Tag Archives: connecticut gun laws

Governor Malloy Incompetent And/Or Ignorant Or Just Plain Gangsta?

Posted on by
Reply

I got a, frankly, disturbing email from my good friends at CCDL today pointing me to this article on their blog and am reposting it here to help get the word out. This is the kind of thing that happens when legislators meet in the dark back-rooms in the state capitol building in Hartford, sneaking through legislation under the false pretense of so-called Emergency Certification to bypass the normal procedures a bill goes through.

Governor Malloy was on the Chaz and A.J. show this morning where he took a call on the new gun law.

Caller:
Hey governor. I’m just curious about this new gun bill that came out especially with pistols with high capacity mags. Right now I’ve got two 14-round mags that are only loaded to 10 as required, but it’s unclear, can I carry both of them if they’re loaded to 10 or can I only carry one?

Malloy:
First of all what you have to do is disclose – there’s a way to disclose that you have them and you’re grandfathered in. So, that’s how our law works in Connecticut. You don’t lose the right to have them, you just have to say that you have them. “Hey, I’m Joe. I’ve got two of these.” and that’s it. So the limitations that you’re fearing aren’t necessarily in our bill. They are – I think you’re referring to New York’s law, quite frankly, and New York has a different set of laws than we do.

The Governor is mistaken. The law he signed into law back in April does indeed prevent someone from carrying a so-called ‘Large Capacity Magazine’ even if it is properly declared, and absolutely limits the number of bullets to 10.

Section 25(f)(7) of Public Act 13-3:
“Pursuant to a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver, provided such large capacity magazine (A) is within a pistol or revolver that was lawfully possessed by the person prior to the effective date of this section, (B) does not extend beyond the bottom of the pistol grip, and (C) contains not more than ten bullets.”

By requiring the magazine be “within” a pistol or revolver you are limiting the number of declared ‘large capacity magazine’ one is able to carry, along with the number of bullets it can contain. For the governor’s statement to be true you would need to carry multiple guns or find a gun the holds 2 or more magazines.

The Governor and Legislators were in such a rush to pass SB1160 they did not even hold public hearings, denying citizens their due process. Maybe if Governor Malloy had given the people, you know, those of us he called the “fringe of the fringe” a chance to speak about the bill, we could have pointed out issues such as this. Maybe if Governor Malloy had listened to those of us he labeled as the “fringe” he would understand the points of these new laws that are so confusing to us, the ones that actually try to obey the law. But, apparently, he doesn’t know what he signed into law.

This legislation is so convoluted that lawyers and elected officials are not sure what’s legal and what’s not. Donate to the CCDL’s Litigation Fund as we work to overturn this nonsense.

I strongly doubt that the wording of the specific section in the law is a mistake. I think they worded it that way intentionally to obfuscate the law and further disarm law abiding citizens. I had previously noted this almost tricky language and was planning on going to my local police dept. and ask for a clarification. But if Governor Malloy doesn’t know what he signed into law (bad), or doesn’t understand what it means (worse), or knows AND understands, but deliberately misinforms (worst), what can I expect from the police who are supposed to enforce the law? If I ask five different officers, how many different answers will I get? How many good people are right now unwittingly in violation of the law the governor himself doesn’t comprehend, risking arrest and imprisonment, a permanent criminal stain on their records and quite possibly losing their right to own (and much less carry) firearms?

Foraging For Ammo In Connecticut

Posted on by
Reply

I went on an ammo grazing trip today, covering 4 Walmarts (small, independent shops have nothing but very expensive self-defense ammo). Slim pickins. I was able to acquire 3 boxes of 9mm TulAmmo (that’s all they would sell me) @ $11/box (50 rounds), which is a really good price. I normally avoid steel ammo, but when it’s all that’s available you gotta do what you gotta do. I base that on anecdotal hearsay at the range and on Internet forums that it’s bad for your firearm, but so far the gun has gone bang each time I pull the trigger with no apparent ill effects.

Just for shits and giggles I checked out Cheaper Than Dirt on the Internet and they’re fleecing you with almost twice the price ($19.19 + shipping at the time of writing). I don’t care if we live in a capitalist society where prices are regulated by supply and demand; price gouging the gun community in their time of need is bad form and we will remember who you are when things eventually (if ever) get back to normal.

There’s plenty of ammo on the Internet, but most of it is over-priced and most places haven’t modified their sites yet so I can submit proof that I am one of the privileged few who can legally buy ammo in CT (boy, did that number drop overnight!?!), since the new ammo law went into effect October 1st. Although I’m not a single issue voter and politically for the most part am aligned with Democratic values, I think I may go Republican next election, just to balance things out and send a message THAT I AM NOT HAPPY!

9mm Ammo Shortage

There’s an ammo shortage in Connecticut. This may very well go the way of the woolly mammoth, the dodo bird, and the auroch (google it). Picture credit: Right-click, save as.

Connecticut: Attention Gun Owners and Sportsmen—You are Immediately Impacted by the State’s New Draconian “Gun Control” Law

Posted on by
Reply

From my not-really-so-good friends (final status still to be determined; currently I’ve signed up for a one-year protest membership against the hypocritical, dishonest and self-serving politicians on both sides of the aisle, both locally here in Hartford, CT and in Washington) over at the NRA, here is the short version of Connecticut’s new gun law.

Parts of the law went into immediate effect on April 4th, but I had to wait for an email from the NRA to get a decent rundown of what the new law actually means for CT residents and gun owners.

I have a conflicted relationship with the NRA (I’m warming up to them, though), and at this point still will not recommend anyone to join, but will instead provide a link to Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) for those who want to become active and/or support the cause locally. If you want to join the NRA I’m sure you can find them on the Internet on your own.

Here is the text of the legislative alert email I received from NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action):

On April 4, Governor Dan Malloy (D) signed Senate Bill 1160 into law and, as expected, this law contains many onerous and damaging provisions that will only penalize responsible gun owners and sportsmen in Connecticut. Some provisions of this law are effective immediately, while others will go into effect in several months.

It is critical that you stay tuned to www.nraila.org to understand the impact of this new gun control law. Your NRA is doing everything in its power to reverse this dangerous law that has no affect on criminals and only impacts responsible gun owners and sportsmen in Connecticut.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY:

  • There is an immediate ban on the sale or purchase of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
  • If you currently have a state Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers, you may only load 10 rounds into your firearm when carrying for self-defense pursuant to a Connecticut permit to carry pistols, even if your magazine has the ability to accept more rounds.
  • You may not carry a firearm for self-defense if the magazine “extend[s] beyond the bottom of the pistol grip.” Many commonly owned handguns have magazines with floorplates that “extend beyond the bottom of the pistol grip, and could therefore be affected by the new law.
  • Due to physical characteristics, more than 100 firearms are classified as “assault weapons” and are banned immediately. Click here to see the full list.
  • With limited exceptions, individuals have to be at least 21 to purchase any semi-automatic centerfire rifle. This runs contrary to the current federal age limit of 18 to purchase any long gun.
  • All firearms sales, deliveries and transfers, regardless of where they take place, must go through a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer or through the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).

EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 1, 2013:

  • Individuals over the age of 18 must obtain an “ammunition certificate” to purchase ammunition and magazines.
    • The fee (tax) for this certificate is $35 and must be renewed every 5 years.
    • You will be subjected to a criminal background investigation.
    •  If you already hold a valid state Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers or newly created “long gun eligibility certificate,” you are exempt from this additional requirement to obtain a separate “ammunition and magazine certificate.”
    • You can apply for this certificate beginning on July 1, 2013.

EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 2014:

  • All currently possessed magazines that have the ability to hold more than 10 rounds must be registered with the DESPP no later than January 1, 2014 under procedures that are still to be determined.
    • Any non-resident who moves into Connecticut after January 1, 2014 will have 90 days to permanently disable, sell to a gun dealer or take out of state, any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds
  • Any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has specific cosmetic features, certain semi-automatic pistols and certain semi-automatic shotguns are immediately classified as “assault weapons” and must be registered with the DESPP by January 1, 2014.
    • Any non-resident who moves into Connecticut after January 1, 2014 will have 90 days to permanently disable, sell to a gun dealer or take out of state, any firearm that is now classified as an “assault weapon.”
    • Click here to see if your firearm will need to be registered by January 1 under the new law.

EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 1, 2014:

  • Individuals must apply for a “long gun eligibility certificate” through the DESPP to purchase any rifle or shotgun. You are exempt from this requirement if you have a Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver; a pistol or revolver retail sales permit; or a pistol or revolver eligibility certificate.
    • The fee (tax) for this certificate is $35 and must be renewed every 5 years.
    • You must complete a DESPP- approved firearms training course.
    • You must submit fingerprints with your application.
    • The DESPP commissioner will have 60 days after the receipt of your application to issue the “long gun eligibility certificate,” which can then be presented to a licensed firearms dealer to purchase a long gun.
    • You can apply for this certificate beginning July 1, 2013.

It also remains uncertain as to the total implications to out-of-state hunters or individuals traveling through Connecticut. Your NRA will continue to keep you updated as the egregious provisions of this poorly drafted and deeply flawed law are analyzed.

Gun Legislation Post Sandy Hook

Posted on by
1

I just spent the last few hours composing and sending the following e-mail to all my local and federal representatives. Governor Malloy got an abridged version since he has a 2,000 character limit on his contact form(!).

Before I post my e-mail I would like to extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to those who lost loved ones on 12-14-12. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and suffering you are experiencing.

Dear [Recipient]

I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on legislation proposed locally here in CT and on the national level.

I’m not a gun nut who is afraid of “government tyranny”; I have my feet firmly planted in reality. I’m just a regular schmoe who happens to own a few guns, enjoys shooting recreationally at a range and keeps a loaded firearm in my house for a worst case scenario. While I do have a concealed carry permit, I choose not to carry a firearm in public. In my 53 years on Earth I have never been so afraid that I thought shooting someone was the only solution, and I’m still willing to take my chances. However, I do have issues with laws that serve no purpose and do no good to solve the violence problem our country faces, and indeed may detract from real solutions.

I don’t find myself to be a strong supporter of the NRA (too many crackpots for my liking), but the disingenuous argumentation and intellectual dishonesty from elements on the anti-side have provoked me to become a member, at least for a year, as a pure gesture of protest. After I did that I donated an equal amount to the ACLU. Let me outline some of the things I would support in terms of better gun legislation, just to start off on a positive note:

  1. I would support requiring training for the purchase of any kind of firearm.
  2. I would support extended training for a concealed carry permit.
  3. I would support 100%, no exceptions, universal background checks for the sale and transfer of firearms.
  4. I would support making it easier for those with serious mental health conditions to have relevant information included in a background check.
  5. I would support stricter laws and punishments for gun-trafficking, straw man purchases and crimes where guns are used.
  6. I would support a stronger effort to enforce the laws already on the books better.
  7. I would support removing Joe Biden as the head of President Obama’s gun task force; the man is a clown and he’s hurting any effort to reach an agreement (seriously).

Here are some of the things I would strongly oppose:

  1. I oppose banning specific types of firearms/accessories/magazine caps, specifically the so-called “assault rifles” and the erroneously named “high-capacity” magazines, which are, in fact, standard capacity. FBI statistics show – and you all know this – that the previous AWB did nothing to reduce gun crime, and that, in fact, gun crime has been on a steady decline for the past several decades, despite a rise in gun-ownership.
  2. I oppose special ammunition taxes, restrictions on how much ammunition you can purchase, and outlawing Internet purchases of ammunition. The vast majority of gun owners are recreational shooters, and making it harder and/or more expensive to get ammunition would simply inconvenience law-abiding citizens and do nothing to discourage criminals.
  3. I oppose requiring gun owners to carry special liability insurance for the simple reason that it seems, to me, intuitively unreasonable to be required to carry insurance in order to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
  4. I oppose a national gun registry. While it may seem innocent and even useful on the surface, it smacks too much of letting Big Brother know what you own and where to confiscate it. Actually, I’m on the fence on this one.
  5. I oppose gun free zones. People intent on mass murder tend to choose the easiest, least protected targets. While it has become something of a cliche to say that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, it just so happens to be true when the bullets start flying. The police can’t be everywhere all the time. While we will never know the outcome of Sandy Hook Elementary had there been a competent armed person on the premises, it seems to me that we can say with some degree of certainty that the victims would have had more than the 0% chance of survival they were afforded.

Finally, I am not a single-issue voter, I consistently vote D across the board and am not threatening to change my vote depending on your actions in this matter. I do however hope you take my thoughts into consideration before you make your decision.

Regards,
Lars Dahl