Gov. Malloy to sign Connecticut gun control law

"Gov. Malloy to sign Connecticut gun control law once passed, gun manufacturers consider leaving state"

Just saw this while doing some research for a gun control debate analysis I'm writing for an English comp class.
www.nhregister.com...

HARTFORD — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy will quickly sign the sweeping gun control law that is expected to be adopted Wednesday, while a firearm lobbyist predicted it will be challenged in court and gun manufacturers continue to weigh their options to move away.

I'm really hoping this gets challenged and put down in court because the proposal is a bit ridiculous:

“This is a good moment,” Malloy said of the sweeping gun control legislation that bans at least an additional 100 assault weapons, mandates universal background checks, bans magazines with more than 10 rounds and restricts use of currently owned larger magazines. It requires eligibility certificates for long guns, raises the purchase age for centerfold rifles from 18 to 21 and puts in place the first statewide dangerous offender list, among other things.

Eligibility certificates I can understand but raising the age limit? why??

I guess this is what happens when everyone is focused on North Korea

and if it goes through everyone should take him out of office because he does not deserve to hold his position.

I agree
His approval rating is just shy of 50%
now I don't live in Connecticut and I can understand their fear from the shooting, but I don't want to see this kind of law creep westward..

reply to post by Banquo

Eligibility certificates I can understand but raising the age limit? why??

Would you mind explaining your position on this one. IMO "eligibility certificates" are intrusive, which is obviously the reason for it being in the bill in the first place. Why do I need a certificate that says I'm OK to purchase a firearm, when it's background checks, criminal history and flags for mental health that should determine if I can not posses one?

Raising the age limit is actually something I do agree with lol.

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
and if it goes through everyone should take him out of office because he does not deserve to hold his position.

A Waterbury ultra liberal with the foresight of about 2 moves in chess. He has no concept of how people will respond to anything. His sphere of space-time consciousness extends out about an inch past his nose.

Originally posted by retirednature
reply to post by Banquo

 

Eligibility certificates I can understand but raising the age limit? why??

Would you mind explaining your position on this one. IMO "eligibility certificates" are intrusive, which is obviously the reason for it being in the bill in the first place. Why do I need a certificate that says I'm OK to purchase a firearm, when it's background checks, criminal history and flags for mental health that should determine if I can not posses one?

Raising the age limit is actually something I do agree with lol.

The out-of-state- purchased ammo black market will be big business in CT. I might retire and set up shop. It's the prohibition all over again. Money to be made!

reply to post by retirednature


I figured the eligibility certificate would be like a gun safety test or something comparable to drivers ed.
In regards to the age limit for long guns, would that then increase the age for an adult hunting license?

Originally posted by Banquo
reply to post by retirednature

 

I figured the eligibility certificate would be like a gun safety test or something comparable to drivers ed.
In regards to the age limit for long guns, would that then increase the age for an adult hunting license?

1. Must complete the state paid for, nationally recognized "hunter safety course". (Already a req. to buy a hunting license in CT)
2. Must have a criminal background check (cost? By who?)
3. Must be fingerprinted. (Already a requirement for a CC permit so just adding all other guns)

Originally posted by tkwasny
1. Must complete the state paid for, nationally recognized "hunter safety course". (Already a req. to buy a hunting license in CT)
2. Must have a criminal background check (cost? By who?)
3. Must be fingerprinted. (Already a requirement for a CC permit so just adding all other guns)

I thought they already did the criminal background check when you purchase the fire arm. Like they call it in somewhere. or am I completely missing what you meant?

Originally posted by Banquo
I agree
His approval rating is just shy of 50%
now I don't live in Connecticut and I can understand their fear from the shooting, but I don't want to see this kind of law creep westward..

Look up the word infringe. It specifically states "however slight" influence or regulation upon a structure or establishment. To not infringe means leave it 100% alone and there shall be no laws that directly or downstream domino effect causes effect.

For instance, EPA stopping all production or importation of gunpowder while an environmental impact study is being conducted over the next 99 years.

Originally posted by Banquo

Originally posted by tkwasny
1. Must complete the state paid for, nationally recognized "hunter safety course". (Already a req. to buy a hunting license in CT)
2. Must have a criminal background check (cost? By who?)
3. Must be fingerprinted. (Already a requirement for a CC permit so just adding all other guns)

I thought they already did the criminal background check when you purchase the fire arm. Like they call it in somewhere. or am I completely missing what you meant?

It's on-the-spot called into the feds by the seller. Has for every gun I've bought. Too bad they all fell into super deep water when I was fishing off the ocean dock one day.

reply to post by tkwasny


oh wow, mine were abducted by aliens..
darn guys didn't even wanna probe me, they just wanted my guns

but back on topic.. I was completely lost on your infringement post?

EDIT: Never mind I re read it

anyone else going to chime in on this??

These laws are presumably a response to the shootings in CT.

But tell me one section of this law that would have had any impact on Adam Lanza's ability to do what he did that day.

I will listen to the crickets chirp while I await a response.

I live in CT

everybody hates malloy because of a really stupid property tax idea. hes taking away auto property tax revenue from the towns to make the states numbers look better but the towns will just have to raise taxes on homes to make it up

that's why he has a low approval rating

oh, and newtown is in CT

you realize that, right ?

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by Banquo
I agree
His approval rating is just shy of 50%
now I don't live in Connecticut and I can understand their fear from the shooting, but I don't want to see this kind of law creep westward..

Look up the word infringe. It specifically states "however slight" influence or regulation upon a structure or establishment. To not infringe means leave it 100% alone and there shall be no laws that directly or downstream domino effect causes effect.

For instance, EPA stopping all production or importation of gunpowder while an environmental impact study is being conducted over the next 99 years.

you have a right to bear arms, that has not been infringed. when are you joining the militia ?

reply to post by syrinx high priest



Any able bodied male over the age 18 is, according our laws, "militia".

You "join" when you "join" the ranks of adult males.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Any able bodied male over the age 18 is, according our laws, "militia".

You "join" when you "join" the ranks of adult males.

Also being a registerd voter makes you available to be drafted into the military should such a thing return.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
oh, and newtown is in CT

you realize that, right ?

edit on 2-4-2013 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

Of course I know that.. Hence why I posted earlier in this thread about it..

haven't had much to say about these gun threads, but these politicians are getting downright stupid. If they really want to make things better, they need to go after the real criminals who DON"t give a dang about what the law says. Enforce the current laws that are on the books.Maybe instead of filling up the private prison system with drug users, they could concentrate on the ones who are really criminals.

Maybe if they were to get the real criminals people wouldn't be so incline to load up on weapons to protect themselves. Lord knows that waiting for a government employee to protect you and your family in an emergency is slim odds.

Just blows my mind that politicians really believe that a freaking law is going to prevent the next mass shooting. It's coming only a matter of when and where.,

raising the age limit? why??

Because 18 year olds are about as mature as ten year olds?