Thursday, March 3, 2011

Connecticut Bill Would Confiscate All Magazines In The State Holding More Than 10 Rounds




There is a bill in the Connecticut legislature that would not only ban ownership and possession of firearm magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds, but it also requires confiscation of them within 90 days of the bill becoming law. There will be no grandfathering of ownership of these magazines. Possession of them after the 90 day period is a class D Felony, with prison time of one to five years, a $5,000.00 fine. In addition, the newly minted Felon loses the right of firearms and  ammunition ownership for life. We know how well the turn in ratio of "assault rifles" turn in worked when they were banned in New Jersey. 



Here's the complete Bill: 
Visit our other blog: secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com


General Assembly

Raised Bill No. 1094
January Session, 2011

LCO No. 3773

*03773_______JUD*
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

Introduced by:

(JUD)

AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) As used in this section, "large capacity magazine" means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, but does not include: (1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds, (2) a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, or (3) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.
(b) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be guilty of a class D felony.
(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.
(d) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity magazine by:
(1) Members or employees of organized local police departments, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties;
(2) A person, corporation or other entity that manufactures large capacity magazines for persons specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection or for export in accordance with federal regulations;
(3) Any person engaged in the business of selling or transferring large capacity magazines in accordance with state and federal regulations who possesses such magazines solely for the purpose of such sale or transfer; or
(4) A gunsmith who possesses such large capacity magazine for the purpose of maintenance, repair or modification.
This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1
July 1, 2011
New section
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit the possession of certain ammunition feeding devices that accept more than ten rounds.

CONNECTICUT MOST WANTED

Bank Robbery
 ID: 100021
Bank Robbery
 ID: 100020
Bank Robbery
 ID: 100019
Bank Robbery
 ID: 100018
Bank Robbery
 ID: 100018
Bank Robbery
 ID: 100017
Fraudulent Activities
Suspect #1
 ID: 100013
Bank Robbery
 ID: 100012
Bank Robbery
 ID: 100011
Bank Robbery
Suspect leaving bank.
 ID: 100010

16 comments:

  1. Yet another excellent reason not to live in the Northeast.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, we now know what the worst job in CT is....

    Magazine collector.

    Wouldn't want to be the guy that drew that short stick.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ummmm isn't takeing without compensation against federal law/US constitution???

    And what happens to travelers through the state?
    and WHY are the police exempt?? does this also apply to retired police officers?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are several actions protected by the constitution that apply here.. it would be interesting to see how the quisling enforcers obey their oath or the criminal mutts who pass this illegal contrivance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Come and take IT!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. And how do they propose confiscating them without violating the 4th Amendment? The idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "And how do they propose confiscating them without violating the 4th Amendment? The idiots."
    Child welfare inspections, medical response, fire inspection, etc, etc. Another whole new class of felons overnight.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clearly, this is a violation of the 5th amendment's takings clause, since there is no mention of compensation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why the machismo? The slaves will obey any mandate from their god, government. There was such a ban in place for 10 years nationwide. There were some complaints, but government was still worshiped.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Word to the Wise: ALWAYS buy with Cash whenever you can.

    You never know when our imperial ‘Rulers’ will arbitrarily decide that you can't have something to defend against their tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As many have commented, this law is patently in violation of the Constitution. Any such confiscation would require reasonable compensation from the CT State Government. And since the magazines would no longer be available for sale in CT, the existing ones would be of incredible value.

    My guess would be this is a "feel good" attempt by the policos of CT. Pass a law that looks and feels good, know it will fail its first challenge and never actually be implemented. So they think they look and feel good in the media but don't upset the applecart since the bill never actually does anything.

    I say vote them all out!

    ReplyDelete
  12. John Wayne, featuring ReaSonMarch 6, 2011 at 2:37 PM

    I am no expert, but the following is my understanding of the Constitutional law in relation to the prior postings. Please specifically point out any errors/omissions, and forgive any mistakes.

    (1). The Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure; it does not protect any "right" to possess anything so long as it is on private property. Here, the law does not extend the realm of permissible searches, but merely holds the high capacity mags illegal and imposes punishment on offenders.

    (2). The Fifth Amendment: Not applicable against a state government. (Barron v. Baltimore). Presumably the 14th Amendment, which is interpreted and applied against the states in largely the same manner as the 5th is applied against the federal government, was the intended citation. This is certainly not a "taking" within the legal meaning. Here, the government is not converting anyone's property to its own use. It is prohibiting possession of an object. Section (c) permits current owners to dispose of the magazines in any way they please up until November. Further, Section (d) lists multiple exceptions by which one may legally possess a magazine. A classical taking is where a government exercises its power of imminent domain to force the sale of land for construction of a highway. The government takes the land from the owner for its own use, and therefore it incurs a debt for the reasonable value of the land to the owner. Just as the government may outlaw possession of crack cocaine or child pornography without owing any possessor for "taking" his property, so may it regulate magazine capacity so long as it does not overreach into the domain of the 2nd Amendment.

    (3). The Second Amendment: The 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, the Second Amendment is not unlimited; thus, the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as the First Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. A limitation on the right to keep and carry arms is that the sorts of weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those in common use at the time. (Heller). Here, the CT legislature seeks to employ its regulatory authority by limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. This permits significantly advanced weapons, and thus does not violate the "use at the time" limitation. It has determined that a magazine with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds is unnecessary/undesirable in that state. Significantly, the law imposes no limitations on the type of gun or on the amount of magazines that one may possess - it merely limits the size of magazines. This seemingly does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

    (4) Good News (finally): There might be some support for the unconstitutional argument in an unlikely source: the privacy cases. SCOTUS held a state birth control prohibition illegal, citing a "penumbra of rights emanating from the Bill of Rights." While carrying a large magazine on one's person may certainly be prohibited, there is a strong argument to be made that this prohibition cannot be extended to one's home.

    As a matter of policy, I am against this bill. I cannot perceive of a goal which will be accomplished by this bill. I believe that the politicians should decide to either create laws that will effect whatever they seek to accomplish with this and let the courts examine the legislation, or they should leave the issue alone. While I believe that the law will pass constitutional muster, I KNOW that it is half-assed either way.

    Keep your powder dry.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If this law passes, and you want to stay in CT for some reason. Find your self the appropriate website, and learn how to bury something for future retrieval should the need arise.

    Do not turn them in!

    If they are this brazen then then day cannot be far behind when they are going to take your gun. When they try to do that your going to need that 100 round drum.

    ReplyDelete
  14. John Wayne, featuring ReaSonMarch 7, 2011 at 6:22 PM

    I have been searching diligently, yet I have failed to find a website that satisfies al of my hole digging queries. I want to make sure that I get that part right - can't have a bad hole problem when the government is chasing me down.

    Can you recommend some? I am concerned that my skills at burying guns for future retrieval might not be sufficient to prevent rusting, etc. I would buy more glocks to solve the problem, but I prefer to buy American.

    ReplyDelete
  15. why are the politicians harming law abiding citizen's? are they going to make a law that makes it illegal for criminals to posses high capacity mags?oh i forgot,there called criminals because they break law's,so they will keep there high capacity mags. now criminals will know that they have an advantage over law abiding citizen's who carry legally!!!! I PRAY FOR THE ONE'S THAT DON'T

    ReplyDelete