in CT
Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be guilty of a class D felony.
Ok, then.
30 Responses to “in CT”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 1st, 2011 at 12:57 pm
If this passes, the market should be flooded with standard capacity magazines from the Constitution State. Constitution State, right…
March 1st, 2011 at 1:02 pm
No grandfathering, and the manufacturers in CT are exempt.
March 1st, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Don’t forget the pigs.
March 1st, 2011 at 1:16 pm
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.
Sounds like a little ex post facto law doesn’t it…
March 1st, 2011 at 1:27 pm
No, it’s just giving people a grace period to get rid of them without being subject to prosecution, if they owned them before the ban takes effect.
Of course, good luck proving that you had the magazine before the law took effect. It’s not like (most) magazines have serial numbers or anything that can be used to track the date of purchase.
March 1st, 2011 at 1:31 pm
A grace period and then punishment for something you owned before the law took effect??? Sounds like punishment for past deeds committed before it was against the law….
March 1st, 2011 at 1:38 pm
But then again us law tends to be subjective based on the whims of the interpreter at that given moment….
March 1st, 2011 at 2:00 pm
That could costs gun owners hundreds, even thousands, of dollars. Where’s the restitution (for fair market value )for those who have to “surrender” their property? Would they do the same if they force people to “surrender” something else, like their cars, their cell phones (because driving and texting takes lives). If it only saves 1 life, it’s worth it, right?
March 1st, 2011 at 2:03 pm
This is outrageous criminality and tyranny.
March 1st, 2011 at 2:17 pm
“A grace period and then punishment for something you owned before the law took effect??? Sounds like punishment for past deeds committed before it was against the law….”
It is perfectly constitutional to make something illegal tomorrow with a law passed today. An ex-post facto law is one which makes something illegal yesterday with a law passed today.
March 1st, 2011 at 2:21 pm
If I lived in CT and this passed, I would wait 89 days and then mail my “large” capacity magazines to the legislators that voted in favor of the ban. Then I’d wait a day or two and call in tips to the police.
March 1st, 2011 at 2:34 pm
They exempted the Marlin Model 60, a firearm with “a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device” that holds more than 10 rounds, and is the weapon of mass death preferred by gangs-bangers everywhere. At least those gang-bangers who like to shoot squirrels or tin cans with a 22.
And since a 22 can kill you just as dead as a 50BMG round, why the heck were they exempted? Does Marlin still make guns in CT?
March 1st, 2011 at 2:56 pm
So if this passes, does this mean if I drive through Conn. from to Ohio to go to a Blogshoot in New England, and I get stopped for doing 2 miles over the limit on the Conn. Turnpike, and they search my car, I, as a resident of Ohio can lose my CCW because Conn. hit me with a Class D FELONY because my 3rd Gen Smith 4043 runs 11 + 1? Or the BATAFEIEIO can prevent me from purchasing any more firearms because I have a Felony Conviction? Enquiring minds would like to know.
March 1st, 2011 at 3:25 pm
simply heinous
March 1st, 2011 at 3:50 pm
You know what would really be helpful… If they made a law that makes it illegal to commit a crime (sarc). ;P
Or better yet, make stupidity illegal. Let’s see how many legislators are left standing.
March 1st, 2011 at 4:45 pm
As long as they keep their hands off my high capacity assault clip with the shoulder thing that goes up.
March 1st, 2011 at 5:01 pm
It’s not retroactive punishment for possessing a banned magazine before the ban takes effect, it’s punishment for continuing to possess the magazine after the ban takes effect. The grace period is to give you time to get rid of the banned items.
Bans on mere possession of any item are stupid, but this would not be an ex post facto law.
March 1st, 2011 at 5:04 pm
quit asking questions and start taking out legislators.
March 1st, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Actually yes, its ex post facto… as there is no action done to keep owning the magazines. This was all settled back in the early days of the drug war. You can’t ban possession of an object that is already possessed, you can only ban new possession.
March 1st, 2011 at 5:22 pm
While I agree that that is the way it should be, I’d be hesitant to say that it’s the way it is without a case to point to. What is the case that settled it?
March 1st, 2011 at 5:31 pm
And of course the LEO will be exempt, right? Be a shame if they can’t get replacements.
March 1st, 2011 at 6:10 pm
“This was all settled back in the early days of the drug war. You can’t ban possession of an object that is already possessed, you can only ban new possession.”
Granddad’s kilo of pre-ban cocaine and unregistered Colt Thompson are actually legal? What a relief!
March 1st, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Mikee,
No, they Marlin factory is closed. Remington said they would move production elsewhere.
But, given the problems that have cropped lately with the quality of the 870, I don’t have much faith that the new Marlin-in-name-only will have the quality they had in the past.
The same goes for Bushmaster, which is supposed to close their Maine facility yet still offer their products from other production facilities.
Mossberg is still here, though. And Charter.
March 1st, 2011 at 7:35 pm
I would only agree to it when they make it illegal for police and military in the same place.
Have the balls to pass it, or go home and shut the hell up.
Bubblehead – Easy… dont go to New England to shoot. or do anything, where you could be helping their economy.
March 1st, 2011 at 8:08 pm
That settles it.
How many instances were people beaten or bludgeoned to death by high-cap magazines.
Now “criminals” will have to use their guns to kill.
March 1st, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Granddad’s kilo of pre-ban cocaine and unregistered Colt Thompson are actually legal? What a relief!
Just as long as you are the only one that knows…
March 1st, 2011 at 11:23 pm
@Diomed:
Wrt: the kilo of cocain, yes. Wrt the Thompson, no as he evaded paying taxes on it.
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:04 am
Makes me wonder what the taxes would be on a kilo of cocaine? How would they establish value? Would I pay less if I used some?
March 2nd, 2011 at 1:29 am
In CT, if ‘ol Dannel gets his way, you’d owe sales tax on the full value, even if you used a coupon when you bought that kilo of cocaine.
I moved to Connecticut eleven years ago. At the time it was an improvement over living in Maryland (“The Free State” my ass.)
With the way things are headed in this state now, it is no wonder that 58% of Connecticut residents have considered leaving the state.
March 2nd, 2011 at 1:39 am
Just exactly what taxes were due on that Colt Thompson?
Wasn’t the $200 NFA tax payable on TRANSFER?
My grandad still owns several firearms – and he’s been dead for 20 years.