CT proposed SB 122

Discuss everything from issues in the region to Connecticut duck hunting.

Moderators: DUKHTR, MrCamoClad

CT proposed SB 122

Postby ctdeathfrombelow » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:23 am

Pick up your pens and man the keyboards boys and girls and start educating these morons that think they know the answers. Ed Meyer came up with this BS!
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ASP/CGABILLSTATUS ... _num=SB122
User avatar
ctdeathfrombelow
hunter
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Connecticut: The Confiscation State


Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby O2Fsh » Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:33 am

I wrote:


Senator Musto,

I hope this note finds you and yours well.

I am a teacher, a parent, a hunter, a voter, and a veteran and can not fathom the thinking behind proposed bill number 122! I am greatly disturbed with the wording and intent of the proposed bill. From my reading and understanding, it will make it a class C felony; punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $10,000 in fines, for me, my son (8), and my daughter (7) to hunt waterfowl, small game, deer, and Turkey within the state of Connecticut. This action is completely unacceptable and a knee jerk reaction to the horror that happened in Newtown and will not serve to prevent another tragedy.

As I am certain you understand, increasing the number of gun laws and gun restrictions will in no way decrease gun violence. However, if there were more aggressive enforcement of current gun laws there MAY be. I am writing you asking you to do whatever you can to defeat this bill.

The restrictions set forth in proposed bill number 122 IS NOT representative of the ideals I served my country to defend. It is not honoring the ideals young men and women that are currently serving, and certainly is not representative of the foundations of our form of government established by our founding fathers.

Please defeat this bill.

With my HIGHEST regards,
O2Fsh
In a marsh somewhere, nowhere near your spot.
User avatar
O2Fsh
hunter
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:25 pm
Location: CT

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby Dr. Gooseman » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:20 am

Just sent my note out too. Thanks for the heads up.
Hunting is like sex... Even when it's bad it's still pretty good.
Dr. Gooseman
hunter
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:52 am
Location: Conn

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby sbeIICT » Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:12 pm

What would be the purpose of a magazine that holds 1 round?

Limit handguns to 10 or less, rifles to 5 or less bullets, shotguns leave as is and get rid of Ar-15s.

done.
Dusty Bottoms
User avatar
sbeIICT
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby ctdeathfrombelow » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:59 pm

sbeIICT wrote:What would be the purpose of a magazine that holds 1 round?

Limit handguns to 10 or less, rifles to 5 or less bullets, shotguns leave as is and get rid of Ar-15s.

done.


STAY AWAY FROM THE COOL AID!!! :rolleyes:
User avatar
ctdeathfrombelow
hunter
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: Connecticut: The Confiscation State

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby sbeIICT » Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Yeah youre right, lets just make full auto completely legal with 100 rd drums standard.
Dusty Bottoms
User avatar
sbeIICT
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby golferboy426 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:17 pm

Yeah youre right, lets just make full auto completely legal with 100 rd drums standard.


another know nothing representative of the public

I have 2 full autos and 2 100 round drums Fully legal

Why the F should I be punished

You really should study the history of the 2nd Amendment and the reason for it
golferboy426
hunter
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:21 am
Location: South Windsor

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby sbeIICT » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:57 am

golferboy426 wrote:
Yeah youre right, lets just make full auto completely legal with 100 rd drums standard.


another know nothing representative of the public

I have 2 full autos and 2 100 round drums Fully legal

Why the F should I be punished

You really should study the history of the 2nd Amendment and the reason for it


Your guns are grandfathered in, or your law enforcement, correct? I know many states have looser laws than CT and under federal guidelines and regulations and enough cash one can acquire something more select and automatic. Maybe you are one of those people. Cant say I understand the need for a firearm like that but hey, if you want it and its legal go for it. I was more ruffling some feathers with that comment previously.

Who said punished? ridiculous.

I know what the 2nd amend says.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This has naturally been evolving as the country has grown. A number of supreme court cases have essentially rewritten the meaning behind the amendment, notably District of Columbia v. Heller. Look it up, it set the record straight on individual rights to bear arms by right and for protection against others who wish to harm self and property.

Im happy with my firearms but I feel that this country's gun problem has gone a little unchecked in the last 25 years. Personally, I think magazines that glorify Ar-15s and tactical weapons are :rolleyes:
Dusty Bottoms
User avatar
sbeIICT
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby golferboy426 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:43 am

try investigating the background writing to each amendment ie the support documentation the writers discussed among themselves. You will learn about "common use" and the intent.

Originally ther citizenry was on equal footing with the gov't , not so much now because of technology.

It is and never was about hunting.

You can buy a legal full auto today in CT just not selectable. Pay the ATF fee of 200 or so
golferboy426
hunter
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:21 am
Location: South Windsor

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby sbeIICT » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:06 pm

golferboy426 wrote:try investigating the background writing to each amendment ie the support documentation the writers discussed among themselves. You will learn about "common use" and the intent.

Originally ther citizenry was on equal footing with the gov't , not so much now because of technology.

It is and never was about hunting.

You can buy a legal full auto today in CT just not selectable. Pay the ATF fee of 200 or so


It is a matter of interpretation. In your case, can you please present the evidence to support your interpretation that the intent was for common use?

yea, explain the technology point you made.

Who said anything about hunting?

Never said you couldn't get your full auto non-select fire arms in the state of Connecticut.

A notable take from DC v. Heller...
The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.

If I am "no nothing representative of the public" why am I posting on this forum and a firearm owner, member of NRA? Obviously, Im questioning the need for sommmmeeee types of firearms. What if the virginia tech shooter and the Newtown shooter were carrying a 6 shot revolver and a pump-action shotgun? Do you think things would be different?
Dusty Bottoms
User avatar
sbeIICT
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby golferboy426 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:30 pm

Obviously, Im questioning the need for sommmmeeee types of firearms. What if the virginia tech shooter and the Newtown shooter were carrying a 6 shot revolver and a pump-action shotgun? Do you think things would be different?


It is, never was and never should be about "need"

Lower firepower would have resulted in less casualties most likely but you never know the sickie could have carried in a bomb. Doesn't matter about what if your premise in meritless.

If we didn't have jets the towers would still be standing. do we need jets maybe we should ban them too

your quote from Heller even supports that AR types are constitutional. They are commonly used in self defense with hundreds of supporting cases.
golferboy426
hunter
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:21 am
Location: South Windsor

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby sbeIICT » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:09 pm

Jets? you gotta be kidding me kid. Lets ban all ships, trains, cars and trucks as well because they sure are used to kill people too.

a bomb is ridiculous. is there a legal bomb market in the US backed by the bill of rights? Any lunatic will find a way, but theres no way to polic that. In terms of firearms, there is a way to police it and it is policed.

commonly used? again can you show me some of your evidence they are commonly used? Last I checked of the 2.5 million or so home firearm uses in self defense were 75% or so handguns.

Im sad about this whole state of affairs.
Dusty Bottoms
User avatar
sbeIICT
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby golferboy426 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:09 pm

Banning anything based on need makes no sense and does not hold water constitutionally. Banning jets makes as much sense as banning AW or 30 rounders In fact it makes more sense as more people have been killed using jets as a weapon than AW 's

You are a low information voter even if you are in the NRA. Do your own research it will be much more meaningful to you.

The vast majority of gun crime injury/killing , with or without high capacity mags, is thugs killing thugs.

I'd prefer more of that till they exterminate themselves.
golferboy426
hunter
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:21 am
Location: South Windsor

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby sbeIICT » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:15 pm

[quote="golferboy426"]Banning anything based on need makes no sense and does not hold water constitutionally. Banning jets makes as much sense as banning AW or 30 rounders In fact it makes more sense as more people have been killed using jets as a weapon than AW 's

You are a low information voter even if you are in the NRA. Do your own research it will be much more meaningful to you.

quote]

wow, that was an amazing comment. Lets ban driving in automobiles too because they kill far more people than jet airliners.

you wont be walking far with your 2 full autos and your 100 rd clips.

If you backed up your comments I'd actually respect your argument but this is just icing on the cake.
Dusty Bottoms
User avatar
sbeIICT
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby golferboy426 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:05 pm

the key wording was used as a weapon but as a low information voter you either didn't read that, didn't understand that or because it doesn't fit your opinion , ignored that.

Tell me how it is justifiable or right for the Government to ban and make possession of a magazine greater than 10 a felony. In effect they want/require me to turn them in. That is not hyperbole! Read Senator Gary Lebeau's bill from previous year 2011, I think. The new bill will be the same and has the support of Republican Senators McKinney & Fasano.
golferboy426
hunter
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:21 am
Location: South Windsor

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby sbeIICT » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:55 pm

the bill is for class C felony offense for a gun or mag holding more than 1 round, not 10?
Dusty Bottoms
User avatar
sbeIICT
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby golferboy426 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:33 pm

wrong bill that one has also been submitted but will go nowhere, the other from Lebeau with a Mckinney sponsorship is a true danger. All the i's & T's might not be there yet but both have said the will submit & support the previous Lebeau bill that never got out of committee. This year I'm sure it will. I spoke to the McKinney office and verified the truth. That said, the woman Erica I believe her name was, said it wasn't finalized with all the various legislative modifications. She offered very tepid encouragement. Mckinney is in a difficult spot representing Newtown but he needs to show Statesmanship
golferboy426
hunter
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:21 am
Location: South Windsor

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby sbeIICT » Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:33 am

golferboy426 wrote:wrong bill that one has also been submitted but will go nowhere, the other from Lebeau with a Mckinney sponsorship is a true danger. All the i's & T's might not be there yet but both have said the will submit & support the previous Lebeau bill that never got out of committee. This year I'm sure it will. I spoke to the McKinney office and verified the truth. That said, the woman Erica I believe her name was, said it wasn't finalized with all the various legislative modifications. She offered very tepid encouragement. Mckinney is in a difficult spot representing Newtown but he needs to show Statesmanship


Roger that. With bipartisan support it has legs. Look, everyone knows that a criminal can get his hands on some hicap mags. illegally. Its just pretty difficult to see these shootings the last year. Aurora theater shooting, that mall rampage in Wash state I believe, Newtown. Its terrible, and all from legally owned and registered weapons I believe. Dont know what the solution is...
Dusty Bottoms
User avatar
sbeIICT
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: CT proposed SB 122

Postby toolmaker » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:32 am

right on...there is no definitive solution that fixes the problem!! it is wildly dynamic...

you cant legislate sickness out of people...

until 911, the biggest mass murder in NYC was with a can of gasoline and a match trhown on the door of a poorly built night club , 80 something people died!!

the freak in newtown could easily have used a vehicle to force a school bus load of kids off a steep embankment killing up to 50 or more first graders!!

its like a cop coming to a break in and arresting the crow bar and letting the thug go, and then doing it again the next day taking his screw driver ect ect

liberals!!!!

the tool
favorite quote: We constantly dont do things this way
User avatar
toolmaker
hunter
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:19 am
Location: only been to Cromwell once


Return to Connecticut Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests