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.

Return email from Bartolomeo (assistant)

Laws regarding firearms in Connecticut.

Moderators: Mopar, Moderators

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

Return email from Bartolomeo (assistant)

Postby sigequinox » Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:27 pm

Dear Senator Bartolomeo,

I would like to start off by saying I urge you not to vote in favor of bills passed through emergency certification. This should be reserved for true emergencies and NOT dissolving our constitutionally protected rights. Governor Cuomo's approval rating in NY dropped over 15 points since the day he decided The People do not exist. We the people want and deserve a say in what laws we must abide by. That is, after all, why people are willing to die to come here and why so many enlist to protect and preserve our freedoms.

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.

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, I hope we (the people) will have a chance to testify regarding specific bills and I thank you for your time and consideration.


Sincerely,



Name removed
--------------------------------
RESPONSE BELOW
--------------------------------
Hello Mr. Name removed,

Thank you for contacting our office. We appreciate you taking the time to share your views with Senator Bartolomeo.

With regards to the use of Emergency Certification, there has been some confusion over the application of this process. Usually, an E-Cert is used to pass an emergency law to immediately serve the public interest in some fashion, but in this instance E-Cert is being used strictly as a vehicle through which this legislation can proceed. Because the bill that will eventually be crafted by the Legislature's Bipartisan Task Force covers such a diverse range of subject matter, it would have to pass through at least five legislative committees (if not more) if it were to travel through the normal legislative process, thus effectively rendering the bill dead. So the Task Force is acting as a temporary super-committee, with E-Cert as the means for that committee to work on and pass the bill strictly as a matter of logistical convenience.

As you're already aware, the Task Force recently held public hearings on each of the three components they are currently researching (school safety, gun violence and mental health), as well as a fourth hearing on all three of these topics. The public was allowed to submit written and verbal testimony on everything from broad concepts to individual bills filed this session. Although these hearings took place earlier this week, the public can still submit written testimony on any relevant bill via the Task Force web site: http://www.cga.ct.gov/ASaferConnecticut/

It is also important to note that no other individual piece of gun-related legislation will be brought up via the E-Cert process; they have all be referred to committee per usual protocol. However, given the fact that there will be one primary bill dealing with gun violence this session, most of these bills are going to be DOA in committee. This likely will pertain to Senator Bye's legislation that you referenced; that bill will almost certainly be superseded by the consensus bill the Task Force releases. But if not, it would travel through the normal committee process and be subject to a public hearing.

I hope that helps to clarify the use of this procedure with regards to the current Task Force activities. If you have any additional questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact us at any time.

All the best,

Jared D. Savas
Legislative Aide
State Senator Dante Bartolomeo
(860) 240-0441



User avatar
budget76
Marksman III
Marksman III
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:00 am

Postby budget76 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:18 am

As someone who does not know much at all with politics, it sounds like they are trying to go around the typical requirements so that there is a chance of the bill passing instead of immedietly being shut down? Seems crappy to me.

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

Postby sigequinox » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:21 pm

budget76 wrote:As someone who does not know much at all with politics, it sounds like they are trying to go around the typical requirements so that there is a chance of the bill passing instead of immedietly being shut down? Seems crappy to me.


Exactly. Been busy with working and in the middle of buying a home so I keep forgetting to email back. Will post if i get a response.

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 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:06 pm

They are still going to try and push a comprehensive bill through using Emergency Certification.

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


Return to “Connecticut Legislation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests