Connecticut: High Capacity Mag Ban - Page 4

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; This guy Looney is very very anti-gun....his district includes New Haven area.... anyway. I advise all Connecticut gun owners to write their legislators to voice ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 67
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Connecticut: High Capacity Mag Ban

  1. #46
    Member Array JohnWFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    303
    This guy Looney is very very anti-gun....his district includes New Haven area.... anyway. I advise all Connecticut gun owners to write their legislators to voice opposition to this proposed insane bill.
    "A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

  2. #47
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,489
    Public hearing on 3/23/11.

    Bill Status*

  3. #48
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,479
    Richard,

    Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I do appreciate your
    input, full-time resident or not.

    I have heard from many people about this bill. The fact there's no
    grandfathering language has folks "up in arms," so to speak. Just so you
    know, the Judiciary Committee will be conducting a public hearing on it
    this Wednesday in case you are interested, or want to submit testimony.
    It will probably be broadcast on ct-n.com from about 10:00am onward that
    day. Let me know if you need more details.
    I sit on the Public Safety Committee, which the bill would probably go
    to afterwards. I will bear your thoughts in mind if it comes up for a
    vote.

    Thanks again,
    Linda

  4. #49
    Member Array KimberUltra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    68
    What does the other bill mean? the SB 1210. Something about use of deadly force in your home. Can anyone explain that to me a little more

    Bill Status*

  5. #50
    Ex Member Array Snatale42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    431
    Being next to MA must be contagious! It's crap if they push it thru w/no grandfather clause. IF it goes thru that way, or at all just hit up a show and trade them for 10's. Free for you, Profit for them.

  6. #51
    Ex Member Array Snatale42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by ssmtbracer View Post
    Yeah but what are you gonna do with a 15 round glock 19 or 17 round glock if you have no mags for it. It's useless.
    You get 10's

  7. #52
    Lead Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,788
    Ex post facto.

    A term that most legislators do not know about or perhaps they don't care. Those that don't care need to be removed from office...one way or the other.

    Article 1 section 9 of the Constitution talks about ex post facto.

    The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
    1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.


    Clearly any such bill that is passed cannot be constitutional. Its the very reason that most stupid bills have a" grandfather clause" for things that were legally owned before the passing of such law, because it wouldn't stand up in court.

    The problem is this...
    Since most people don't know this, some legislators will push it to the limit and it will stand as law until it is challenged and stuck down as illegal and unconstitutional. The problem is that is such an expensive process that most people simply cant afford it and it could be several years before the case ever goes to court. In the mean time lives are ruined, people are fined and jailed and harassed.
    It cost a small fortune for the state to defend itself, it cost a fortune for someone to bring it up and it may take awhile for it to even come to struck down. Its hardly worth it if you happen to lose your job, your home and your way of life because some anti-gun legislator put his personal feelings about the law.

    Until these "lawmakers" are removed from office and convicted of passing laws that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution, such illegal laws will continue.

    Thank goodness that cooler heads prevailed on this particular law in Connecticut.
    One must always be vigilant and aware because there are people out there that work day and night to deprive you of something.
    I want to have a job where the is no accountability,a job where I can do as I dang well please and make my own laws and act like a KING. I want to be on the Supreme Court.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  8. #53
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,479
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Ex post facto
    A term that most legislators do not know about or perhaps they don't care.
    Good try, but it isn't an ex post facto law. It has plenty else wrong with it, but it does not criminalize a past act. It only criminalizes an act going forward in time.

    For example, K2 was legal in our city until recently. When they made possession of K2 illegal after a certain date, that didn't mean that you were engaged in criminal conduct before that date. Only that going forward if you were caught with K2 you would be in some minor trouble.

    Here (CT high cap proposal) they propose to make possession of high cap illegal after a certain date. That is different than declaring that possession prior to the passage of the new law was criminal as well. That, would be ex post facto.

    In any case, whatever you call it, the failure to grandfather and the 90 day time frame for disposing of the newly illegal high caps (if the ban passes) would be onerous and expensive for lots and lots of people. For example, someone situated as myself who has a cabin there but lives elsewhere, would have to make a special trip to dispose of the high cap before the 90 day deadline passes.

    I know that is looking at it from a slightly unusual point of view, but it is a good example of why a ban, should one happen, must not be done without grandfathering.

  9. #54
    Distinguished Member Array TerriLi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,231
    I do find this interesting, some of the most senior members even do not agree, yet are able to debate things....usually civilly.
    I know not what this "overkill" means.

    Honing the knives, Cleaning the longguns, Stocking up ammo.

  10. #55
    Lead Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,788
    (c) Any person who (1) prior to the effective date of this section, lawfully possessed a large capacity magazine, and (2) not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, removes such magazine from this state or surrenders such magazine to an organized local police department or the Department of Public Safety for destruction, shall not be subject to prosecution for a violation of subsection (b) of this section.
    That looks pretty ex post facto to me.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

    Does it not say that if you surrender your high cap mags to the Police then you wont be subject to prosecution?

    You lawfully possess a dozen "high capacity" magazines which some legislator dosen't like because they are more dangerous than 10 round mags.

    He passes a law that makes them illegal and in that law he states that you have no later than 90 days to turn them in and if you do you wont be prosecuted for a class D misdemeanor?

    That's about as ex post facto as it gets.
    I want to have a job where the is no accountability,a job where I can do as I dang well please and make my own laws and act like a KING. I want to be on the Supreme Court.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #56
    VIP Member Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,191
    I agree with Hop here HG. I don't think this is ex post facto but simply an egregious change in the law as you have a remedy period to avoid prosecution. Ex post facto situations do not provide a remediation period.

    Let's say they changed the law to say you have to wait at a stop sign for 10 seconds prior to proceeding and this takes effect prior to the date the law was passed. The cops knew this was coming and had been making videos for future use. You were in the habit of stopping for 3 seconds. After the law is passed, the cops charge you for acts in the past. That would be ex post facto.

    In this case (CT HC mag ban) the state may really end up ticking off the Feds because everyone that had to turn in a perfectly functional mag for destruction could claim a casualty loss on their 1040 with the related tax break.
    "I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan

    "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.

  12. #57
    Lead Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,788
    Something that was legally owned yesterday can be made illegal today. Of that we agree.

    What is not supposed to happen is that you can be retroactively penalized for something that was previously owned.

    Its the very reason that most laws that "ban" something have a specific grandfather clause.

    Most bans, including gun bans, have grandfather clauses. What most people do not understand, is that it is not illegal to own something because of a ban. A ban only makes it illegal to import,manufacture or sell from a specific date.

    This law as written, if it were passed, more than likely wouldnt stand in court if it were challenged. If it were to stand, then we are further gone than even I suspected.
    I want to have a job where the is no accountability,a job where I can do as I dang well please and make my own laws and act like a KING. I want to be on the Supreme Court.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  13. #58
    VIP Member Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,191
    HG - Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see the retroactive penalty. Sure, you have to get rid of otherwise perfectly good property, but they cannot charge you for past acts under this law. They can charge you for failure to act in their proscribed time frame (getting rid of the now-offending property in 90 days or moving it out of state), but they can't charge you with having the property until the 90 day remediation period expires.

    Don't get me wrong, I find a lot wrong with this bill (glad they canned it), I just don't find ex post facto in it. Generally, I believe, grandfather clauses have more to do with appeasing voters than with the ex post facto stipulation in the Constitution. If you take people's property away under the guise of the law, they tend to get ticked off. If you keep them from expanding their collection while allowing the extant property to stand, they get less ticked. This is the politician's quandry. They want to take them all, but they can't afford the loss of votes if they go that way.
    "I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan

    "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.

  14. #59
    Lead Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,788
    Forcing you to get rid of your legally bought property within a certain time frame and then being prosecuted may not exactly fit the term retroactive, but it is certainly a retroactive penalty.

    Grandfather clauses are not there to appease politicians. They are there to avoid needless legal battles and much expense for a law that would more than likely be stuck down...or used to be at one time when we had a government that responded to the wishes of its people.

    That law was written to see what they could get away with. Whats next, legally owned guns?
    If I were going to test the waters with a bill as such, Connecticut would be a good testing ground.

    Thank Goodness it was trashed...as it should have been. Actually, it should have never seen the light of day.
    I want to have a job where the is no accountability,a job where I can do as I dang well please and make my own laws and act like a KING. I want to be on the Supreme Court.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #60
    VIP Member Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,191
    HG - we are basically in agreement on everything except the usage of ex post facto. One of us misunderstands the technical aspects of that term and it may well be me. But overall, we are in agreement on the needlessness of this proposed bill and are both happy it is trashed.
    "I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan

    "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.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Remove Ads

Sponsored 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 magazine ban

,
ct magazine capacity
,

ct magazine capacity law

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