CT 2015 legislation; and so it begins...

[allen-1]

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillst...illType=Bill&bill_num=HB05069&which_year=2015

Partial Text from pdf linked above:
AN ACT CONCERNING THE REMOVAL OF WEAPONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.

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

That chapter 529 of the general statutes be amended to require that all weapons be removed from the residence of a person who is the subject of a temporary restraining order.

Statement of Purpose:
To reduce domestic violence.


So many things wrong with this single sentence.

1. "all weapons"
   1. Define "weapon"; does that include my kitchen knives? My chisels? My paperweights that I could use as the proverbial blunt object?
2. "from the residence"
   1. I have a tenant living in my house, does that mean that if a TRO is imposed on him that you take MY weapons?

To really bring up your blood pressure, google "Malloy temporary restraining order"; he announced several months ago that this was going to be a top priority for him.

If you're not already involved with CCDL please consider it. Disclosure - I'm ONLY a member of CCDL, nothing more.

 

[xtry51]

Dude, time to eject and get out of there.

 

[browncoat]

If this passes, I think CT might officially be worse than MA. That's not good company.

 

[allen-1]

If this passes, I think CT might officially be worse than MA. That's not good company.

It's a coin toss. We can't purchase post-ban "assault weapons" and you need a license now simply to purchase ammunition -- but we're still a "*SHALL* issue" state - pistol permits are issued unless they can show cause why it should not be issued. And there's only one type of pistol permit, (aside from resident/non-resident); no classification system.

 

[browncoat]

It's a coin toss. We can't purchase post-ban "assault weapons" and you need a license now simply to purchase ammunition -- but we're still a "will issue" state - pistol permits are issued unless they can show cause why it should not be issued. And there's only one type of pistol permit, (aside from resident/non-resident); no classification system.

As one of the few with a restricted LTC, I appreciate that distinction. I find it hard to believe that the permit system in CT won't get more onerous sometime soon with all the stuff that's been coming down the pike though.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

It's a coin toss. We can't purchase post-ban "assault weapons" and you need a license now simply to purchase ammunition -- but we're still a "will issue" state - pistol permits are issued unless they can show cause why it should not be issued. And there's only one type of pistol permit, (aside from resident/non-resident); no classification system.

Um, CT is circling the drain. MA at least has a chance, although I am not holding my breath.

 

[allen-1]

Um, CT is circling the drain. MA at least has a chance, although I am not holding my breath.

I can't deny that it's been very discouraging to live here the last several years. That dbag Malloy and the overwhelmingly gun-ignorant democratic legislature rammed through post Newtown legislature using "emergency certification". They trampled all over both our Federal and State constitutions and will continue to do so while spouting "mommies demand a beautiful rainbow world populated with unicorns" fertilizer. We're certainly going to face more legislative challenges, (with the first one being the origin of this thread).

My wife and I have discussed re-locating, but for a number of reasons it's simply not viable for us. We've got active gun rights groups fighting, CCDL and 2AF most notably; I follow them and I send checks.

 

[dcmdon]

Um, CT is circling the drain. MA at least has a chance, although I am not holding my breath.

Um. You're wrong. They both suck, but in different ways.

Some significant ways CT is better than MA.

1. no permits required to possess any and all firearms, including handguns.
2. CT is effectively a "shall issue" state. While the local PD can delay an application for a pistol permit, the permit always ends up being issued, provided the applicant is not a prohibited person. This is because we have a way to escalate above the local issuing authority. Its called the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. They are an EXCEEDINGLY fair and even handed group. Remember that name, the BFPE is a key player in CT gun rights.
3. only one level of pistol permit - you get a "Permit to carry pistols and revolvers". It allows you to carry pretty much anything anywhere anytime other than schools. (Colleges are ok) There are no "range permits". There are no restrictions.
4. No transport requirements for most guns other than long guns must be unloaded. Exception is AWs and MGs, which must be transported in either your trunk or a locked container. (not both) You can literally drive down the road with a pre-ban AR15 across your lap and a loaded mag (only 10 rounds unfortunately) in your hand. You aren't breaking the law unless you insert the mag into the gun.
5. Mail order ammo
6. No "approved guns". Forget about $750 glocks because some guy has a model that isn't approved for sale in MA and has 3 guys bidding against each other.
7. You can have a FFL out of your home with full retail possibilities. (The FFL gets you around 99% of the gun laws and costs $50/yr for those who want to bother)
8. You can have silencers (no state regs on them at all).
9. You can have machine guns without asking permission. You do need to register a MG, but you aren't asking permission. You are giving notice.
10. Open carry
11. You aren't a felon if you do nothing . . Lets say you move to MA with all your guns. There's a whole bunch of crap you need to do to just keep them in your home. In CT, you can move here and keep anything without any registration, permits, nothing. (with the exception of a MG which needs to be registered and you need to make sure your rifles are compliant with our AWB, if not you can bring them in and have 90 days to sell them out of state.)

In summary. CT has a lot of restrictions. But if your main interest is the carry of a firearm for personal defense, CT is very unrestricted. With a PP, you can pretty much carry any gun you want, loaded with as much ammo as you want, anywhere you want other than schools.

You can carry into bars, you can even have a drink or two since the maximum BAC while carrying a LOADED gun is .1%. (.02% more than you can have in your blood and legally drive a car). If you are out and feel like you want to tip a few back. Unload the gun and keep it on you. You are legal.



In summary summary. Ha. You definitely have more gun rights, in that you have a right to possess firearms. CT restricts long guns more than MA. MA restricts handguns more than CT.

Same 5h1t different flavor. Cut MA still tastes worse.

- - - Updated - - -

If anyone wants a citation for any of the above items, let me know. - Don

 

[dcmdon]

One other thing.

Like CCDL, Membership is free in CT Carry. We take things a bit differently than CCDL, preferring to work issues in the background with FOIA requests and financial assistance funding third party litigation. We are not as large as CCDL, but we get a lot done considering our small size and limited funds.

Unlike CCDL, we are a 501(C)(4) non-profit. So all of our records including our financial records and board of directors meeting minutes are public.

CCDL is doing a lot of good work, but this is one area where I think they are really dropping the ball. CCDL has refused to set up a separate corporate entity, non-profit or otherwise for the purpose of funding their litigation against PA 13-3. As such, there is little accountability for where the funds go, and there is no transparency. This worked fine when they were a little "dinner club" selling T shirts with 1000 non-dues paying members. But now there is significant money involved. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being raised by CCDL to fight PA 13-3.

I know two relatively wealthy men who give very generously to the NRA ILA and LDF. They each wanted to give somewhere between $5000 and $10,000 to CCDL to help fund the fight.

Neither will do so unless there is proper accountability and transparency. Let me be very clear, I do not believe that there is any malicious intent on CCDL's leaderships part. I also don't understand why they refuse to set up such an entity. In the end, they are hurting themselves by refusing to set up a 501(c)(4) to manage and fund their litigation efforts.

One other thing. CT has had a problem with "risk warrants" for years. Its similar to the proposed legislation and can be used under similar circumstances. Like the proposed legislation, it deprives the gun owner of due process prior to the seizure of property.

http://ctcarry.com/RiskWarrants


Don