Connecticut Bill #122: Restrict All Guns to A Single Shot

General Assembly
Proposed Bill No. 122
January Session, 2013
LCO No. 543
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
Introduced by: SEN. MEYER, 12th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS ON GUN USE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.

Statement of Purpose: To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes.

comments

  1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    I feel like this doesn’t have a ‘shot’ at passing anywhere but Britain, and even there it would be tough.

    1. avatar Nate says:

      I hope this triggers a ruling that it is unConstitutional.

      1. avatar Chainsaw Ninja says:

        The bill is a long shot, but it could pass.

        1. avatar Logan P says:

          Puns, puns everywhere. Pardon me for shooting my mouth off…

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      With a twenty minute response from the police, the murderer could have easily killed as many or even more using a single shot shot gun, with 15 shot double ought buck or slugs; talk about completely useless and down right insane response to bad guys wanting to bad things.

      The only response we need from these power hungry parasites is to outlaw the homicidal maniacs empowerment zones and pass the National Reciprocity CC law.

      Of course, that would mean more freedom and responsibility to us the people and less control to our overlords, so of course that law wouldn’t pass.

      1. avatar Jason says:

        “overlords” how true, how true!

  2. avatar CG-23 Sailor says:

    In proofreading the bill, I see one thing wrong, the typo in the name of the Sponsor.

    His name is spelled Senator Moron.
    Not Senator Meyer.

    1. Bahaha well played sir.

    2. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      Hey, I’ll bet he must be related to that TV star Piers Moron. They speak the same brand of gibberish!

  3. avatar Brent Mohrman says:

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Who the heck are these people? How do people this stupid, get elected to office?

    1. avatar HAVE GUN says:

      “Who the heck are these people? How do people this stupid, get elected to office?”

      They are just what floats to the top of the bowl.

      1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

        Yes they are!! After all everyone knows that shit floats!! Thus we have no hope or even a “shot” in the dark of them ever drowning in their own stupidity!!!
        Got my gun pun for the day!!! LOL!!!

    2. avatar CG-23 Sailor says:

      “How do people this stupid, get elected to office?”

      Think about it for a sec, some of them actually think that Islands can capsize and tip over.

      1. avatar William says:

        One of my favorite YouTube vids of all time! It’s great to initiate conversations about competency tests for office-holders.

        They’re dangerously stupid, but even more dangerous because they’re, well… dangerous.

    3. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      CT hasn’t cornered the market on stupid politicians. You must watch this YouTube video of Georgia Congressman Hank Jackson:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

      I can’t understand how this guy even ties his shoes.

    4. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      They get elected because we have an even stupider electorate.

      Really. Don’t believe me?

      Go forth onto any urban street corner in the US. Ask passers-by one question:

      “How many millions in a trillion?”

      After you’ve inquired of 30 or so people, it will dawn on you why the country is in the mess it’s in.

      1. avatar Sasquatch says:

        Or, alternatively, ask them who the VPOTUS is. Or the Governor of their own state. Etc.

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    So what this barrage of ridiculous legislation tells me is that an awful lot of politicians are more concerned with looking “tough on guns” than with actually accomplishing anything.

    1. avatar Jim says:

      This is called “throwing crap to the wall to see what sticks”. Get enough laws out there, no matter how stupid and ridiculous some of them are, and something is bound to get through.

  5. avatar Kevin says:

    It seems they are going back to muskets and sticks.

  6. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Hey people of CT: aren’t you glad this person is getting paid with your tax dollars to file this stupid, no hope of passing bill, just to be seen to be doing something?

  7. avatar Rabbi says:

    We all know how stupid the gun laws and proposed gun bans are. Keep in mind that the same moronic politicians write and vote on all of our laws. Who said that any other law is any less stupid than our gun laws?

  8. avatar DonS says:

    “any gun except one made to fire a single round”

    Per trigger pull?
    Per loading operation?
    Ever?

    1. avatar Rich says:

      The Connecticut reload.

      Two guns, two rounds…

  9. avatar Leo Atrox says:

    Let me go get my one-round magazines from the closet … It looks like there will be a market for them.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      As long as you can’t insert a loaded 1-rd mag when there’s already a round chambered.

    2. avatar Rokurota says:

      I’m in the market for those dreaded one-round clips.

    3. avatar Ropingdown says:

      There’s a proper term for a one-round magazine. It’s a “sabot.”

      1. avatar NWGlocker says:

        Does this mean I can have my tank now?

        1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

          One Howitzer coming up!!!
          A small cannon sitting in my living room loaded with 3/4″ ball bearings and a sensor for the remote control.
          And a swivel mount. A picture of it on the front and back doors stating that if you enter this home illegally we will not foot the cost or be responsible for the sponges necessary to wipe up what is left of you!!! We will however provide two generic white Dixie cups to hold your few remains in for your funeral devices!!!

  10. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    This is a joke right??

  11. avatar Rokurota says:

    I suspect “certain gun clubs” will see an explosion in membership.

  12. avatar Aharon says:

    “Statement of Purpose: To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes.”

    Another Yale graduate. These politicians are giving the Ivy League a bad reputation. Someone needs to inform the senator about the mother who shot an intruder five times to stop the threat and still did not kill him. I was being sarcastic since facts are of no concern to gun-grabbers; only political agendas matter.

    1. avatar Jake says:

      That’s something I don’t get. She shot him 5 times, including in the face, and he walked away. She was new to shooting, that had to have been a .22 revolver she used. If that had been a .38 Special or better, that BG would not have gotten back up.

      1. avatar Mike in NC says:

        It was reported that she used a .38 revolver. Not only did he get up, but he fled the house and was able to drive about a block.

        1. avatar Jim says:

          Adrenalin can be an amazing thing. Consider the story posted here a couple days ago regarding a soldier who shot an insurgent four times in the chest with an M4 and it still didn’t drop him. Hell even the HEADSHOT that followed didn’t stop him right away.

        2. avatar Aharon says:

          Jake, Mike in NC is correct; she used a .38. The mother shot the intruder five times. Initial reports said five to his head and neck, and later reports included chest and stomach hits.

          Sometimes people who get shot defy the odds and don’t go down as most others would. The shooter might have used a solid nose bullet that glanced along his head and neck. We don’t know all the details. I’m still keeping my revolver loaded with .38+P HP Critical Defense.

        3. avatar Rob says:

          Sarah Conner?

        4. avatar Mauser says:

          I wonder if she used cheap, practice FMJ ball ammo or JHPs?

        5. avatar Anon in CT says:

          PCP is a helluva drug. Or maybe a speedball

          Cop friends have some great stories about some of these guys who damn near have superpowers. How about 18 ARWN hits before dropping?

      2. avatar JJ Swiontek says:

        Being able to function on adrenalin after a mortal (or, in this case, a very serious) wound is called the ‘Gun Fighters Dilemma’. Unlike Hollywood, real Gun-Fighters knew that a shot to the heart will kill… in 20 to 30 seconds. And when someone was so wounded, the focus of the soon-to-die-individual concentrates on doing the same to the person who just shot them. This is why the Hollywood show “Gunsmoke” was almost all fiction. No one who really wanted to survive a gun fight would face another armed person without cover.

  13. avatar Brian says:

    A link to the bill on CT.gov for proof. I didn’t actually believe it at first.

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00122-R00-SB.htm

  14. avatar sm424 says:

    It’s about damn time that they brought back the musket! They don’t make em like they use to.

  15. avatar Jake says:

    I better get started in obtaining a functional cannon. I’ll need it for home defense to make sure my one-shot-stopping-power is 100%. Maybe even higher than 100% if I use grapeshot and mount it at the end of the hallway for the multiple burgler scenarios. Hey wait, maybe we are onto something here!

    1. avatar Mark says:

      It would either be that, or pushing an armored shopping cart full of single-shot pistols…

  16. avatar qajaqon says:

    In India the police, judicary, political and religious communities are blaming the rape victim for her own death and her companions injuries.

    Here, in the USA, lawmakers and some of the public, the media and others are blaming the children who where murdered in their school and punishing them for their own deaths.

    Welcome to the witch hunts of 2013.

    Nous Defions

  17. avatar Bill says:

    Statement of Purpose: To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes.

    Riiiiiggghhht. Because bad guys and law breakers will follow this to the tee. How in any sane logic will this reduce crime or save one life?

  18. avatar MikeP says:

    “Nobody needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!” Well, that’s *technically* true, as far as “technical” goes:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLOTHING_STORE_ROBBERY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-11-09-37-23

    “Wait for the good guys”, who in this case caught nobody. Yet. Free to do this again. For now.

    1. avatar MikeP says:

      OMG! They used a knife too! Limit knives to single use (they disintegrate after cutting the first time).

  19. avatar RockThisTown says:

    Statement of Purpose: To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes.

    Okay, if true, then why place ANY firearm limitations on law-abiding citizens? Non-criminals will, by definition, obey the law, so if your intent is to ‘reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes’, then there should be NO background checks, NO waiting periods, NO registration requirements, NO transfer limitations, No magazine capacity limitations, and NO specific firearm bans for law-abiding citizens.

    Yeah, I know . . . too logical for Senator Meyer.

  20. avatar DrewR55 says:

    I’ve been looking for an excuse to buy a Sharpes’

  21. avatar tdubb says:

    They need to come up with some kind of fine for introducing a bill that doesn’t pass.

    1. avatar Don says:

      that is an interesting idea

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        better yet, limit the number they can sponsor in a given session

  22. avatar Pascal says:

    The CCDL is on the case. This particular one will be killed before it leaves committee. Sometimes bills like this are done for publicity and to “make believe” they are tough on guns and everyone else it not. Politicians are unable to stop campaigning even outside of a campaign. To me this is just another form of government waste.

    Please see their website and donate if you can
    http://www.ccdl.us/

    The lunacy is that we believe that making laws will stop crime versus actually going into the drug and gang havens to go after criminals and that by somehow focusing all energy on gun control will magically create jobs that will eliminate poverty which is the main cause of a lot of inner city crime.

    Political agenda always > than solving real problems

  23. avatar Interiorattack says:

    There is a constant to be found in many of the comments for stories such as these. That is skepticism or outright disbelief that these types of bills will become law. Unfortunately very recent history should be enough of a reminder that in the emotional wake of tragedy the rush to “do something” allows the bigots to persuade otherwise rational individuals to support draconian rights grabs that would normally be overwhelmingly resisted.

    1. avatar Don says:

      Nah, I’m laughing because while we have to work to defeat all of this stuff, this is like a bug on the windshield AND it makes the gun control people look totally moronic. Even a good proportion of people who would want to ban “high capacity” guns still think a 6 shot revolver is acceptable. This divides their side.

  24. avatar Don says:

    HAHAHA!!!

  25. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Why are the cops exempted? Is it because they encounter dangerous people? oh yeah I get it now. I’m surprised the heater doesn’t need to be dissassembled. It would be damned hard to say punk make my day with a handfull of parts though, Randy

  26. avatar Capt. Howdy says:

    Dear Connecticut,

    I sincerely hope that this goes absolutely nowhere. It belongs in the trash like all other bad legislation in a free society. The fact that laws like this are even proposed in the United States is insulting to this Army veteran and person who was raised in Connecticut. Shame on you. You reap what you sow. When you allow your population to be uneducated and disengaged in the exercise of freedom, you get representatives who will run roughshod over your rights.

  27. avatar Triggernoob says:

    “To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes.”

    Because criminals follow the damn law!!! How stupid are these politicians? Criminals don’t give a shit how many laws are on the books. That’s why they’re criminals. They’ll just go get a gun that shoots two bullets instead of one.

  28. avatar BobtheGrape says:

    Single shot? So if I’m hunting a deer, an elk or a moose and I miss with my first shot, I’m not a great shot, how do I handle that? Ask the elk to wait while reload? I know they are dumb animals but they aren’t that dumb. Or should I go hunting in a group so if I miss my partners can shoot at it. Then we can shoot at each other when we attempt to discern who takes the meat home. Nah, Senator Myer, you and Oscar should stiuck to the weiner business, or better yet why don’t you come hunting with me. I promise I won’t trip over a log or anything.

  29. avatar Kurt Peters says:

    This should be called the Barney Fife bill.

    1. avatar Kevin N. says:

      The bullet to be carried in his shirt pocket.

  30. avatar speedracer5050 says:

    Well I guess it is time to buy a new muzzleloader!! Pistol and rifle, so I can put down an intruder with one shot and the following recipe(for the rifle only): 75grains of Triple Seven(1 1/2 50gr pellets), 2 1/2oz of #2 buckshot pellets wrapped in a hanky. Drop pellets in, tamp the buckshot pouch down the barrel, add 209 primer, aim and fire!!! Having actually tried this, and seeing the damage done to the target at 10-15 yds I can tell you a .50cal shotgun will reek havoc!!!
    One shot…yea but two and a half ounces of buckshot coming at you is bad juju!!!

  31. avatar Ropingdown says:

    If this little bounder Meyers proposes to forbid delivery of my Purdey best gun he’ll end up back in the scullery where, obviously, he had his first dreams of legislating as he washed the residual fat off the Foie gras platters of his betters. The only ‘one shot’ involved is his now-lost opportunity to demonstrate any breeding whatever. Ban pheasant guns? Imagine, all these years we presumed that when the Connecticut Yankees demanded Freedom, they were actually serious. It really must be true… it was the damned French that got to poor old Cornwallis. Boston was just agitating for better margins on their Sterling tea-service sales.

  32. avatar 36IDRedleg says:

    You hear that Criminals? You better turn in your magazine fed guns. We really mean it, or else!!!!!

  33. avatar Casey T says:

    So they want to ban guns that are capable of firing more than one round but contradict that by allowing a one round magazine. Any firearm with a one round magazine can fire two rounds because you can load one round into the chamber. This person obviously knows nothing about guns.

    1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

      LOL!

  34. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

    There is something hilariously ironic about a “Law” who’s stated purpose is to reduce “criminal” activity.

  35. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    This is actually a good bill.

    No, wait, hear me out.

    Just yesterday, we had a piece here on TTAG about waking up our “fair weathered friends,” the people who think that the grabbers won’t take their nice sporting shotguns, their nice hunting rifles, etc. All this furor and flap is just about those “evil, black semi-auto guns.”

    Well, here ya go. Put this into the faces of the over-n-under or side-by-side shooters and ask “Sooooo….. didn’t think they’d try to take your $10,000 Beretta over-and-under, did you? Thought that they would never, ever go so far as to threaten your hundred+ thousand dollar collection of Parker side-by-sides, right? Wrong, wrong, wrong.”

    Then hammer the point home that this moron isn’t a “nutjob” like some of the legislators – no, this clown has an undergrad degree and law degree from Yale, he was appointed to a post by one of the holy Kennedy clan (insert entire “Camelot” myth here) and so on. He’s a mainstream Democrat. With his pedigree, he is as mainstream as Democrats come. I mean, sure, he isn’t known for being involved in a sex scandal, like Bill Clinton or Client #9. But he looks young enough to still have time to get that onto his resume’…

    Now ask the over-n-under set whether they think these clowns “aren’t talking about their guns.”

    1. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      I don’t have a semi-automatic rifle. I have what is referred to in some circles as an SLR, “self-loading rifle.” It is also single shot, not having read the Senator’s bill, one trigger pull, one shot. WTF, Senator?

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Dyseptic, Iike how you think.

    3. avatar Ropingdown says:

      Agree, Dyspeptic. This is exactly the material which should be allowed to get it’s state legislature filing underway, then be broadcast to all the people (oh, in PA perhaps) that think banning the modern sporting rifle will be the end of things. No. They’re going to go for the glory of custom gun-making, British or American. And other items. All those other items.

    4. avatar APBTFan says:

      Yup, great point. Maybe now the current “sideliners” that think they’ll be safe will wake the [email protected] up to what’s going on. If this doesn’t get them on board I don’t know what will.

  36. avatar Dan says:

    Wow… back to the days of the musket. This has to be one of those distraction proposals. They’ll wave it around and while people are focused on that, they’ll pull out a much lessor proposal that’ll seem downright minor in comparison.

    Let us see their personal security detail carrying only single shot weapons.

    1. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      Good thinking, Dan. You’re probably right. They’ll create a lot of smoke and all of a sudden they will have the magic solution. Just like all the rest of their magic solution laws, it won’t work, ask the folks in Chicago about that.

  37. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Hand grenades are single shot….

    1. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      Yes, indeed! How about that Senator?

    2. avatar Jsmith says:

      Lovely thought! 🙂

  38. avatar Pulatso says:

    I bet my break barrel 20 would still be out lawed, the automatic extractor “tactical assessory” makes it too quick and easy to reload.

  39. avatar Louie45 says:

    We need solutions to these anti-Americans, not comedy relief. When elected officials try to tear down America’s wall of protection from a tyrannical government it is nothing less than TREASON!!! All patriotic, freedom loving Americans must put these traitors feet to the fire. We must find smart people within our communities which are like minded that can find ways to file legal charges against this enemy that seeks to destroy this nation. The time for talk is over!

  40. avatar Paul says:

    Yeah, and then we can have a law limiting free speech to one sentence per day, and freedom of assembly to groups of 1 person, … right?

    1. avatar RockThisTown says:

      Freedom of speech (and this would especially apply to the LAT, NYT, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, NBC & CNN): a 5-day waiting period for opinions which must be approved by a Board prior to being published/aired, and screened for racist, bigoted, sexist, and generally offensive remarks. Require background checks for all “journolists”, registration of all printing presses, radio & TV broadcast equipment.

      We cannot allow dangerous opinions out there amongst the public, especially scary high-capacity assault opinions. Opinions must be kept under lock and key, away from children, and accessible only to those who have been trained in handling opinions.
      Also, opinions cannot be transferred between private citizens without prior approval and registration of said transfer with the government.

  41. avatar Jsmith says:

    Since the 2nd Amendment’s purpose is to arm the militia (keeping in mind, the militia is “the whole of the people”), do we really want to disarm our militia to this extent? And what is the harm in my tube fed .22? How many mass murders have been carried out using them?

    On a larger scale, I am a multi-gun owner, and I have never committed a murder with my guns. Why then should my rights be infringed upon? I am waiting for the government or some other gun-hating agency to answer that one for me (but not stupid enough to hold my breath waiting).

  42. avatar MOG says:

    Law abiding criminals will love this one.

  43. avatar Ctay says:

    Makes no sense and is ridiculous and hilarious at the same time. How does this impact revolvers? Hmm 5-6 shot revolver vs “single “(1+1) shot semi-auto pistol. Range time with a pistol would be frustrating to say the least.

    1. avatar Will says:

      Read this closer… even the revolver is caught in the single shot only trap, as it holds multiple shots, each, waiting in turn for it’s chance at the hammer.

  44. avatar AlphaGeek says:

    I wonder how many single-shot firearms I could conceal about my person, if I were preparing to go on a killing spree under these regulations?

    Spoiler alert: LOTS. The only problem would be memorizing how to effectively draw all of them…

    1. avatar BHirsh says:

      Don’t laugh too hard. The next bill proposed would criminalize the carrying of any more than one firearm.

  45. avatar Bill says:

    Time for Magpul to release “Art of the Dynamic Single Shot Firearm.”

    1. avatar Ropingdown says:

      Laugh.

  46. avatar Lance says:

    This is the proof we need to counter the lies in the media they say they only want reasonable bans on evil semi-autos. But in reality they want to ban everything even bolt action rifles and revolvers. Everyone read this and fight back the lies the news spews.

  47. avatar Conway Redding says:

    What a stupid idea! As if anyone bent on committing a crime with a gun is going to care much about breaking any law that bans the use of something other than a single-shot firearm. Unfortunately, I fear it is just stupid enough to be implemented.

    1. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      If it’s against the law to rob, beat, rape or kill somebody and if I intend to go out to do one of those things do you think I would give a hairy-rat’s ass about the consequences of my doing these evil deeds with a “weapon of war” or an “assault weapon” or a weapon that has a capacity of more than one round. I don’t think so! So, senator meyer, make all the laws you want; the bad guys will either steal an “assault weapon” or they will figure out some other way to kill multiple victims in whatever nefarious plan they have in their evil, crazed, drug clouded, nefarious minds.

  48. avatar Hal says:

    MAGPUL DYNAMICS: ART OF THE TACTICAL BREAK-ACTION

  49. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

    OMG. A legislator somewhere introduced a bill! Run for the hills!

    1. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      Yes, but it’s a stupid weenie bill written by another pompous-ass of a weenie senator.

  50. avatar Leo338 says:

    “Any gun except one made to fire a single round.”

    All my guns fire a single round at a time. Unless they are really after these evil killing machines.

    http://quarkyscience.ca/shop/da-vinci-multi-barrel-cannon-mechanical-kit/

  51. avatar GS650G says:

    Will there be a law that police must respond with all due force within seconds of being called? No? Too unreasonable?

    1. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      GS650G, you don’t understand. Once we ban all guns the world will be a much nicer place. No guns, no violent crimes. Geez, GS where do you live? Obviously not in the same fairy-tale world that Piers Morgan and Senator Meyer live in. Cops responding within seconds…BAWAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA sure when pigs (not the cop kind) fly.

  52. avatar CZJay says:

    Told you so…!

    Everything is so predictable when you know what their end goal is.

  53. avatar Knoxville says:

    Wait, I thought they keep telling us that “no one wants to take your guns”. At the very least, this should get the “I hunt but I don’t like those black rifles” crowd on our side.

    1. avatar Ropingdown says:

      Really, “no one wants to take your guns.” “It hurts us more than it hurts you. We really hate to do it. It’s for your own good. It’s just part of the medicine of getting rid of the Constitution, Billy.”

  54. avatar Larry Jay says:

    Oh, Meyer forgot to mention his ammendment….”said gun must be muzzle loading only”. Next stop, clubs and bats….oh, I forgot, They kill three times (per FBI) the number of people than rifles of any kind, so I guess they’re OK.

  55. avatar Steve says:

    For over a decade the anti’s have been trying to lull us to sleep with talk of “reasonable gun control” and “compromise”.
    The takeway from Feinsteins new improved AWB and the various nutty gun control bills from around the country, as well as recent calls in the media to scrap the constitution is that “reasonable” and “compromise” are lies and we need to be pounding that into the public’s conciousness so that they can never get away with that baloney ever again. We are not talking about a theoretical slippery slope. They are going for the whole enchilada. Bans, confiscation and registering us like child molesters.

  56. avatar In Memphis says:

    Does this mean if gangbangers want to do a drive-by in Bridgeport they will have to rent a flat bed first so they can line up on it and volly fire at their target?

    Cuz well this ban will take all the semi autos from them right?

  57. avatar pat says:

    One round? On multiple home invaders, you might as well use that single shot on yourself.

  58. avatar Steve in Iowa says:

    “If the police aren’t expected to follow the law, then there is no law.”

  59. avatar BHirsh says:

    Extend this law as binding on the Connecticut State Police, and we’ll talk.

    1. avatar BobtheGrape says:

      Perhaps we should extend the law as binding for the Secret Service, DEA, FBI and all law enforcement establishments. Do you think there would be one hell of a cry from those folks? However, your point is well taken, at least by me. Right on, Mr./Mrs./Ms. BHirsh!!

  60. avatar BobtheGrape says:

    Oh, BTW, why do the folks who make these laws think that they only apply to the peons, like you and me? As SAF has said, all of us gun nuts will turn in our weapons if you and your body guards lead by example and turn theirs in first. Why is it, do as I say, not as I do the attitude we get from our “leaders”. What makes them more important than us?

  61. avatar Charles J. Luty Jr. says:

    Outrageous. I can just see the criminals obeying this law. When I am confronted by a bad guy with an assault rifle or a handgun with a magazine holding 30-rounds or more or even just a very common 12-shot semi auto handgun, I’d better make my one shot a kill. Again- I say OUTRAGEOUS

    1. avatar BobthGrape says:

      Senator Meyer doesn’t give a shit about that he has his own security guards that are heavily armed, I’m sure. Our elected officials don’t give a shit about you or me or any of us peons. It’s all about them.

  62. avatar emlmbm says:

    Assholes every one.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      What a fantastic comment to resurrect a 2+ month old post. You should be quite proud of your contribution to the conversation.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email