway, as I understand it, you have everything to gain. Chop chop

  4. avatarRambeast says:

    That is a BIG sh!t sammich…

  5. avatarChris says:

    I think they’ve even managed to out-stupid NY. Better written & more thought out than NYSAFE, but still astonishingly stupid.

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      Naa, we still have the “you can own a 10 round mag, but can only put seven into it.” That’s a pretty high bar for dumb.

  6. avatarLouB says:

    FML

  7. avatarIndyEric says:

    I will hereby register all ten thousand standard capacity magazines in my possession. Of course, they’re not serialized…but whatever.

    • avatarJSIII says:

      Just better hope they never catch you with one too many magazines or there goes your right to ever own firearms again.

  8. avatarSixpack70 says:

    I think they made nearly every CT gun owner into a felon with the stroke of a pen. “Shall not be infringed” is mighty confusing language.

    • avatarBob says:

      A criminal with a Glock 19 will have 15 rounds, while his victim will only have 10.

      • avatarS.CROCK says:

        they made a law to prevent that. he would obviously oblige by the rules and only shoot the victim 10 times.

    • avatarSteve (CT) says:

      Its still being written into actual language by the legal scrubs, so it hasn’t passed yet.

  9. avatarST says:

    It’s like a bad reality TV show. New York was the first ones to play the game, and Conneticutt is the current contestant. Next weeks episode: California.

    • avatarBen says:

      April 2nd (tomorrow!) and April 16th, big days in CA.

      Tomorrow Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner) is set for a hearing. It would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than 10 cartridges, and it would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition by anyone other than a licensed firearms dealer, and it would require that every single ammunition transfer be reported to the state.

      The second bill being heard tomorrow, AB 169 (Dickinson), would ban the sale and transfer of firearms that are not currently on California’s roster of handguns approved for sale in the state. In doing so, this bill would prohibit the transfer of millions of lawfully-owned handguns and jeopardize their continued ownership.

      Currently, California law allows handguns that are not on the approved roster to be sold or otherwise transferred to another individual either on consignment or as a private party transfer, provided that the sale is completed through a licensed firearms retailer, where the purchaser is subjected to a background check. If enacted, AB 169 would leave gun owners who lawfully purchased a handgun that previously appeared on the State’s approved roster with no means to sell or transfer their handgun, if that firearm is no longer listed on the roster.

      On April 16th, EIGHT gun bills are being heard. They are:

      Senate Bill 108 (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms within a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present.

      Senate Bill 293 (DeSaulnier) bans the sale of conventional handguns, if the state Department of Justice approves the sale of “Owner Authorized – Smart” handgun technology.

      Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) turns victims of firearm theft into criminals for failing to report the loss of their firearm within 48 hours. (Out of town for a week, and your guns get stolen on day 1? Too bad, have fun with this felony!)

      Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) expands the definition of “assault weapons” to BAN the future sale of VIRTUALLY ALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire cartridges) that accept a detachable magazine, requires NEW “assault weapon” registration, requires registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapons” restrictions.

      Senate Bill 396 (Hancock) BANS the POSSESSION of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than ten cartridges, including currently legally possessed “grandfathered” large capacity magazines. If passed, this bill would confiscate registered, grandfathered, magazines. Proving that registration truly does lead to confiscation.

      Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) changes the technical definition of a shotgun, which would turn all handguns into short-barrel shotguns that are illegal to own.

    • avatarDave says:

      Don’t forget Maryland.

  10. avatarNS says:

    I’d like to see Mr. Kraft post a rebuttal of these proposals. I’m a fan

  11. avatarJo-Soul says:

    Comm-Necticutt!

  12. avatarLucubration says:

    Oh… damn.

  13. avatarCTer says:

    Wow, what a pile of sh!t.

    “Constitution State” my a**!!!!!

  14. avatarLouB says:

    They really need to propose a bill to change our license plate motto, “Constitution State” no longer really applies here. Suggestions?

  15. avatarPantera Vazquez says:

    Yes-many new provisions against gun owners but check this out-if you go to jail for a crime with a gun, no one is saying you should actually serve the full term, just 85% which would be an increase over time served now………..so once again the onus is on people least likely to be an issue with the firearm.

  16. avatarensitue says:

    POLICE STATE!

  17. avatarReally Want to Keep it Private says:

    Fffffuuuuuuu….

  18. avatarThomas Paine says:

    yawn.

  19. avatarWoodyTX says:

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

    • avatarPantera Vazquez says:

      Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
      — Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book.

      • avatarSAS 2008 says:

        I really like that quote but prefer the longer version included below. It still amazes and frustrates me that someone in Italy in 1764 understood the futility and dangers of passing laws barring the carrying and use of arms but so many of our legislators and countrymen today still don’t get it or don’t care.

        I like this longer version because it better calls out the false logic and motives of those proposing such laws:

        “A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniences, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, ‘Be thou a slave;’ who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

        The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.”[

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      Oh, snap! 200 years ago and he nails it!

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      mmm… I could go for a Samuel Adams right now. I need one after reading this article.

  20. avatarChuck Pelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: Heh

    And then, if you display anythink that looks like….

    ….ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ….

    ….you’re declared an enemy of the state.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out....]

  21. avatarJay W. says:

    It is another nail in the coffin of “Common Sense” done in the name of “Common Sense”. I am in “shock & awe” at the dearth of common sense by state and federal legislators. The profligation of laws and regulations in this country is reaching the point that only the newborn will only have a short window in time before they become lawbreakers.

    • avatarMikeP says:

      Well, according to recent testimony, even they are subject to summary execution (by scissors to the neck) upon birth. No word on adjudication of guilt, but that’s like, so, yesterday….

  22. avatarWLCE says:

    Get out now. For those in Connecticut, the shit has hit the fan.

  23. avatarstateisevil says:

    This is going nationwide. As long as boobus americanus (a species of human that knows everything about football and has support the troops stickers on his F-150) can have his shotgun or revolver to shoot at a home intruder, they won’t lift a finger.

  24. avatarTaco Ninja says:

    I will never live in any of those states mentioned…ever…. If my state were ever to pass such a stupid and unconstitutional law, I would mail the governor of my state announcing that my property is no longer part of the state and they therefore have no right to regulate what I have on my property. I would therefore keep my stuff in my house and that’s that. I’d hate it, but it’s my house. The only people I answer to on my property is GOD and my wife.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      Unfortunately, the concept of Allodial Title was executed along time ago in this country, if it could ever have been said to exist at all. Best of Luck.

  25. avatarAnmut says:

    All the fence sitters that got behind the crying soccer mom’s in CT are about to get exactly what they deserve – complete and total disarmament.

    You voted these people into office because they were mute on gun policies but strongly supported the oh-so-important social policies that you were concerned with and now they are doing EXACTLY WHAT WE TOLD YOU THEY WOULD DO – they are turning on you and selling you out.

    Reap what you sow CT. Maybe next election you will learn to sniff out the lies of the liberals.

    • avatarBHirsh says:

      Yeah. What HE said.

    • avatarPascal says:

      The current Gov. won his current term by less than 1,000 votes, his days are numbered not just because of guns, but a crap economy and state that in net has lost jobs. Urban democrats will not be touched because the “circus and bread” people will vote them in, the rural democrats are screwed, others are YMMV.

      If we are lucky, Marlin, Colt, Stag, Dewey, Charter and others will move out of state taking with them 1.5 billion in economic activity which will pressure many suburban democrats.

      Being in a liberal state also means there are plenty of Emasculated Men whose wives wear the pants and they do and vote as their wives say.

      In many blue states, you cannot blame the gun owners because they are out numbered in terms of votes. CT has a democratic majority in both houses and we could have been effed more than we already have been. Democratic and Republican law makers whom are also gun owners did tone down some of the laws and help throw out others, but this is only Phase I. All the news stations are reporting that this is “temporary” and eventually there will be a full out ban. So, now will see what SCOTUS has to say at some point but not before much damage is done.

      I grew up in CT, but today I would not cry if some major disaster struck the state.

      I hope everyone finally joins or donates to NRA, GAO, SAF or if you are feeling for us, http://www.ctcarry.com/ so we can prep for an eventual court battle.

      • avatarAnaon in CT says:

        And Obama only won my county by 2%, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

        Unlike Dem owned states like California and NY, in places like Colorado and CT, the Dems think that they need to go all in to seize a once in a generation opportunity to crush the 2nd Amendment.

        Practically speaking the AW registration is not really such a big change – if you bought your guns retail, they are already in the town and state registries.

      • avatarMartin says:

        “Being in a liberal state also means there are plenty of Emasculated Men whose wives wear the pants and they do and vote as their wives say.”

        Come on, what has maleness to do with gun rights…?

        Calm down, and repeat to yourself:

        A firearm is not a substitute pe*is. Yes, many people *think* gun owners use their guns as such. But it is not, at least not for all of them.

        • avatarpunmaster says:

          Yeah, the front sight is rough on her G-spot.

        • avatarBdk NH says:

          The influence of feminization and urbanization of the northern white male is directly proportional to the strength of anti-gun policy in a given state. Thankfully, in NH we are still allowed to have dicks but that is changing quickly.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Yeah bro, but shooting guns is still a macho deal. I have complete confidence in my pe@is, but I take women shooting for a reason. Wink wink.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      What Anmut said. Times fucking 100. Idiots. Keep voting for Democrats Bitchez.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Keep voting Democrat, bitchez.

  26. avatarSeth says:

    Does this means I will not be able to build an AR-15 with the lower I got for my birthday anymore?

  27. avatarm11_9 says:

    “Requires the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to maintain a registry of school security consultants operating in the state.”

    A registry of government consultant assholes could be useful in choosing a neighborhood to (not)live in, I suppose.

    • avatarPascal says:

      That is so they could be given immunity from persecution should their recommendations not prevent a future spree killer. Nice huh!

  28. avatarneiowa says:

    So if one was to UPS (signature required) a junk “LCM” to a wacko leftwing loon and follow up at time of delivery with a helpful SWATTING call to the local Ct gendarme (police thugs) would that help in educating for the loon or would it just be vindictive. I think can still get 20rd G3 mag for around $4-5.

  29. avatarDon says:

    I guess this proves the song right!!!
    It is now all there is to do!

  30. avatarHuman Being says:

    That “mental health first aid” stuff reads positively Orwellian.

    • avatarBob says:

      A voluntary admission to a mental health facility means you are not allowed to purchase the means to protect yourself. That won’t discourage anyone from seeking psychological help. That will really help prevent crazies from going ballistic.

  31. avatarT-DOG says:

    So now that you have to register them. How long do you think it will be till they outlaw them and come for them. Seeing now they know who has them. It’s just a matter of time.

  32. avatarLarry says:

    This is just a bill, no ? It can be defeated. The battle shifts to CT. Shame. I once thought I could escape NY by moving to CT.

    • avatarPascal says:

      The vote is Wednesday and Malloy intends to sign it that day under emergency powers like his buddy in NY.

      I keep saying, NY, NJ, MA and CT gun owners need to unite with a plan to help fight these laws.

      • avatarRoscoe says:

        I read a lot of bluster on these TTAG boards.

        Not to be too harsh and hurt anyones “feelings”, but I hope you and everyone else here who talks the talk is a NRA member and has donated writing time and significant $ fighting for the 2A cause.

        Otherwise, the words you speak are little more than empty platitudes.

    • avataraweds says:

      Sadly, you have to abandon all of New England and most of the mid-Atlantic states to really “escape”.

    • avatarOldLawman says:

      Really, Larry ? Escape NY by moving to CT ? Come on, that must be an April Fool’s joke. The entire Northeast is lost.

      Trust me , I am planning my escape from MD as we speak.

  33. avatarLarry says:

    This is just a bill, no ? It can be defeated.

  34. After getting burned on the “1-week NFA turnaround” bit, I pretty much glanced over section after section of the bill, assuming this to be TTAG’s last leg-pulling of the day.

    The look on my face when I reached the bottom and saw no punchline….

    O______O

  35. avatarSteve says:

    ” The bill amends the Earned Risk Reduction Program to ensure that violent felons, including those who committed crimes with firearms, serve at least eighty-five percent of their original sentences.”

    The only part in the whole bill that actually makes sense, yet still doesn’t do enough (How about they do 100% of the time? Afterall, they ARE a convicted FELON)

    • avatarPascal says:

      The important part is “at least” believe it not, it is about half today. Just like many other sentences, they get time off for good behavior or helping to rat someone out.

    • avatarPeter in W TN says:

      Prison officials will tell you that if they don’t have the 15% “good time” bonus to hold over the heads of the prisoners, they will lose control and their officers won’t be safe.

      Who is, after all, the most powerful prisoner in a prison? He who is serving “life without the possibility of parole” in a state with no death penalty. He can kill as many guards as he likes without any repercussion.

  36. avatarG says:

    Yikes…. time to leave.

  37. avatarDave says:

    I don’t see anything about mail-ordering ammunition. Surely it won’t be allowed?

    • avatarPascal says:

      We will need to see the actual language. Last I saw it was still allowed, but the seller would still need to do the same NICS check, so that alone means most businesses will simply say no because it is too much trouble.

      Many shooters in CT also have permits in PA, NH and VT and they will probably go out of state to purchase

      • avatarDave says:

        If one could fax a copy of one’s permit to the ammo dealer, it could be made to work. If they want to let it work, which is a big if.

      • avatarAnon in CT says:

        And then cross NY or Mass? Might not be smart.

  38. avatarNDS says:

    Typical disarmament nonsense. Two major bans nestled in all this crap:

    1: “…they can carry the LCM in that pistol, but only loaded with 10 bullets. Moreover, under no circumstances can the LCM in such pistol extend below the pistol grip.”
    - Bans ALL modern, standard capacity polymer handguns. Block, HK, etc all have some sort of magazine baseplate that “extends” below the pistol grip.

    2: “The bill bans the sale of armor piercing ammunition, and makes it a class D felony to carry a firearm loaded with any such ammunition.”
    - Bans ALL center fire rifles of reasonable calibre. It does not specifically call out steel core or special penetrators, just armor piercing. To all those hunters who support an “assault rifle” and “high-capacity” magazine ban, your “sniper rifle” is next.

    • avatarKCK says:

      The m&p shield uses the mag to be part of the grip on the 8 rnd. The seven rounder goes flush. So that means you cant use the 8 it would seem. The clever design was to have a variable length grip.
      This is certainly a clue about the type of people that run for political office that pass these laws

  39. avatarNazgul says:

    How does punishing the citizens of Connecticut with this legislation prevent future crimes? There are pitfalls in the legislation that can snag anybody and make it difficult to comply.

    • avatarPascal says:

      It allows the parents of Sandy Hook to have a moral victory and to take out revenge on people they have never met, and that makes them warm and fuzzy inside. There is a fantasy in many of their minds that some words we call law on some piece of paper will stop another killer in the future. In the mean time, I do not see any of the white parents running to the black neighborhoods in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport and New London and trying to stop the “violence” in those neighborhoods.

      It was never about crime or saving lives. This is and will continue to be irrational, emotional non-sense which will do absolutely nothing.

      Democrats can continue to make believe that have done “something” while all the while, the inner city youth go on to kill themselves.

      Some of this will go to court, including the registration. Then the same politicians will blame the courts.

      Civilian Disarmament is never about the “violence” or “crime” or “saving lives” it is all about control over a group that somebody decided they do not like.

      The lesson to be learned, be careful whom you vote into office and call your legislature person on a regular basis regardless of the law, there is always something stupid they are doing that you can complain about or something they do right once in a blue moon you can complement them on, but they need to know you are always there watching.

  40. avatarJay S says:

    What a bunch of garbage.
    I happen to have a Non Resident CWP for Conn. since they don’t recognize my Florida permit nor NY.
    I have to follow all this crap now in 2 states??
    I think Ill stay home………….

  41. avatarensitue says:

    Political cowards in the Maryland legislature scheduled a gun hearing on Good Friday to avoid media attention after a massive public outcry against this overreaching legislative firearm grab. Then…they broke their own parliamentary procedures in order to punish legal firearm owners and protect criminals.
    Republican delegate Mike Smigiel introduced a common-sense amendment to Gov. O’Malley’s S.B. 281–an amendment that would have punished criminals who steal guns from the homes of their owners. The original bill only punished the firearm owner for having his or her home broken into, but contained no punishment for the actual criminal. Smigiel’s amendment passed on a proper committee vote. But the committee Chair then took the unprecedented step of ordering a new vote. The Chair was then able to use bullying tactics to force two Democrats to change their votes which, in turn, killed the amendment.

  42. avatarإبليس says:

    What do you expect? New Yorkers can’t have guns floating around their dachas.

  43. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    I know there are liberal gun owners out there who get upset when we trash liberals. But here’s the fact. It’s like squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares. Well all liberals are not in favor of draconian gun control, but everyone in favor of draconian gun control is a liberal.

    The lesson here is that if you value your gun rights you must vote against every single Democratic candidate in every single election. Period. Republicans, lame as they are, sometimes go along with this crap (New York, anyone?) but they never seem to instigate it.

    The deep blue states are lost. Only a SCOTUS decision can save us. That or an electoral miracle in 2014.

  44. avatarAnmut says:

    It may be time for violence. When politicians don’t follow the Constitution and back-door law abiding citizens then we might have to play our hand. If we don’t make the threat real than they have nothing to be afraid of and will continue their tyrannical push towards complete disarmament.

  45. avatarAZ47 says:

    I’ve never felt more free anywhere in America compared to AZ.. restrictions on liberating yourself are non-existent. I can’t fathom jumping through all those east coast hoops to excercise my constitutional rights.

  46. avatarPat says:

    Those who voted libtard (democrat) are being constantly reminded that voting badly (or not at all) is the gift that keeps on giving. NEVER vote democrat AGAIN!
    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  47. avatarSilver says:

    Another day, another slew of traitors. The founding fathers would be shooting by now.

    CT subjects, I hope you take the appropriate actions to take back your state from the domestic enemies that occupy your governmental seats. There are proper methods of how to do that in American history, the Declaration of Independence, etc.

    As ever, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control and oppression over a particular subset of Americans. To put it bluntly, we are the new blacks. The tolerant left is doing everything it can to reduce us to second class citizens. Right now, the question is: are you going to live as an oppressed class as other groups have in history until (maybe) the tides turn? Or will you pick up your guns while you have them and, unlike most oppressed people throughout history, make the tides turn?

  48. avatarCarlosT says:

    All of these new requirements… Chances are Nancy Lanza would have passed all of them with flying colors. I also suspect chances are high the new mental health provisions wouldn’t have done much for Adam, either. So Nancy still would have her guns, Adam would still be unstable, the kids would still be completely defenseless, but millions of Connecticut residents would be stripped of their rights.

    Awesome.

  49. avatarTetra34457 says:

    Unbelievable if I’m reading things right that with passage of this carrying more than 10 rounds in a pistol magazine is going to be classified as a class D felony. In other words … if I legally conceal carry a Glock G23 with a fully loaded standard magazine I will be a FELON in Connecticut? Are you SHITTING me?!

    • avatarPascal says:

      It is based on the myth that if the shooter in Newtown had fewer rounds in each mag, somehow, someone would have been saved.

      It is feel good legislation pressed by the anti-gun lobby and the Democrats. MAIG came to town and whispered into the ears the parents of Newtown. They believed the lies and then pressed to have stupid laws passed that will do absolutely “nothing”

      Once again, criminals WILL NOT comply. The state WILL NOT peruse the penalties (it was proven with an OLR report) and the parents will live in fantasy land thinking they did “something” — and they have to believe the lie because that is all they have and the politicians have to keep feeding the lie to be elected. At the end, the gun owners loose and the criminals win.

  50. avatarCharles Stewart says:

    Politictians can pass whatever feel good laws they want. Most if they go to the supreme court would be thrown out! Also looks like a whole lot of new laws that will cost a bundle of tax payer’s money and will go nowhere.

  51. avatarMatt says:

    Just remember that CT was a conservative state not too long ago. Don’t abandon us. Help us fight! It’s only a matter of time before this happens is your state.

  52. avatarJohnnyNRA says:

    Well this was a waste of my time on a fake bill to soon become a fake law.

  53. avataraweds says:

    So, does anyone think Colt or Stag Arms will finally pull the plug on CT?

    • avatarJohnnyNRA says:

      No, no reason to, your just being played.

      • avatarBrock says:

        Johnny, I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment, but I won’t buy arms from companies based in slave states in the future. It’s small, and probably won’t mean a hell of a lot, but I can, and will, vote with my wallet.

  54. avatarBill says:

    ” Except for in an individual’s home or on the premises of a shooting range, an LCM can never be loaded with more than 10 bullets.”

    Because if you load the 11th round, you turn into a raving lunatic, h3ll bent on shooting down planes and blowing up trains.

  55. Welcome to CT. It was merely a matter of time.

    The 2A and the CT State Constitution are both being raped right now. In full view.

    Enough.

    This fight has just been started. For real.

    Long Live the Republic, indeed.

  56. avatarstonenail says:

    ALL of us are about to get what SOME of us had coming. Sadly, emotions not facts carried the day as none of these new laws would have prevented (or will prevent) the Newtown shooting. CT already had the fifth strictest gun laws in the nation (according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) so it’s hard to belive that more legislation there will make any difference. Except that lawful gun owners get immediate restrictions and are threatened with Class D felonies for non-compliance, but the crazies get “training progrms” and a “task force”.

  57. http://wr2a.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/ct-leaders-i-hold-responsible-for-the-new-fascist-gun-ban/

    CT “leaders” I hold responsible for this fascist gun grab. Molon Labe, indeed. They are on the wrong side of history, and have let politics rule the State. Enough.

  58. What is mental health first aid?

  59. There’s a lot of committees and new gov’t positions being formed here, but I see no mention of how it is going to be paid for.

  60. avatarDave says:

    “Our State now has the toughest gun law in the US” seems to be a refrain these days. So, just how tough is the new CT bill compared to its “peer group” of Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York? Both MA and NJ require some type of FOID to buy any gun and, I imagine, ammunition. All transfers must be recorded with the State in MA. Connecticut seems much better than those three for concealed carry in that it is listed as “may issue but shall issue in practice” in the Wikipedia article “Concealed carry in the United States”. One will certainly need to see just what’s on the about to be drastically expanded “assault weapons” list in CT, but leaving that important part aside for a moment, do most of the other new provisions boil down to needing some type of FOID to buy guns and ammo, and the 10-round limit new magazine limit? If so, is CT law really going to be the toughest of them all?

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Taken on the whole, it does not seem like it will be as bad as NY and California (NJ, Mass and RI may still get worse), but it seems like the legislators need to say things like “toughest in the nation.” If that makes them feel good and warms their petty tyrant hearts, but stops them from adding more restrictions, then let the babies have their bottles.

  61. avatarDon says:

    They should require a state issued permit and fitness test for murder. Then when you have applicants you can immediately charge them with premeditation and get them off the streets.

  62. avatarKCK says:

    Gun law are passed to prevent criminals from getting guns and thus reduce crime.
    ATF history has been not to prosecute criminals engaged in criminal behavior with guns but to prosecute people with no criminal history nor criminal intent (low hanging fruit) because new laws have made them criminals, thus the crime rate goes up becausethe innocent are now part of the crime problem.
    I propose that they can go after one guy for these stupid laws and let him off with a warning for every 100 felons they catch, prosecute and convict for posession of a 10+ mag loaded with 11+ rnds. Currently the ratio is reversed.

  63. avatarMatt in FL says:

    Doesn’t the “new purchase” provision of the LCM bill pretty much wipe out the future sales of new semi-automatic pistols in CT? If you own the gun prior to passage, you can carry it with a LCM downloaded to 10 rounds. But if you buy it after the bill’s passage, you can never, ever, ever (Fvcking ever – Ron White) carry it with a LCM, downloaded or not. If the only place you can ever insert a magazine with capacity >10 is at the range, and since virtually no magazines with capacity <=10 are available for guns originally designed to hold >10, why would you even buy one? Literally the only place you could ever use it is at the range, because that's the only place you can legally load it.

    How the hell is this not infringement? The fact that the only way to fix this is through the courts, which will take years and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, is obscene. I'm not much given to overblown rhetoric, but it's a good thing I live in Florida, because if I was a resident of CT, I'd be thinking real hard about whether or not it was time to start voting from the rooftops.

    • avatarDave says:

      << since virtually no magazines with capacity 10 >>

      What did people do in 1994-2004, and what do they do now in California?

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        I don’t know what they do, exactly. I assume that there were a lot of guns they couldn’t own because of that, so… suffer in sadness?

        I’m pretty sure they don’t make 10 round mags that fit my XD(M) .40, so that means I wouldn’t have bought it, even if it was on the California list, which I’m pretty sure it isn’t. And that’s my point. If a large majority of semi-automatic handguns are simply not available with 10 round magazines, then you have pretty much prevented the sale of those handguns, yes? Because why would you spend $700 on a handgun that you could not carry, and could literally only load at the range?

        At what point does that run afoul of “shall not be infringed?” I’d say eliminating 60% of the handgun availability (that’s just a guess) is infringement by any reasonable measure, even if they can say, “Well, you can still have the other 40%, and you can even have most of the other 60% if you never, ever, ever (fvcking ever) load it anywhere but the range.” Because the 2A is not “the right to go to the range,” now is it?

  64. avatarKCK says:

    Feeling something and saying something.
    Opinion vs description of action.
    One is fine, the other unwise.
    Knock, Knock.

  65. avatarJoseph says:

    With the passage of this bill, Connecticut is now so safe I’m seriously considering moving there from Texas. Really……I’m not kidding……aaaaaaaahhhhhahahahaha

  66. avatarJohn Boch says:

    How long will it take (formerly) law abiding gun owners before they opt for the cartridge box method of pushing back against this nonsense?

  67. avatarJuanCudz says:

    Another state that seems to object to my tourist dollars, but I am looking forward to $pending in Houston in May.

  68. avatarJay L says:

    I moved from CT to PA 5 years ago. Born and raised in CT yet I will never make it my home ever again. It is a shame to see what those a$$hats are doing to the state.

  69. avatarGS650G says:

    “Unlike Megan’s List, this registry will not be public. Instead, it will be available to law enforcement only.”
    If they say so. I don’t buy it. Websites will soon show the gun owners right next to the sex offenders on the same map.

Leave a Reply

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