News

We are now upgraded to the newest version of phpBB. It has more features. Enjoy.

If you've forgotten your password or are having trouble logging in, CLICK HERE for a reset password to be sent to you.

Monday in Hartford

Laws regarding firearms in Connecticut.

Moderators: Mopar, Moderators

User avatar
hayes1966
High Master II
High Master II
Posts: 2435
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Central Connecticut
Contact:

Monday in Hartford

Postby hayes1966 » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:17 am

My testimony for Monday ..

I am a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner, residing in Meriden, Connecticut.

I am saddened by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, but new restrictions on lawful and responsible owners are misguided. Violent crime with firearms declined since the Federal "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004. Connecticut imposes some of the most restrictive laws concerning rifles in the nation. The shooter in Newtown ignored these laws. Criminals, by their nature, ignore the law. Unfortunately, the State rarely prosecutes those that ignore and are arrested for violating firearm laws in Connecticut
The following information is found in OLR report number 2007-R-0442, entitled Case Statistics for Firearm Violations for the years 2001-2007.
CARRYING PISTOL WITHOUT A PERMIT (CGS § 29-35(a))

58% of the people arrested were not prosecuted.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF ASSAULT WEAPON (CGS § 53-202c)

47% of the people arrested were not prosecuted.

USE FIREARM TO COMMIT A CLASS A, B, OR C FELONY (CGS § 53-202k)

72% of the people arrested were not prosecuted.

STEALING A FIREARM (CGS § 53a-212)

73% of the people arrested were not prosecuted.

POSSESS FIREARM OR DEADLY WEAPON ON SCHOOL GROUND (CGS § 53a-217b)

83% of the people arrested were not prosecuted.

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF PISTOL OR REVOLVER (CGS § 53a-217c)

55% of the people arrested were not prosecuted.

In total 26,725 people were arrested for firearm violations between 2001 and 2007 – 71% were not prosecuted.

Please oppose all legislation that restricts the liberty of law-abiding gun owners. Instead, work to enforce the gun laws already on the books.
Sincerely
John Hayes


NRA Certified Instructor - Si vis pacem, para bellum - http://www.ct-permit.com

User avatar
Mike_Diako
Expert IV
Expert IV
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:00 am

Postby Mike_Diako » Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:16 pm

Excellent!

Where did you pull your facts from? It would be good to reference the sources.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

User avatar
SR9
Admin
Admin
Posts: 2069
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:00 am
Location: Bethlehem, CT

Postby SR9 » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:09 pm

We need new laws because we don't have time to enforce the ones we have.

Great write up.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy 1962

NVPL : http://www.nvpl.greatatlantictrophy.com/
WLOPA : http://www.wlopa.com/index.htm

User avatar
hayes1966
High Master II
High Master II
Posts: 2435
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Central Connecticut
Contact:

Postby hayes1966 » Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:45 pm

Mike_Diako wrote:Excellent!

Where did you pull your facts from? It would be good to reference the sources.


OLR report number 2007-R-0442


http://www.cga.ct.gov/olr/sitesearch.asp
NRA Certified Instructor - Si vis pacem, para bellum - http://www.ct-permit.com

User avatar
sigequinox
Marksman II
Marksman II
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:00 am

Postby sigequinox » Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:10 pm

Mine so far. this is the rough draft, there are a few points i would like to make that are not in here but i cant have it be too long. I will edit and post back.

Btw does anyone know if I have to register for the hearing? this is my first one.

ANyway, my rough draft...
Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary:

I write to you in opposition of the current gun control proposals and in particular the plans laid out by Connecticut state senator, Beth Bye. I can’t help but feel that the vast majority of these proposals will do nothing to deter, prevent, or inhibit acts of violence in the state of Connecticut.

According to her page on the state website, Senator Bye wishes to introduce a bill, that if turned into law, will make it illegal to possess firearms capable of accepting magazines which hold more than 10 rounds, modify the definition of an “assault weapon” to include only ONE feature (the current “assault weapon” ban includes 2 features), impose a 50 (FIFTY) percent sales tax on ammunition and magazines, and outlaw online ammunition sales. If this sounds like “common sense gun reform” to you, then I urge you to read on.

On the issue of 10 round capacity limits for firearms, a recent event in early January involving a mother from Loganville Georgia addresses this very issue. While home with her 2 children, the mother heard knocking on the door, not expecting anyone she looked out to see a man she did not recognize and decided not to open the door. The man then went to his car to grab a crow bar while the terrified woman called her husband, the police and gathered both her children and a .38 caliber revolver to go hide in a nearby closet. The man, Paul Slater, successfully entered the house and made his way into the room where the mother and her 2 children were hiding. When he opened the door, she shot him 5 times in the chest, face, and neck. Slater survived, but the woman and her kids were able to make it to safety at a neighbor’s house. How many rounds would have been enough? What if more than one intruder were involved? These questions are for the individual to answer, not the government.

The second amendment does not protect our right to hunt deer; it protects our right to self-preservation and the preservation of our family. Arbitrarily deciding the number of cartridges a law abiding, tax paying citizen can have in their weapon doe’s nothing to enhance the safety of that individual or their family. In the story of the Georgian mother, the only person that benefitted from being armed with fewer than 10 rounds was the criminal.

Currently, the Assault Weapon Ban in CT defines an assault weapon as being any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine and 2 or more items from a list of features. If senator Bye has her way, this definition will be changed to include only ONE feature. This would turn thousands of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight for features that do not actually do anything to make the gun more deadly. Almost everything on the list of features contributes to the ergonomics of the gun: adjusting the length of pull, changing the center of gravity to make the gun more stable, and enhanced control of the firearm to name a few. Arguably, most of us are SAFER with these features as they enable the gun to be modified to fit almost any body size, type, and strength. By eliminating features that make a gun more comfortable and controllable while shooting, the law will have the opposite outcome that it was created for.

In my opinion, the most unreasonable of all actions in Senator Bye’s bill is the 50 percent tax on ammunition. Mass violence is committed by sociopathic individuals exhibiting extremely unstable psychological behavior, not by affordable ammunition—and anyone who shoots will all agree, ammo is not cheap to begin with. Not a single disturbed would-be mass murderer is going to wake up in the morning and say to themselves “tax is just too expensive on ammo, I’m not going to slaughter people today.” That’s just silly. Nor do I believe it will affect everyday gun violence on the streets by gangs and criminals who fund their operations using illicit money. The only people such a tax will affect are the law-abiding tax paying ones. The ones we say this gun legislation is not about hurting. How many good people will be able to afford weekend trips to the range with their friends and family? How many people will be able to afford to shoot competitively? How many new gun owners will be able to afford to practice enough to become proficient with a firearm and thus an asset to their home security, not a liability? Does all this sound “reasonable” or like “common sense”?

Again, my stance is against Senator Bye’s desired gun control bills and I thank you for your time and consideration.

User avatar
KenT
Sharpshooter I
Sharpshooter I
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:00 am

Postby KenT » Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:43 pm

Great job guys! I'll be there in spirit. Just got a new job so cant take time off for a while. I'll email and call I can though!

User avatar
nvisn
High Master II
High Master II
Posts: 2461
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Bridgeport CT - Home of the Brave.
Contact:

Postby nvisn » Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:46 pm

Testimony for Public Hearing
Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing

James Keyser
Address Removed
Bridgeport, CT 06606

Good Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the committee I would like to thank you for your time and your attention to my testimony. I am here today to express my opposition to any further infringements on my right as a law abiding human to keep and bear arms. The Constitutions of both the State of Connecticut and the Unites States protect this God given right.

In 2008 and 2010 the United States Supreme Court had upheld that this right is in fact guaranteed to the individual, and I believe that the words “shall not be infringed” are quite clear.

I have been shooting since I was six years old and have owned firearms since I was eighteen years old. None of my firearms have ever harmed a single person. I am having a hard time trying to figure out why rights are being potentially infringed by numerous bills that are being proposed by this committee and members of the State Legislature.

As you may be aware New York State has already acted in their Capitol by ramming through legislation that; in my opinion will have no effect on violent crime. Why is this? Because criminals DO NOT follow laws. In fact the New York State’s Sheriffs Association has released the following in a statement:

“We believe that the new definition of assault weapons is too broad, and prevents the possession of many weapons that are legitimately used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want.”

In closing I would like to say – my grandfather – a Navy Sailor and skilled rifleman put boots on the ground on a beach in Normandy to protect our way of life – including the right to keep and bear arms – from Nazis with guns. With all due respect I’ll be damned if I let our way of life be destroyed by domestic bureaucrats with pens.

Thank you for your time.

James Keyser
Image

User avatar
nvisn
High Master II
High Master II
Posts: 2461
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Bridgeport CT - Home of the Brave.
Contact:

Postby nvisn » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:24 pm

So who didn't go or submit testimony?

I promise this: You have no right to bitch when the dicking starts. You will be called out.
Image


Return to “Connecticut Legislation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests