CT Gun Law revisions

[Nick Fury]

Highlights: Many .22s are now assault weapons and gun trusts are deemed acceptable...

Conn. lawmakers revise gun control legislation

 

[KH56010]

To lazy to read the bill (not a CT resident). This sounds like a promising loophole though... "and exempts curios and relics collectors from the ban"

 

[TOY539]

Only revision should be to completely repeal the asinine bill.

 

[Hoover]

You know the original bill was a giant clusterf@$k when they are passing a bill to revise it two months after it passed. Idiots.

From the yahoo article "The bill also clarifies the status of .22-caliber rimfire rifles, defining them as assault weapons when fitted with a detachable magazine and more than one of several features including a folding or telescoping stock, bayonet mount or flash suppressor."

So the scary deadly .22 rimfires are evil if they have the evil features that make them extra killy.

But the kids are more safer now.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

The problem is that none of these weapons are C&R. So does just having a C&R exempt you from the law, allowing you to own an assault weapon that is not a C&R? Pretty vague, gonna have to read the law. If so, everybody will be getting a C&R. Its so easy its a joke.

 

[shamrockjr]

It's time that the children rose up, grow up and put these nitwits out of office. And they should do it... for the children!

 

[BeastlyAdams]

i still say that now everyone with an AR15 can get a telestock and a threaded barrel. They had 100+ pages of non sense to tell us we can't...even in their wanna be lawyer talk, and now they have another opportunity should anyone be not clear (that would be everyone) if we can or can't.

If its not in writing its not law, hence its legal.

I bet the FFLs are going to be selling out every 22 LR AR15 over the next few days

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

i still say that now everyone with an AR15 can get a telestock and a threaded barrel.

I think you are correct. Once it is registered as an assault weapon, with the old law void and those assault weapons grandfathered in under the new law, you should be able to mess around with the configuration all you want. It's technically already illegal (with the exception of prior ownership registration). What are you going to do, make it more illegal?

 

[Reptile]

The problem is that none of these weapons are C&R. So does just having a C&R exempt you from the law, allowing you to own an assault weapon that is not a C&R? Pretty vague, gonna have to read the law. If so, everybody will be getting a C&R. Its so easy its a joke.

That is what it says if you read the article literally.

Does the law, as written, actually say that C&R holders are exempt?

 

[taz-2005]

The revisions expand the list of inspectors and enforcement officers who can legally possess and purchase the banned firearms to include sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles, the chief state's attorney office, the department of energy and environmental protection and some constables with police certification. It exempts such officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership, and allows them to maintain possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them.

WTF is this crap? DMV and department of energy?

And again the retired police BS as well.

 

[billmelater]

Conn. residents should be overjoyed that they "will be allowed to register and keep it."

 

[Andreas]

Conn. residents should be overjoyed that they "will be allowed to register and keep it."

Yeah, I was thinking that was really big of them.

"Since we're reaaaaally nice, and we like you and respect you... we're going to allow you to keep the property you bought and own."

 

[wiredp]

The department of Motor Vehicles gets exempted... really? Do they need to license people to do drive by shootings?

 

[taz-2005]

Those are the DMV cops and the dept of energy are the Conservation Officers you know the "Game Wardens"!! Some of you folks are so narrow minded it amazes me that you have any mind at all.

- - - Updated - - -



Applies to you as well!!

From Wikipedia

DMV Enforcement Officers only have the authority to enforce statewide motor vehicle laws and focus primarily on enforcing federal motor carrier safety regulations by stopping trucks operating in an unsafe manner or having defective equipment.

I can see why the need an "assault rifle" to make sure a trucker isn't using his jake brake in an unlawful manner. Give me a break.

 

[taz-2005]

DEEP: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Launched

The CT department of energy and environmental protection opened only two years ago. They merged a couple of bloated agencies into one massive bloated agency. Now with guns.

 

[Horrible]

More crap. Just shows how crappy the orginal legislation was (just like NY, CO, and more to come).

The one CT State Senator that agrees with me:

But Sen. Joe Markley, R-Southington said it reflects the "faulty premises" of the original legislation. He was the only senator to oppose Monday's bill.

And the quote of the day:

"I think if we acknowledge that we are putting law enforcement officers at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves," he said, "I think we have to acknowledge that we're putting homeowners at risk by limiting their ability to defend themselves."

Source: Conn. lawmakers revise strict gun control legislation to reduce confusion | Fox News

 

[wiredp]

Those are the DMV cops and the dept of energy are the Conservation Officers you know the "Game Wardens"!! Some of you folks are so narrow minded it amazes me that you have any mind at all.


Applies to you as well!!

I have never heard of DMV cops. I thought they were state troopers with that as their duty station.

 

[dcmdon]

If you don't drive near any of the I95 weigh stations, you won't see them very often. But they exist.

I was told by a state trooper that DMV cops are the only ones they have to pull over for. Take that with a grain of salt.

Don

 

[noxin]

I have never heard of DMV cops. I thought they were state troopers with that as their duty station.

In Mass, the registry cops used to be a separate entity. A few years ago (10 to 15 or more ), they, and a few other departments were all rolled up into the state police.

 

[vipprimo]

And the quote of the day:


Source: Conn. lawmakers revise strict gun control legislation to reduce confusion | Fox News

we need more of this guy.

 

[Kyarno]

More crap. Just shows how crappy the orginal legislation was (just like NY, CO, and more to come).

The one CT State Senator that agrees with me:



And the quote of the day:



Source: Conn. lawmakers revise strict gun control legislation to reduce confusion | Fox News

Markley's the only reasonable politico in the senate.

 

[dcmdon]

The biggest thing is they closed the "rimfire loophole".

We can blame Stag for that. Idiots. They should not have tweaked Maloy until after the session was done.

 

[Hustler One]

The problem is that none of these weapons are C&R. So does just having a C&R exempt you from the law, allowing you to own an assault weapon that is not a C&R? Pretty vague, gonna have to read the law. If so, everybody will be getting a C&R. Its so easy its a joke.

That is what it says if you read the article literally.

Does the law, as written, actually say that C&R holders are exempt?

That's what it says in the article, as written, however; in one of the new amendments it only says C&R holders can continue as usual no matter if those C&R weapons have any of the banned features.

New amendments are here: Public Act No. 13-3 | CCDL Blog

See Sec. 12. Subsections (c) to (h) on amendment #8513

 

[dcmdon]

That's what it says in the article, as written, however; in one of the new amendments it only says C&R holders can continue as usual no matter if those C&R weapons have any of the banned features.

New amendments are here: Public Act No. 13-3 | CCDL Blog

See Sec. 12. Subsections (c) to (h) on amendment #8513

Well, it won't be a long time before some early ARs are considered to be C&Rs. Ha.

 

[Friday]

Why can't a suit be brought up WRT to the exemption for retired LEOS? Doesn't that show clear discrimination that some are more equal than others for 2A rights?

 

[stacarter]

I think you are correct. Once it is registered as an assault weapon, with the old law void and those assault weapons grandfathered in under the new law, you should be able to mess around with the configuration all you want. It's technically already illegal (with the exception of prior ownership registration). What are you going to do, make it more illegal?

Illegaler is the term you are looking for I think.

 

[dcmdon]

Why can't a suit be brought up WRT to the exemption for retired LEOS? Doesn't that show clear discrimination that some are more equal than others for 2A rights?

CCDL has already sued. We'll see where it goes. Its my opinion that they are being stupid about it by suing before any proof of harm surfaces. It would be better to do it after some people get arrested. But what do I know.

There is plenty of legal precedent for LEO exemptions. Google LEOSA if you really to get pissed. It basically gives lifetime national carry to any retired cop, provided they qualify every year.

 

[buketduder]

It seems they also exempted pre 1994 "Assault weapons" from registration and transfer...

 

[dcmdon]

It seems they also exempted pre 1994 "Assault weapons" from registration and transfer...

They didn't exempt them. They needed to be registered anyway.

I have an interesting situation. I own a classic, pristine Colt AR15A2 Hbar that I bought new in the 80s. In 94 I sent it out of state rather than register it.

The new law will allow me to return it to CT if I want to register it.

Don

 

[buketduder]

Hmm..i am confused..to me this would indicate a "pre-ban aw" can be transferred

notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, sections 53-202a to 53-202l, inclusive, as amended by this act, shall not be construed to limit the transfer or require the registration of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, provided such firearm was legally manufactured prior to September 13, 1994.