Connecticut’s Draconian Anti-Second Amendment Bill

Three and a half months after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, a bipartisan task force of Connecticut legislators announced they have come to an agreement in principle on a package of new gun laws they characterize as the most far-reaching in the nation. “Nobody will be able to say that this bill is absolutely perfect, but no one will also be able to say that this bill fails the test when it comes to being the strongest in the country and the most comprehensive bill in the country,” said Connecticut Senate President Don Williams, a Democrat. The General Assembly will meet today to vote on the bill. It is expected to pass.

The law seeks to add another 100 “assault weapons” to the list of those already banned in the state, and limit the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds. Armor-piercing bullets will also be banned, and a background check on all gun sales will be required, even for those weapons sold at gun shows. Safety standards will be established for school buildings, and mental health training will be made available for teachers. Mental research will also be expanded throughout the state.

Pushing the envelope, lawmakers aim to establish a “dangerous weapon offender registry.” Under this first in the nation law, individuals will be required to register with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) if they have been convicted of a felony where the court issues a finding that the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon was involved, or if they are convicted of violating more than 40 other weapons offenses. Such individuals must register with the DESPP for a total of five years after their release from confinement, and keep the registration of their address current. They must also check in with law enforcement officials once a year on the anniversary of their release, wherever they currently reside.

If the bill passes, large capacity magazines (LCMs) will be banned and their sale, or transfer into the state, will become a Class D felony. Those who currently own LCMs will be forced to register them with the DESPP by January 1, 2014 to remain legal, and even then, further restrictions on magazine usage will be imposed.

State-issued eligibility certificates will be required to buy any shotgun, rifle or ammunition. The so-called “long gun eligibility certificate” will require an applicant to take a firearms safety training course, get fingerprinted, and undergo a national criminal background check, as well as a mental health check that will determine whether one had been voluntary or involuntary committed to a mental health facility.

The “ammunition eligibility certificate” will require an applicant to pass a national criminal background check. Moreover, as of October 1, 2013, any sale of ammunition or a magazine to a Connecticut resident will require 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.

House Minority Leader Larry Cafero, a Republican, attempted to placate law-abiding gun owners. “No gun owner will lose their gun, no gun owner will lose their magazine, they will not lose the use of said gun or magazine, so long as they follow our rules and register,” he contended. “Are there tighter restrictions on their use, etc.? Absolutely. We also were able to see as part of this legislation the repeal of early release for violent criminals,” he added.

The relatives of the Sandy Hook victims were unsatisfied with the bill, urging lawmakers to enact a complete ban on LCMs. “On behalf of the loved ones who were violently taken from us, please reconsider your approach to large-capacity magazines as part of the comprehensive package of gun legislation,” the families wrote in a letter. And despite the fact that the task force refused to go along with an outright ban, Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy backed the families in a statement released Monday. “They’ve asked for an up or down vote on that provision,” he said, “and, whether it’s in the larger bill or as an amendment, the families, and every resident of our state, deserve a vote.”

Not every resident. Those who might object to this legislation will have no opportunity to voice their concerns. This reality was confirmed by the press officer for Connecticut House Republicans, who revealed that the bill will proceed directly to a vote today under the state’s “emergency certification” procedure, “by which the speaker and president pro tempore jointly propose a bill and send it directly to the House or Senate, floor for action without any committee referrals or public hearings.”

Thus, no one gets to voice the idea that only law-abiding citizens will be affected, the reality that Adam Lanza’s guns were legally registered to his mother, or that forcing people to be fingerprinted to own a firearm or bullets may be constitutionally suspect. No one gets to question the twisted logic by which lawmakers seek to prevent people with mental problems from obtaining firearms, even as they would enter those willing to seek help into a state database aimed at restricting their rights, a potential deterrent from seeking assistance.

Furthermore, if other states with restrictive gun laws are any indication, the most likely result of this new law will be massive non-compliance. When New Jersey banned assault weapons in 1991, 947 people registered their rifles for sport shooting, 888 people rendered their weapons inoperable, and four turned them over to the police–out of the estimated 100,000 to 300,000 weapons the law ostensibly affected. And in California, residents have largely ignored a universal background check requirement.

Greg Ridgeway, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Justice Department, wrote a gun policy memo entitled “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” that reveals the futility attached to other aspects of the law. Ridgeway explains that grandfathering existing LCMs, as Connecticut intends to do, “would nearly eliminate any impact” of a ban. Universal background checks are equally suspect because “informal transfers dominate the crime gun market,” and criminal convictions, mental health disorders, and the issuance of restraining orders “can develop after the background checks.” He further reveals that “assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide” and thus, “an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.”

Ridgeway contends massive buyback programs might be effective, but reveals that most of them are too small to have an impact, most of the guns surrendered are highly unlikely to be used in a crime, and replacement guns can be easily acquired. He further notes that a massive buyback program in Australia reduced the number of mass shootings–but had no effect on crime.

Ironically, even though the new law still awaits passage, it has already been “effective.” On Tuesday, Connecticut residents packed gun shops throughout the state, looking to purchase weapons, or to check on previous orders they were fearful would be cancelled once the law takes effect. “I walked through. I walked out because they didn’t have anything,” said Nick Viccione, a gun owner from Wallingford who attempted to shop at Hoffman’s Gun Center and Indoor Range in Newington. “The girl told me what’s on the shelf is what they have. And I totally believe that.” Viccione also noted that people are trying to load up on ammunition and buy “anything semi-automatic.” Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance acknowledged a companion reality. “The special licensing and firearms unit is going full bore,” he revealed.

The Connecticut gun industry dates back to the Revolutionary War, and supports more than 7,000 jobs in the Nutmeg State. That equation is likely to change. Joe Bartozzi, senior vice president and general counsel for O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc., a company that has been in business since 1919, and employs 270 workers, illuminated the alternative. “I’ve got a stack of invitations from governors, congressmen and economic development groups right here on my desk,” he said.

So what’s this law really all about? “I wake up in the morning and put this green ribbon and pin on my jacket lapel to remember those we’ve lost,” said Senate minority leader John McKinney, a Republican who represents Newtown. “And what I’m proud of is that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, understood that some issues, and this one particularly, should rise above politics.”

This issue is nothing but politics. Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, explains why. “There is nothing in this package that would have stopped someone like Adam Lanza,” he said, referring to the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook massacre. “In his case, he stole the guns and went on a murderous rampage.” It is precisely that reality that gun control supporters invariably refuse to acknowledge. Unfortunately, defenselessness sold as moral superiority still leaves one defenseless.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The kiddies have always been the excuse, as radical leftists – with the Radical-in-Chief at the helm – want nothing more than to eviscerate the Second Amendment.
    How many proofs are required to demonstrate said thesis – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/16/gun-control-m

    And what does ObamaCare have to do with this draconian putsch? Everything – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/18/obamas-march-

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • EarlyBird

      Don't worry, Adina. This won't affect Israel.

  • UCSPanther

    And for Australia's semi-auto rifle ban, I have heard rumors that non-compliance is estimated to be as high as 80%.

    Goes to show that no matter how good you try to make your pie-in-the-sky agenda involving the confiscation of lawfully owned property look, people still won't go along with it…

    • Looking4Sanity

      Hey. If they are that desperate to turn me into a de-facto criminal…I'll play along.

      Molon Labe.

  • AlgerHiss

    Just as my neighbor's freedom and liberty is far more important than even my life, MY freedom and liberty is more important than the lives of those dead kids in Newtown.

    Land of the free and home of the brave? These days, you've got to be joking.

    • Richard

      I think of the movie "Brave Heart" when I read your comment. When Wallace was being tortured and asked to plead for mercy (at the end of the movie) to stop the torture, he instead yelled FREEDOM.. and was murdered.

    • Donald Kosloff

      More guns, in the right hands, would have prevented the deaths of those kids in Newtown. The tradeoff you wrote about does not, and has never existed.

  • syzito

    People better wake up and see what the real agenda is….It has nothing to do with public safety.It's about being able to control society by disarming them first.You can not control a society if they are armed.

  • Asher

    Notice the obsession with disarming lawful citizens, add the borders issue, collapsing the economy and raising the debt, selling out American security. (So where is the focus on Jobs?) More gun laws will not stop criminals they don't obey laws! Obama could care less about our economy, he wants total control to throw us in FEMA camps and is pushing gun control like he did health care.

    • Richard

      yes, and the domestic terroist, Bill Ayers (who got away with his crimes do to a technicality) is proud of the leftest extremist he helped put in office.

  • Denver

    Hey Connecticut Yankees!

    You guys are only getting the government you deserve.

    • t poland

      what the hell nobody deserves this ! don't forget they took those peoples houses away in new London Ct (eminent domain) and it hasn't done that city any good ! this state sucks.
      were to stubborn to leave and keep loosing the fight . Damn liberals

  • tagalog

    Mr. Ahlert, you must know that it's secondary that gun control laws should be designed to reduce or eliminate the risk that such laws address. That factor hardly comes into play at all. The issue for the left is two-fold: (1) to place more control in central authority in the mistaken belief that doing so will insure optimum well-being, and (2) to massage the left's views so as to convince themselves that they're actually doing something, without actually doing anything at all (that's why they always vote for the candidate who will raise taxes, then cheat on their taxes).

    The only gun control that would stop something like the Newtown murders would be total confiscation of every gun in the United States. As laws like the Connecticut laws get passed, that ultimate goal comes a few steps closer. That's what the gun control lobby wants, repeal of the Second Amendment.

  • EthanP

    You are in error on one thing. Licensed dealers have always been required to do a "NICKS" check. Private collecters at gun shows do not. And you will often see an individual seeking to sell one or two guns. The too do not need to do a NICKS check. The Conn. law would now require a background check on all transfers and sails. Even between parent and child and siblings. This requires going through an FFL dealer. Who will charge a fee on guns they didn't sell on top of any fee the state imposes.

    • EarlyBird

      I have sold guns before to friends, and one cop I was a acquaintance of. In all cases we went to the gun dealer and the sale legally, even though it was a bit of a hassle, and the buyer had a bit of extra expense. I would never, ever, feel right selling a gun to a total stranger without going through the back ground check.

  • tagalog

    Where can I get a copy of the Connecticut list of "assault weapons?" What is the Connecticut definition of what an "assault weapon" is? Where can I find that definition and list?

    I'd like to see what firearms Connecticut includes under their definition.

    • White Hunter

      Look in your closet, or rather, in your gun safe. If it's in there, it's on the List. Or will be, next year. Any other questions?

      • tagalog

        Yeah; my questions are: (1) Where can I get the list and (2) what's the Connecticut definition of "assault weapon."

        Thanks for trying, though.

        Before the new law, the following is Connecticut's list of "assault weapons:"

        "Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol;"

        The Ruger Mini-14 with folding stock is on the list. I guess that folding stock is just too horrifying.

        The AR-15 is among the listed forbidden firearms. So how did Adam Lanza's mom get one? Isn't Connecticut enforcing the gun control laws it already has?

        Notice that to be an "assault weapon," the firearm must be capable of "fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user," or be one of the listed firearms. If there's no select-fire feature that allows the user to select the mode of fire, as I read the statute it's not an "assault weapon" unless it's on the list. The new law adds 100 new specified firearms to the list.

        • gee59

          The Police Chiefs' definition is any firearm that holds more than 5 rounds. That is their entire definition

          • tagalog

            The Police Chiefs' definition is not consistent with Connecticut General Statutes, Section 53-202, which, in addition to stating the list that appears above, also defines "assault weapon" as follows:

            "(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

            (i) A folding or telescoping stock;

            (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

            (iii) A bayonet mount;

            (iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

            (v) A grenade launcher; or

          • tagalog

            (B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

            (i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

            (ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

            (iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

            (iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

            (v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or

            (C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

            (i) A folding or telescoping stock;

            (ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

            (iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

            (iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

          • tagalog

            4) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3) of this subsection, may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person."

    • EarlyBird

      "Where can I get a copy of the Connecticut list of "assault weapons?" What is the Connecticut definition of what an "assault weapon" is? Where can I find that definition and list?"

      They probably consider fast loading muskets "assault rifles."

      • tagalog

        The old list of "assault weapons" is in the statute that the new legislation supersedes, namely Connecticut General Statutes, Section 53-202. In Connecticut, an "assault weapon" is "Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms," followed by a list of about 60 or 70 specified firearms, including specifically the AR-15 and the Bushmaster semi-auto M-16 replica. I've posted the list above in this thread.

        The new statute adds approximately 100 more specified firearms to its list of firearms that the legislature has decided are "assault weapons" even though they're semi-auto only and not select-fire rifles, pistols, or shotguns.

        I am attempting to get a copy of the bill or the new law, but Google and Bing on my computer keep hanging up on it; maybe there are too many people trying to get to the sites I'm trying to access, including FindLaw. Eventually I'll get the new list.

        • EarlyBird

          Damm. Sounds like basically any semi-auto rifle, as I suspected.

  • Looking4Sanity

    Adam Lanza would be overjoyed to witness all the chaos he's caused this country. Anyone who doesn't think that he "won" had better re-assess the situation. The damage he's still doing to this country is FAR worse than the people he murdered. And…every one of the politicians heading down this UN-Constitutional road are worse than Adam Lanza ever was. I hope we all remember that on election day!

    • Richard

      Adam Lanza is now the poster boy for the anti gun leftest democrats ( and rhinos). He helped them get what they always wanted, destruction of the 2nd ammendment.

    • EarlyBird

      Okay, so let's get this straight:

      The attempt by lawmakers and regular citizen to prevent future mass murders, however misguided it may be, is worse than the shooting to death in cold blodd 20 five year old children, wounding of several others, and tearing apart of countless lives?

      Yes, you are looking for sanity, aren't you?

      • Donald Kosloff

        There was no attempt such as the one you describe. Of course any sane and mildly thoughtful person could easily see that a misguided attempt could indeed be worse than the cold blooded murder of 20 children. A knowledgeable person would know that there have been many cases, where guns were not used, in the US that involved the mass deaths of more than 20 children.

      • Mary Sue

        if you really think Gun Control can prevent mass murder in any way, you are delusional. Just look at Chicago.

        • EarlyBird

          I am NOT for gun control, you nitwit!

          I am calling out this moral infant for stating that people horrified by mass murder,, and in their minds are trying to prevent mass murder, are morally WORSE than the actual mass murderer of 20 children!

          I refuse to believe you are too stupid to understand my point, Baby Jane.

          • Looking4Sanity

            You're just an emotional train wreck, aren't you emo-boi?

          • EarlyBird

            Explain to us, you cretin, how people responding to mass murder are worse than the actual mass murderer. That's your very own position. Explain it.

          • Looking4Sanity

            You don't get to define MY position, tardling.MY position is that anyone actively working to destroy the Constitution is worse than a mass murderer.

      • Looking4Sanity

        I suppose that would depend entirely on just how sacred you hold the Constitution wouldn't it, commie emo-boi? How many people have died keeping and defending it? I don't see you shedding any tears over any of THEM. And you have the nerve to question MY sanity? Does your village know they're missing their tardling?

        • EarlyBird

          You sicko. You have the chance to recalibrate your hideous comment, and you refuse to.

          I'll restate your position again for others: Those who are horrified by mass murder, and so misguidedly attempt to prevent future mass murders with gun control legislation, are WORSE than Adam Lanza, and his mowing down in cold blood 20 five year children.

          THAT is your position.

  • White Hunter

    Strangely, never a nasty word is ever hissed against the actual murderers. Instead of cursing and demanding the death penalty for the psycho who maimed her husband and nearly killed President Reagan, Sarah Brady launches a crusade against the NRA and the 100+ million peaceable American gun owners who are a danger to no one. Likewise Carolyn Maloney, whose husband was murdered on the L.I.R.R.

    No hate directed at the Sandy Hook psycho and his nutcase mother, his witless accomplice, either. Nor against the Aurora cinema psycho, who snivels to avoid the death penalty he deserves. Nor against the psycho who maimed Gabby Giffords and slaughtered her supporters. In all cases, the reflex reaction is "tougher gun control" on the rest of us, who are no threat and never will be.

    The ugly, angry governor of NY snarls that he's got "the toughest gun law in the nation," and now other fools in other states line up to compete for that "honor." Let's try caging and executing the psychos, instead of flogging everybody EXCEPT the mad and the guilty. That might actually accomplish something worthwhile.

    • tish59

      White Hunter – beautifully said!

    • EarlyBird

      Well said.

  • Alex Kovnat

    Barack Obama has shown no statesmanship whatsoever in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. The way he has comported himself politically, is just barely this side (if this side at all) of dancing on children's graves. For example, with all the emphasis on various forms of weapons, he has not mentioned the problem of mothers – or perhaps parents – harboring, coddling, enabling and even providing weapons for, desperately sick and twisted adolescent or post-adolescent children. The Sandy Hook shooter was a recluse during the last years of his life, and his mother enabled his behavior. How much would it have been asking, for BO to mention this problem? Obama and others (notably Senator Feinstein) don't mention the fact that while the Sandy Hook shooter used an "assault rifle", he could have used any good autoloader pistol and a succession of magazines. He could even have used a succession of small revolvers.

  • Gonna fire them all

    Some of these "new" laws in CT are redundant. I live in CT and when I got my carry license 10 years ago I had to take an NRA course. Every 5 years I submit to a new back round check when I renew my license @ $72.00 (another tax). I had to submit to FBI fingerprinting, State fingerprinting and national back round check. Each time I have purchased a firearm I have had to submit to a State back round check. I have never minded any of these provisions before. We secure our firearms and have insurance. Now, I'll just make my own ammunition to avoid the insane ammo rule.
    The LCM rules are ridiculous and only cost the state more money and bog down law enforcement who are the ones charged with the task. Come election time I fire the them all for the cowardly e-cert vote and look to exit the state as soon as I can.

  • mlcblog

    1. This is how they got the Germans. Once the guns were registered, it became a simple matter of going door by door and collecting them. Hence, no ability of the people to resist the armed takeover. I understand it happened quite quickly.

    2. In all the "discussions" about the new restrictions I do not hear the simple fact being presented that certain crime rates will always increase when guns are not present in the populace. Will John Lott ever be heard, or must we continue to hear misquoted, out-of-date studies from some obscure expert on this?

  • pagegl

    Several thoughts:

    So, Connecticut will have a firearms registry; legal firearms owners there need to be wondering when the state will come to take them away.

    When will these new Connecticut laws be fought in federal court?

    If the solution to a problem does nothing to stop the problem from occurring again it really isn't a solution. I wonder when the leftists will learn that truth. I won't hold my breath.

    • tagalog

      Coming up with a solution is not uppermost in their minds. Power is what they're thinking about. And the leftist agenda, whose advancement is jeopardized by a public right to own firearms.

    • White Hunter

      There's never any difficulty tracing a gun to its last LEGAL owner, and a police lab technician once told me that it's almost never a factor in identifying and convicting the killer–legal owners tend to be far more law-abiding than the average Congressman, and they don't kill people or stick up convenience stores. With few exceptions, murder weapons are either stolen, or acquired through "straw men" (a seldom-enforced Federal felony in itself).

      There's only one real purpose for the kind of state or national "registry" you're talking about: to create a list of compliant citizens so they can come and get 'em after they ban them next time around. Cleveland, I think I recall, and California are just two notorious examples of the pattern.

      Of course the leftists are already well aware of that truth; we give them an undeserved benefit of the doubt when we believe their protests that confiscation is not what they intend, at all, not at all!

  • tagalog

    If the gun owners must pay for the costs of these extended background checks, isn't that analogous to poll taxes that chill the right to vote? Isn't that unconstitutional? Are gun safety courses as a precondition to gun ownership like literacy tests to establish eligibility to vote?

    If the left is so scrupulous about the effect of requiring voter ID before one can vote, where are they on these clearly troublesome constitutional issues?

    Where's the NRA?

  • alkidya

    For any terrorist(s) that want to go on a rampage Connecticut will be the place to carry it out. Connecticut will also surely attract large criminal elements, drug gangs, Cartels, and there will never be peace in that state. This is the worst bill they could possibly pass after a tragedy like they experienced.
    We shall have to wait and see how this pans out in the next few years.

  • Richard

    Gun and gun accessory manufacturing companies need to leave the state–you are not wanted! There are plenty of states that would welcome an industry with 7,000 jobs like nearby New Hampshire or just get the hell out of blue country altogether and come to Wyoming. There are several companies moving into this state now.

    • tagalog

      Connecticut, formerly the home of Colt and Smith and Wesson. Connecticut, where Eli Whitney first developed the assembly line to standardize the manufacture of rifles in Connecticut factories.

  • gee59

    If the founding fathers were alive today they would be organizing to overthrow the federal and state governments for their tyranny.

  • NAHALKIDES

    What I find most noteworthy here is the Republican Party having apparently decided to castrate itself. Presumably Connecticut is so far gone no Conservative can win any more, or else the Establishment Republicans simply refuse to stand aside. This is the future for the entire country unless Conservatives can get control of the GOP and prevent the Democrats from flooding the country with massive waves of immigrants, a/k/a new Democratic voters.

    • Fritz

      I think it's time for the gun owners in Connecticut to take charge, become active in the primaries, and turf these wet noodles out of the Republican party. The Republican establishment insists that conservatives and constitutional originalists can't win in places like Connecticut and only "moderate" candidates can. After all that's why Linda McMahon handily won her U.S Senate seat in Connecticut. Wait, what's that you say? Linda McMahon isn't a U.S senator? And neither is Carly Fiorina ? What about Olympia Snow in Maine? Oh that's right Snow was defeated by an independent.
      Wet noodles don't take a stand on issues, they flop over, and it you don't take a stand you fall down, you also can't win an election either. There are conservatives and libertarians everywhere, but if you are just going to run another "Lib" or a wet noodle, and call him a Republican, the conservatives will stay home and the real "Lib" will win. If you can't bring out the base to vote for you why should anyone else?

  • Atikva

    I am glad I don't live in Connecticut any more.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Years ago working in prison I was speaking to a man who was doing three consecutive
    seventy-five year sentences for shooting his wife to death for incessant nagging and
    then went to his inlaws home and shot them dead. I was curious why the inlaws, and he
    informed me they led her to berate him all of the time until he could not take it any more.
    I said it is illegal to use a firearm in killing people but you know that well enough now, his
    lunatic laughter is still ringing somewhere. The means is after the fact in fatal shootings,
    it is people that must be changed, attitudes altered, self worth and self control instilled
    in our population, looking at what our schools are turning out it may be to late, the only
    upside is that they are almost all wimps, the future is not for me and maybe not for you.
    William

  • 11bravo

    It will be struck down in the SCOTUS on the basis of "infringement". Scalia said there can be some gun control laws, I think this one goes too far.
    It may take four years to get there, and I hope Obama does not get 2 more picks before he goes away.

  • Asher

    The latest rediculous statements came from Representative Diane DeGette from Colorado, Larimer County. She shows how stupid she is about guns by saying that once you shoot off the magazine you can't shoot it anymore, so we need to ban bullets, she doesn't even know that they are reloadable. These people are idiots and should not even be in office, they want to disarm law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves, but allow the criminals everything at their disposal because criminals do not obey gun laws. Adam Lanza, James Holmes, and Jarred Loughner could care less about laws, they only want recognition for their crimes!

  • tagalog

    Don Williams says, ”Nobody will be able to say that this bill is absolutely perfect…,"

    The understatement of the decade.

  • tagalog

    The Connecticut gun control law that has now passed their legislature, SB 1094, restricting gun magazine capacity to 10 rounds or less, makes possession of a magazine that has the capability of holding more than 10 rounds a Class D felony in Connecticut.

    A felony. Prison time.

    The penalties for a Class D felony in Connecticut are 1-5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Notice that's 1 year to 5 years, not zero years to 5 years. So if you get convicted of possessing a magazine that's capable of holding 11 or more rounds, your minimum prison sentence is one year. Presumably if the judge thought you were a good enough defendant, you could get a suspended sentence.

    It seems like unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment to me, but I bet the Supreme Court would uphold it as passing constitutional muster.

    In the prison yard:

    Hi. My name's Bob. What's yours?

    Matt. Whatcha in for?

    I strangled my mother-in-law. How about you?

    I owned a pistol magazine with a 12-round capacity.

    "…and they all moved away from me on the Group W bench…"

  • EarlyBird

    Bans on armor piercing bullets, background checks for gun sales, even limits on magazine capacity I can live with, as they may have some marginal impact on gun violence without trampling 2nd Amendment and self defense rights.

    All the rest of this – I'd love to hear what 100 weapons qualify as "assualt rifles," and what the "definition" is – sounds nuts.

    I predict the requirement to have the various permits and background checks, if used in a way to basically make it so onerous so as to negate the technical, remaining right to firearms – will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

    • tagalog

      I've posted the Connecticut definition of "assault weapon" above in this thread. You can find it in Connecticut General Statutes Section 53-202.

      "Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol;"

      The statute goes on to make a further, more detailed, definition of "assault weapon" that strikes me as inconsistent with the one that appears immediately above, and I've posted that in this thread too.

      The new legislation will probably keep the definition and just add the new list of firearms deemed by the legislature to be "assault weapons" along with the background check, magazine capacity limitation, registration requirements, and so on. So it all will probably be found (eventually) in that statute.

      • EarlyBird

        That's a lot of weapons. I own three of them.

        Thanks for researching and posting.d

  • tagalog

    The new Connecticut gun control law can be seen in Connecticut General Assembly Bill 1160. It has many interesting (and alarming) provisions. A flavor: in Connecticut, you now must pay a non-refundable fee of $35 for a "long gun eligibility certificate" that lasts for five years in order to be eligible under Connecticut law to buy a rifle. You must pay a non-refundable $35 fee for a five-year "ammunition certificate" in order to buy ammo in Connecticut. You are not permitted to posssess a magazine for a firearm that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds. If you already have such magazines, you must register them with the state. The law takes effect January 1, 2014. Violation of the above provisions is a Class D felony. For a first offense, the penalty is a maximum fine of $90; after that, you're a Class D felon. Class D felonies are punishable by 1-5 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine.

    The posts I'll put below contain the new list of firearms that have been added to the list that I've posted above. The total runs somewhere around 130-140 prohibited firearms, some of which are very popular and widely-owned as well as being high-quality firearms (I'm thinking particularly of the Colt AR-15 and the FN-FALs).

  • tagalog

    More rifles that didn't fit into the above post, which apparently must be approved before it's posted:

    (xxv) DPMS Tactical Rifles; (xxvi) Smith and Wesson M&P15 Rifles; (xxvii) Rock River Arms LAR-15; (xxviii) Doublestar AR Rifles; (xxix) Barrett REC7; (xxx) Beretta Storm; (xxxi) Calico Liberty 50, 50 Tactical, 100, 100 Tactical, I, I Tactical, II and II Tactical Rifles; (xxxii) Hi-Point Carbine Rifles; (xxxiii) HK-PSG-1; (xxxiv) Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU Rifles, and RFB; (xxxv) Remington Tactical Rifle Model 7615; (xxxvi) SAR-8, SAR-4800 and SR9; (xxxvii) SLG 95; (xxxviii) SLR 95 or 96; (xxxix) TNW M230 and M2HB; (xl) Vector Arms UZI; (xli) Galil and Galil Sporter; (xlii) Daewoo AR 100 and AR 110C; (xliii) Fabrique Nationale/FN 308 Match and L1A1 Sporter; (xliv) HK USC; (xlv) IZHMASH Saiga AK; (xlvi) SIG Sauer 551-A1, 556, 516, 716 and M400 Rifles; (xlvii) Valmet M62S, M71S and M78S; (xlviii) Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine; and (xlix) Barrett M107A1;

    The Barrett M107A1 could not possibly qualify as an "assault weapon" under ANY rational classification scheme. It's the big .50 cal. sniper rifle. It's bolt-operated and not even semi-automatic. I can just see a skinny little wimp like Adam Lanza lugging one into the Newtown school.

  • tagalog

    Pistols:

    (i) Centurion 39 AK; (ii) Draco AK-47; (iii) HCR AK-47; (iv) IO Inc. Hellpup AK-47; (v) Mini-Draco AK-47; (vi) Yugo Krebs Krink; (vii) American Spirit AR-15; (viii) Bushmaster Carbon 15; (ix) Doublestar Corporation AR; (x) DPMS AR-15; (xi) Olympic Arms AR-15; (xii) Rock River Arms LAR 15; (xiii) Calico Liberty III and III Tactical Pistols; (xiv) Masterpiece Arms MPA Pistols and Velocity Arms VMA Pistols; (xv) Intratec TEC-DC9 and AB-10; (xvi) Colefire Magnum; (xvii) German Sport 522 PK and Chiappa Firearms Mfour-22; (xviii) DSA SA58 PKP FAL; (xix) I.O. Inc. PPS-43C; (xx) Kel-Tec PLR-16 Pistol; (xxi) Sig Sauer P516 and P556 Pistols; and (xxii) Thompson TA5 Pistols;

  • tagalog

    Shotguns:

    All IZHMASH Saiga 12 Shotguns;

  • tagalog

    I had a difficult time finding Bill #1160 on the internet. Usually I have zero trouble looking up topics that interest me. That includes esoterica like issues in quantum physics and obscure legal issues in bankruptcy and the text of case decisions in various courts.

    But it took me two days of admittedly intermittent effort to finally find a specific reference to the Connecticut bill. I still don't have a copy of the actual law that the governor signed, although Bill 1160 seems to amend several statutes, so that's understandable. Still, no publication I visited included the number of the bill except the Hartfort Courant, which provided a link to the actual bill (in an obscure side column), although, like all other sources I found, it didn't give the bill number or provide a link to the proposed law in the news story.

    I wonder why the bill hasn't been clearly linked in the stories on this significant news issue. I mean, it's been widely reported for quite a while. Seems like somebody doesn't want us to know what's in it (of course, it IS 138 pages long – the libbies seem to just LOVE those really long statutes). Could it be Nancy Pelosi?

  • tagalog

    Evidently my list of the first 25 rifles that are classibied under Connecticut law as "assault weapons" was not approved, so here's my second effort.

    The first 25 rifles on the list are:

    (i) AK-47; (ii) AK-74; (iii) AKM; (iv) AKS-74U; (v) ARM; (vi) MAADI AK47; (vii) MAK90; (viii) MISR; (ix) NHM90 and NHM91; (x) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S and 86S; (xi) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47; (xii) SA 85; (xiii) SA 93; (xiv) VEPR; (xv) WASR-10; (xvi) WUM; (xvii) Rock River Arms LAR-47; (xviii) Vector Arms AK-47; (xix) AR-10; (xx) AR-15; (xxi) Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster XM15, Bushmaster ACR Rifles, Bushmaster MOE Rifles; (xxii) Colt Match Target Rifles; (xxiii) Armalite M15; (xxiv) Olympic Arms AR-15, A1, CAR, PCR, K3B, K30R, K16, K48, K8 and K9 Rifles;

  • tagalog

    I guess the site administrators just aren't going to approve my list of the first 25 rifles that Connecticut now considers "assault weapons." I tried to get it posted twice, but it just doesn't fly for some reason.

    If you're interested, you'll have to look up Connecticut General Assembly Bill 1160 yourself. Enjoy.

    I'll try editing this post: (i) AK-47; (ii) AK-74; (iii) AKM; (iv) AKS-74U; (v) ARM; (vi) MAADI AK47; (vii) MAK90; (viii) MISR; (ix) NHM90 and NHM91; (x) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S and 86S; (xi) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47; (xii) SA 85; (xiii) SA 93; (xiv) VEPR; (xv) WASR-10; (xvi) WUM; (xvii) Rock River Arms LAR-47; (xviii) Vector Arms AK-47; (xix) AR-10; (xx) AR-15; (xxi) Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster XM15, Bushmaster ACR Rifles, Bushmaster MOE Rifles; (xxii) Colt Match Target Rifles; (xxiii) Armalite M15; (xxiv) Olympic Arms AR-15, A1, CAR, PCR, K3B, K30R, K16, K48, K8 and K9 Rifles;

  • tagalog

    For some reason, when I post the list of the first 24 rifles that Connecticut has banned, something in that list triggers the requirement that my post be moderated. Then my post is deleted. I don't know what the problem is.

    I guess if you want to know what the first 24 firearms are, that are classified by Connecticut as forbidden assault weapons, you'll have to look up Connecticut General Assembly Bill 1160 for yourself.