Connecticut: High Capacity Mag Ban - Page 3

Connecticut: High Capacity Mag Ban

This is a discussion on Connecticut: High Capacity Mag Ban within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Guantes Unless I misread, tubular .22lr magazines are exempted. As usual you are correct and I misread it....

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 67
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Connecticut: High Capacity Mag Ban

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Guantes View Post
    Unless I misread, tubular .22lr magazines are exempted.
    As usual you are correct and I misread it.


  2. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,718
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    False alarm...

    From: Robert Crook <info@ctsportsmen.com>
    To: ME
    Sent: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 1:16 am
    Subject: 10 Round Magazines; NEW Bills

    10 Round Magazines: S.B. No. 1094 (RAISED) JUDICIARY. 'AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES', to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition feeding devices that accept more than ten rounds. REF. JUDICIARY. OPPOSE. COMMUNICATE WITH JUDICIARY COMM MEMBERS BELOW. NOW!!

    There has been some confusion as to the originator of this bill. I had a meeting with Sen. Looney’s Legal Advisor today and was assured he was not the sponsor. With his name in the electronic media and messages from other groups naming him as sponsor, he is receiving massive amounts of phone calls/e-mail.

    It was admitted they did address the prospect of submitting this bill, but felt it was not appropriate. The bill was not a Proposed bill but was Raised by Judiciary Committee. It was admitted they did address the prospect of submitting this bill, but felt it was not appropriate. The bill was not a Proposed bill but was Raised by Judiciary Committee. Note that CCS directed all communications to the Judiciary Comm, NOT to Sen. Looney. STOP communications on this issue with Sen. Looney NOW unless he is YOUR State Senator. It is not wise to unnecessarily upset the Senate Majority Leader.
    Thank you for posting this. Whew.

  3. #33
    Member Array ssmtbracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    I did not know those were around it makes sense to make something like that. Thanks for the link. Hope fully that won't happen here in FL.

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Don't punish Colt over something that isn't in their control. Stuff like this proposal gets pushed by the big city boys who have never gotten either powder on their hands or mud on their boots. It gets pushed by folks who have never had the opportunity to go out into a field and plink with a 22 lever action.
    Hop - that is all true, but it does not mean I have to contribute to the coffers of CT. I have a choice and idiotic stuff like this really ticks me off. If enough people vote with their checkbook, CT will get the point - lost revenue and lost jobs.

    ETA - Just read post 29 - Great news. Maybe Colt will get some of my $$$ after all. :)
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    I was at a legislative hearing about a year ago during the microstamping attempt.

    Colt's chief counsel was very effective. He told the committee that if they did this, Colt was going to stop selling guns in CT...and likely stop buying from local suppliers due to lack of demand.

    He said the number of jobs effected would be "Significant".

    Microstamping failed.

    Colt rocks...unless you are comparing them to Glock. They they are merely OK.

  6. #36
    VIP Member
    Array ccman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    2,040
    Anyone hear how it went today ?.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    Add to that the fact that such a law most likely has no measurable effect on public safety and it all seems like much aggravation for naught.
    Well, "Obviously we need to tighten the laws until they work!" (bleh)

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,355
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    False alarm...
    - I'm a little confused by the email. Does that mean that the bill is not going to go into effect?

    I saw in another post on another forum that this bill would be unconstitional according to Article 1 Section 9 that states that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".

  9. #39
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,718
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post
    - I'm a little confused by the email. Does that mean that the bill is not going to go into effect?

    I saw in another post on another forum that this bill would be unconstitional according to Article 1 Section 9 that states that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".
    It means what Mitchel said it means: "false alarm." The other stuff, is irrelevant.

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    #1 It is not an ex-post facto law. People aught to learn what terms actually mean instead of pretending to understand them.

    Internet constitutionalists should have their hamstrings cut, shoulders pulled out of joint, impaled and eaten by the crows.

    #2 The bill was raised, but not submitted to go forward into the legislative process. It's an idea, not a fetus of a law marching toward birth.

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,355
    Thanks for the clarification.

  12. #42
    Member Array KimberUltra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    68
    Is this "idea" being brought up something we may have to worry about in the future?

  13. #43
    Senior Moderator
    Array MattInFla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    #1 It is not an ex-post facto law. People aught to learn what terms actually mean instead of pretending to understand them.

    Internet constitutionalists should have their hamstrings cut, shoulders pulled out of joint, impaled and eaten by the crows.

    #2 The bill was raised, but not submitted to go forward into the legislative process. It's an idea, not a fetus of a law marching toward birth.
    To what point was it raised, then? I'm a bit confused on how or why a bill gets introduced and added to the record if it is not intended to move through the legislative process.

    Matt
    Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
    Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.

  14. #44
    New Member Array usp222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1
    Thank God!!! I dont know if its just me but that last part sounds a little threatening It is not wise to unnecessarily upset the Senate Majority Leader. I think it not be wise to upset the American people or the people of you whom you govern. I understand that this bill might not have been taken into serious consideration, but if he was sick and tired of being bothered with it he should have made that announcement personally. Once the first 100 angry CT residents complained he should have eased our minds. We were initially pissed because someone who is supposed to be protecting the constitution state from unconstitutional laws allowed a law like this to even be considered . I know it would make no sense to take away guns or high cap mags from law abiding citizens. When what really should be happening is criminal possession of a firearm for people who are not fit to carry or own should be tightened. A criminal gets caught with a gun and gets 6mos. probation and another felony on there record. No biggie to them. But a church going hard working father/mother of two and a pillar to the community gets his/her guns or mags taken that they have invested there hard earned money in is just wrong.. Take away the guns from the law abiding american so the only people who have them are the criminals.. Smart. On the other hand I am grateful that this law is benign to our future and Im happy that a lot of us are doing our job as American citizens and CT residents and letting it be known of how we feel and what we think. Also letting it be known that we pay very close attention to our laws and what goes on in politics in this state. I hope we keep up the good work and let our opinions be know at all times regardless of what someone says in a email about not upsetting someone. We understand he has to do his job and he has to understand that we have to do our job..

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Quote Originally Posted by ssmtbracer View Post
    What good does a 10 round mag do in a G17? So you have to basically get rid of your gun too.
    I still have a couple 10 round G17 mags that sold with the gun during the dark years
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. High Capacity Sub-Compact 9mm >>>>
    By VBVAGUY in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2011, 12:37 PM
  2. high capacity plinker (not a 10/22)
    By Thanis in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 16th, 2010, 11:31 AM
  3. BPS High Capacity vs Mossburg 590
    By GHFLRLTD in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: November 6th, 2009, 12:04 AM
  4. Need high capacity mag info.
    By automatic slim in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 5th, 2008, 11:55 AM
  5. High capacity 45?
    By Yddnac in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: October 13th, 2006, 08:03 PM

Search tags for this page

connecticut high capacity magazine ban

,
connecticut magazine ban
,
connecticut magazine capacity
,

connecticut magazine capacity laws

,

connecticut magazine capacity limit

,

connecticut magazine limit

,

ct gun laws magazine capacity

,

ct high capacity magazine ban

,
ct high capacity magazine bill
,

ct magazine ban

,

ct magazine capacity law

,
ct magazine limit
Click on a term to search for related topics.