New York legislators had twenty-minutes to read the SAFE Act before they voted on it. What’s the bet they didn’t? Flash forward to today, when Connecticut legislators are due to vote on their very own gun ban bill. The Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety released a summary of the bill yesterday. The 92-page bill dropped this morning. Click here to read the Bill 1160. A few details . . .
All transfers of all guns must go through an FFL ($25) and be registered with the state ($35 eligibility fee every five years).
CT residents need an “ammunition certificate” to buy same ($35 every five years).
Lever action guns are exempt from the 10-round mag limit.
Confiscated firearms will be sold at public auction.
Prohibited “assault rifles” on pages 39 and 40
Armor piercing ammo defined on page 54.
Cops are exempt from everything, obviously.
Anyway, this is bound to be another dark day in the annals of civilian disarmament. Shame on Connecticut legislators for violating their oath of office. Now, who wants Colt, Mossberg, et al.?
Off subject question, we emphasize how little time law makers have to read something. Is the time really relavant? My point is, if they know they dont have time to read it then why would they vote yes on it unless they didnt care? In other words if they dont care, does the ammount of time matter?
Yes. WE THE PEOPLE deserve a chance to read and digest and lobby on ALL legislation before OUR representatives vote on it.
Once again, legislators are bypassing normal scrutiny by declaring the bill an “emergency.” What emergency?
Unless I woke up in communist Russia this morning, this is a Constitutional Republic. For Chrissakes.
I realize that WE diserve that chance but thoes making the laws are the ones not getting the time to read it right? Why would they pass something if they didnt have the timd to read it? Perhaps Im not understanding something.
All they care about is getting re-elected. That’s all. They believe that this sort of legislation will appeal to their base and buy them votes. They also feel like they just have to “do something.” Even if their intentions are good, they don’t see, or don’t want to see that this sort of legislation will backfire. And because their reasoning is all wrong, once crime goes up as a result of this new law, they will conclude that the laws as not restrictive enough, that more stringent rules need to be added. And so the vicious circle will continue until they get voted out of office.
Effing Libtards.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
You woke up in modern America, isn’t that close enough?
Hi Silver!
I would argue that he woke up in *progressive* America.
This is why I go crazy when whiney self-described liberals on this site get uber-defensive about liberal bashing. Liberal progressives ARE the problem. Then they have the effrontery to assert that they can vote for liberal statists and still be pro-gun. That type of arrogant self-deception has no place in this world. If you are a liberal progressive but gun-control rubs you the wrong way, then you need to make a choice:
1) Lay down and take it like a complete and total prole, simply trusting that the same government which has negligently mismanaged every single program ever has magically become omnipotent overnight.
OR
2) Switch your voting habits and educate yourself about alternatives. I am bias, but you may be pleasantly surprised by what the libertarian party has to offer. Think about how it would feel to support all civil liberties possible without the big government price tag and rampant tyranny?
As for this little gem:
“Armor piercing ammo defined on page 54.”
I’m no psychic, but without having read this piece of trash in its entirety yet, I already feel a disturbance in the force. Let me guess: the definition is, either by malicious intent or through total incompetence, vague and applicable to a whole range of ammunition types which are not actually armor piercing yet are widely in use?
I hope I am wrong but having read similar bills drafted by equally traitorous buffoons in other states I doubt it.
I was at the Legislative Building today, and there were many, many pro gun people there. Only about 200-250 people got to sit in on the balcony over the legislative session that was discussing the bill. It started an hour or so late, and I had to leave only an hour into it. There were enough people to fill vacancies of anyone that had to leave and the Capitol Police were courteous and helpful IMO in getting new people in as people left.
I did hear one Senator speak to ask why they had to be rushed into voting on the bill. Many of the Republicans and some Democrats were really trying to protect rights, but unfortunately there are currently too many Anti Gun people in office.
They used Emergency Certification to skip past committee and Public Hearings. I am lead to believe that Emergency Certification is for use where there is a real and present emergency like a Hurricane or real disaster that needs immediate action. This is clearly being misused, I believe it is Gov. Malloy’s desire to show off to Obama that he can “get things done” for Obama’s visit next week.
This is a clear example of Kabuki Dance, the introductory statements by senators was well scripted. In an interesting bit of irony a Connecticut Democrat, Rosa Delauro is quoted in wikipedia as using that derogatory term to describe Republicans, it seems to me that Connecticut Democrats Sen Donald E. Williams Jr. and Sen. Martin M. Looney can be accused of “Kabuki Dance” and demonstrated to have mastered it also.
Ref Kabuki Dance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabuki_dance
It appears the insidious “armor piercing ammunition” (with no composition, pistol/rifle use, or other qualifiers) worked its way in.
So who sets the definition? Is it a level II vest with no plate? Uh oh, that means virtually all rifle ammo is banned.
Again, wouldn’t it be easier just to make killing people illegal? My data shows homicide is involved in 100% of all murders. You would think there would be laws in place for this sort of thing.
Time to draw up some treason indictments?
Time for poll taxes and voter ID laws. They made their legal precedent, and now they can wallow in it.
(I’m mostly joking, but the fact that laws impinging on voting are given more scrutiny than laws seeking to usurp a fundamental right sticks very deeply in my craw.)
Seriously, what the hell do people have against proving that you’re actually a citizen to vote? Trying to compare eliminating voter fraud to taxing people to exercise basic rights is ridiculous.
This would have other elected officials getting involved. If they do this, they will open themselves up to such processes. Think about different LEO agencies letting each other off in the guise of “professional courtesy”.
Right. Angry mob time? I think I can get just about enough rope. You get the pitchforks? Can someone else grab the torches?
I sure hope all those gun companies boycotting NY will add CT to their list of unwanted customers.
Why? Stupid comment. If you lived here you would think before you type..Why should tens of thousands of law biding NY ERS have to suffer because their governor is a butt hole?
So when these laws fail to curb gun violence will the politicians then understand? Doubtful. I intend to ha rang them whenever a shooting incident occurs and ask why their great wisdom has failed.
That will only further their resolve too pass “MOAR SENSIBLE GUN BILLZ… For the children”
They will then do like Chicago politicians and blame either downstate Illinois or other states for their crime/gun problems!
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-01160-R00-SB.htm
^the final version
Thank you sir. Text amended.
Since you’re doing corrections, “Any pistol over 50-ounces unloaded is banned” is not true. To read the “blackline” of the bill correctly, you have to bear in mind that red text is gone (not sure why they didn’t do a stikethrough, but whatever), blue text is new and black text is unchanaged. So while pistols only require one evil feature to be banned (versus the prior two) being heavy is no longer one of those features.
There’s very little not to hate in this bill, but there are a couple of small saving graces:
– A semi-auto shotgun can have either a pistol grip or a folding stock (but not both) BUT the 5-round capacity limit is gone.
– The definition of “assault weapon” is now limited to centrefire weapons (it was not before), so all the tacticool .22s are ok, and in fact can now have unlimited evil features like bayonet lugs, folding stocks etc. Of course, 10 round mag cap limit is still in effect. Time to take a look at a new, more powerful rimfire round? New lease on life for the .22 WMR?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_WMR
Thanks for that. Text amended.
I just now visited every one of the CT gunmakers’ websites to see their corresponding comments on the situation in their home state. With the exception of Colt, not one of the others have any public statements. The Colt Co. has a long and winding Op-Ed posted March 18th. I read through it, and I enclose the closing-draw your own conclusions:
Like every other precision manufacturer in Connecticut, Colt is constantly approached by other states to relocate, but our roots here are deep. Colt is and always has been an integral part of a state characterized by hard work, perseverance and ingenuity.
I know, however, that someday soon, I will again be asked why we fight to keep well-paying manufacturing jobs in Connecticut. I will be asked why we should continue to manufacture in a state where the governor would make ownership of our product a felony.
I will be asked these questions and, unlike in the past, there will be few good answers.
Dennis Veilleux is president and CEO of Colt’s Manufacturing Co. based in West Hartford.
Link to letter follows:
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-veilleux-dont-ban-guns-increase-safety-measu-20130318,0,6575067.story
A couple of other gems in the bill:
-If you own spare parts for an “assault weapon” you may be committing a felony.
-You have to register any magazine with greater than 10 round capacity. Those magazines may be owned, but if you carry legally, you can only put ten rounds in the magazine.
-One of the banned features is a forward pistol grip. Defined: (6) “Forward pistol grip” means any feature capable of functioning as a grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand; (Couldn’t this be construsted to mean the tradition forward gripping area of an AR-15 style rifle?)
-Another definition (4) “Detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action; (Does this eliminate bullet buttons?)
-Banned feature defined. (II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing; (I can think of no semiautomatic, bolt action, lever action, or other rifle that would be legal under this definition. There is always at least one finger below the action other than the trigger finger.)
I would agree that the “detachable magazine” definition was aimed squarely at bullet buttons. I suppose some day the manufacturers might come up with some kind of fixed mag with a toggle on the inside of the lower receiver that could still be reloaded while attached using some sort of en bloc clip like a Garand – maybe with some sort of side-flip opening.
On your last point, it’s tricky, because they were trying to eliminate the usual California work-arounds. At some point that is going to have to get clarified.
With the new one feature test, they’ve now banned any m1As or mini-14s with threaded barrels or flash suppressors.
A couple of points in the above statements need clarification. They did not ban flash suppressors if, for example, they are permanently attached to the barrel. (this is similar to the existing limitation in the CT AWB). They are banning threaded barrels which can ACCEPT these accessories. Permanently attached items are different.
The language was clearly written to make it difficult to get around when selling any AR15, hence the language about “barrel shrouds” and forward handgrips.
Note that the definition of Assault Weapon EXCLUDES rimfire rifles. This means my Ruger 10/22 with a thumbhole stock is still legal, as are AR15’s chambered in .22 LR. (Which is a good thing from my perspective, given how screwed up the bill is). How they will deal with the issue of AR15 lowers which can accept centerfire cartridges but currently have a rimfire upper attached is unclear.
Similarly, the exclusion of Lever Action rifles is also good.
I do not like the 10 round limit, but the grandfathering of existing owners was very important for me and was not in the original proposal. At least I can load up with 15 or 20 rounds for defense in my home, as well as at the range. One consequence of the rule about not having more than 10 rounds when carrying is that everyone will migrate to larger caliber guns for carry purposes. If I only have 10 bullets then I will want them to be the most powerful I can manage (.40, .45 ACP).
I just re-read the Act and need to correct one item. Flash Suppressors are on the “banned” list, but this is not new and was one of the original two items in the AWB. The difference is that now, the presence of a flash suppressor means a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is a defacto “Assault Weapon”
It looks like the language banning threaded barrels has been removed (red text). M1As would be legal if the flash suppressor were replaced with a muzzle brake and no other ‘evil’ features exist on the rifle. I haven’t read enough of the bill yet to figure out if possession of a flash suppressor, not attached to the rifle, would be illegal.
Re Flash Suppressors – They were always an “evil feature” but they were ok on M1A, Mini-14s, etc, because there was no pistol grip for the other evil feature. A very small saving grace is that they are sill ok on 22LRs – in fact, it looks like you can load up your .22 with all the evil features you like.
I think it would be very tough to build Direct Gas Impingement AR with an old-style rifle gripping stock (like a Mini-14), but you could certainly do it with one of the short-stroke piston uppers.
@Mauser – you are correct – it looks like threading has been removed from the list of rifle evil features (but not for pistols). Of course, since supporessors have been deemed to also be flash suppressors, you still can’t actually put one on your semi-auto rifle.
I wonder whether AR-15 could be “saved” under this bill even if they were to come up with a way to give it a fully fixed magazine. Is it the case that firearms banned by name don’t even have to have a detachable magazine, or is that not the case?
“-Banned feature defined. (II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing; (I can think of no semiautomatic, bolt action, lever action, or other rifle that would be legal under this definition. There is always at least one finger below the action other than the trigger finger.)”
Somewhere in CT, somehow, a some point, an anti-gun police department WILL use (or at the very least attempt to use) this as justification to confiscate ALL FIREARMS within their jurisdiction and to arrest their owners.
Either through treachery or through negligence, CT law is about to have language which could lead to an outright ban on virtually all centerfire weapons. Begun, the clone war has.
I think this is a mis-read of the language. First of all it only applies to centerfire semiautomatic rifles, so bolt actions and lever actions are not impacted. Second, the language is clearly written (although not so clear) to focus on AR15s. A Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle would not be covered nor would a MiA1, since the typical grip for such a rifle has the other fingers (other than the trigger finger) generally behind the action.
Cops might be exempt from everything, but if manufacturers continue to refuse sale to them in droves so long as this legislation stands, cops too will feel the pinch. A ban for some becomes a de facto ban for all.
Let’s see how you like your gun control when your police forces can no longer match the criminal threats they face, and your personal security details are ill-equipped to defend your sorry asses.
Do not hold your breath on in-state gun companies standing up to this. CT has some of the biggest gun companies-Colt, Mossberg, and Ruger amongst others. None of these companies has made any statement concerning withholding their products from the ‘Only Ones’, furthermore Colt is the only one to address the issue in a tepid op-ed in March.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-veilleux-dont-ban-guns-increase-safety-measu-20130318,0,6575067.story
The gov market pales in comparison to civies, they all saw what happened to s&w and know it can happen to them and that gun buyers have long memories.
What are the odds this travesty was written with “suggestions” from Bloomberg’s MIAG and the Brady Campaign, just like in NY?
Here’s what I think we should do. Once this is passed and the politicians have officially committed treason, and the subjects of CT have proven themselves unworthy of being called Americans for allowing it to happen, we do this…
Propose bans on everything. Use the same language, “logic,” and methodology seen in gun ban bills to propose legislation banning as many things as possible. Soda size (or sodas altogether), fatty foods, certain cars, certain homes, gas rationing, free speech, search and seizure, everything possible. This country’s taking its sweet time tiptoeing toward a third-world tyranny, let’s give it that final push.
The purpose? Make the leftists and willfully ignorant fools who supported gun bans feel what it’s like to have things THEY care about banned by the oppressive state. They want to support tyrants so badly? Give them exactly what they want. Turn this crap country into the slave state they so desired. Then we’ll see how they like it and who they’re willing to vote for next. When God wants to punish us, he gives us exactly what we want.
Let’s face it, once the 2A is gone, as it is now in a number of states, what reason is left to protect the other “freedoms?” They’re an illusion because there’s no way of defending them. They truly are “privileges.” Once we’re disarmed, we’re no longer a free nation, and thus the nation is not worth preserving or protecting.
I wonder if there are plans for a lawsuit.
First, something has to actually pass. And even if there is a plan, we are not saying and it needs to be planned
Or just find a DA willing to indite them for treason and insurrection. I think those still call for the death penalty…
Silver,
You said:
“Once this is passed and the politicians have officially committed treason, and the subjects of CT have proven themselves unworthy of being called Americans for allowing it to happen, we do this…”
What the f makes you think we allowed it to happen? You need to reel it in, sir. How dare you speak so foolishly. Many of us, MANY of us, have been fighting through emails, phone calls, rallies, etc., to get our side some air time on this issue. Hours, days, and weeks invested.
Yes, the citizenry of CT who willingly lay down their rights to security are going to reap the fruit of this horrid legislation, but there are those of us in CT who are still Sons of Liberty, and we have just had our faces slapped by those elected to represent our best interests.
I am asking for a retraction of your statement, sir. You have no clue what it has been like here. We have been busting our asses.
Amen +100000
How many gun owners voted for those who passed this legislation because they either thought this could never happen or they drank the Kool aid over other issues?
Elections have consequences and gun owners not only were out voted by their elected leaders but probably contributed to the problem.
“… once the 2A is gone, as it is now in a number of states… ”
I don’t know a single State where the Second Amendment is “gone”. So long as whatever permit to buy and/or own a firearm a State might require is of a “shall issue” kind, and so long as the bureaucratic process is not so cumbersome as to make applying for a permit impractical, the Second Amendment is still alive. Chicago, DC, and NYC seem to be the main offenders as far as making applying for permits borderline impractical, but these three are not States.
The Second Amendment’s problem is not so much outright death as infringement, but it’s not like people aren’t fighting to roll back the worst restrictions. One just can’t expect to win every battle.
Here’s a perfect illustration of just how insane NYC is, and that Second Amendment is pretty much dead there at the moment:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/xxx-article-1.1305308
“Confiscated firearms will be sold at public auction.”
Sounds like they have created a new revenue stream… much like real-estate. Pay your taxes or .. we’ll confiscate it and sell it to someone who will. This isn’t anti-violence gun control (as if there were such a thing) – this is a new tax system to generate revenue for the state. Think about it… you may not be able to buy anything new. but the existing guns within the state can exist at infinitum – its just a matter of who gets the tax bill.
How disgusting is that? If I were a family member who lost a child in that school I’d be outrage that I was played for a fool and the memory of my child was used simply to whore out a new revenue stream for the government.
if they aren’t reading the laws they’re passing, they do not deserve to be in office. What’s the point of them being there if they can’t read or understand what they’re trying to pass? Like in NYC where they oops “forgot to put a provision for police officers.” They should not be making decisions for me or anyone else.
This obscenity of a bill is nothing but prurient, totalitarian pornography.
These tiny tyrants and petty despots fetishize the laws they write to prohibit and
deprive us of the rights and freedoms, which they all use to pleasure themselves.
This is what passes as enlightened behavior in their gun-grabbing circle of jerks.
I’ll go the distance and not buy anything made in Connecticut or do business with any company headquartered there. And then tell them why. If they decide to leave then we both win.
This is ridiculous .
I am not a stupid person, but that bill is just to hard for me to follow.
At about section 12 my brain shut down from all the legalese and filler.
There is no way our governor read it in full.
Will someone answer a couple questions for me?
According to this bill:
If I have a Valid pistol permit do I now need to also get a “Long Gun permit? (rifle permit?).
Will my Pistol permit act as an Ammo permit as well?
From what I see in the bill a valid CT “permit to carry pistols and revolvers” will allow the holder to buy any rifle, shotgun or pistol that is allowed for sale in the state, as well as ammunition. Essentially, for those of us that have a pistol permit there is no change (other than the background check on a private sale of a rifle/shotgun. There always was a check required for a private sale of a handgun).
I think that’s correct – but what about internet ammo retailers – will they sell into CT? Will they want the hassle and liability of having to check permits?
Thank you for the help in translation.
Thank you for the help in translation.
Thanks chief!
Thanks chief!
Thanks for the help in translation folks.
Gees Scrimshaw, Multi-post much?!
If your browser said your post failed, refresh the window. It usually goes through anyway.
“semiautomatic version of an automatic pistol”
Does that mean because a Glock 18 is full auto that ALL Glocks are banned?
Gentlemen,
We need to put the spot light on the elected officials we voted for and either vote for their Democratic opponents or don’t vote. Either way we are not being Represented. In my case Mike McLaughlin and Richard Smith. Both idiots don’t realize they only won in a Blue State is because of us. I say send them home to work for a living and see what is like to not be in the ruling class.
Let stand and fight and show Connecticut we the gun owners are not going to take bill1160. Who have to vote all that supported this bill out of office. We have to stand for our 2 amendment . Don’t give up. Let them pay by voting them out.
The way I see this playing out if nothing is done to repeal it:
There will eventually be another mass shooting. At that point, having completed step 1 (registration of all bad firearms and mags), they will pass a law requiring turn-in of all registered guns, in the interest of public safety. So right now everyone must decide which side of the fence you are on. After realizing how easy it was to pass this crap, they will not stop until all firearms are illegal to own. If not one person complied with the unconstitutional registration, this would send the message that we are not going to take it.