Author Topic: CT Bill 1066 FAQ  (Read 7828 times)

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Avoid cliches like the plague!

lee n. field

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,534
  • tinpot megalomaniac, Paulbot, hardware goon
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2013, 07:05:27 PM »
Quote
Q. What types of handguns are banned?

A. The bill bans certain assault style semiautomatic pistols with detachable magazines and one of the following features: (1) An ability to accept a detachable magazine that attaches at some location outside of the pistol grip, (2) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip or silencer, (3) a shroud, or (4) a
second hand grip.  It also limits any semiautomatic pistol that has a fixed magazine that accepts more than ten rounds.

Soooo.  CT subject is forbidden from attaching a forward pistol grip to his threaded barrel?  ??? ???
In thy presence is fulness of joy.
At thy right hand pleasures for evermore.

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,671
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2013, 07:28:26 PM »
I read that list, and I find myself asking why, morally, should a citizen allow themselves to be arrested for breaking that law?

Maybe I'm just feeling cranky tonight, but at what point does one say to LE "*expletive deleted*ck you.  Come and get me, but bring friends"

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2013, 07:31:40 PM »
I read that list, and I find myself asking why, morally, should a citizen allow themselves to be arrested for breaking that law?

Maybe I'm just feeling cranky tonight, but at what point does one say to LE "*expletive deleted* you.  Come and get me, but bring friends"

I ask this question everytime gun control hits the 6:00PM news at the top of the list....then I realize how many couch potatos there are in the country now.
George Washington & Paul Revere and Nathaniel Greene .... they're long dead, as is the fire in their bellies.
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2013, 08:03:29 AM »
You should have been with me at the Capitol Wednesday, the pro gun supporters there would have warmed your cockles. One thing I'm thinking about is all the guys I know with silencers for their 22 target pistols. Now "illegal".

We're going to take the battle to court and their voting booth. If they show up at my door looking to take my property well yea, they better bring friends. Every LEO I've talked to is not on board with this no matter what the pols say. Chances are they'll refuse to enforce any confiscation.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,566
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2013, 12:30:09 PM »
Soooo.  CT subject is forbidden from attaching a forward pistol grip to his threaded barrel?  ??? ???
I thought under Federal law a handgun with an additional forward grip was already considered an AOW?
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

209

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2013, 12:59:34 PM »

You should have been with me at the Capitol Wednesday, the pro gun supporters there would have warmed your cockles. One thing I'm thinking about is all the guys I know with silencers for their 22 target pistols. Now "illegal".

We're going to take the battle to court and their voting booth. If they show up at my door looking to take my property well yea, they better bring friends. Every LEO I've talked to is not on board with this no matter what the pols say. Chances are they'll refuse to enforce any confiscation.


I'm kind of lucky because I work in what called a "special police force" for the state.  No guns in my jurisdiction so having to choose whether to enforce this piece of crap or not isn't really an issue for me.  But I have to say that in a PD of 15 officers it breaks out this way.  Four would probably not be too interested in checking whether your mag had more than 10 rds loaded or even check if you declared the mag per the law.  They view the law as a major encroachment of our rights and are very pro-gun guys. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are probably 4 who would gladly arrest you for a violation.  The remaining seven may or may not actually consider charging a violator, but I can't say what they would all of the time.  And then there are one or two who won't even understand the law enough to realize there is a violation and probably one who will think he has a violation which doesn't exist.  ;/ 

That's probably the same basic breakdown of officers and mindsets in most departments in the state.  The lion's share of enforcement of the law will fall to the State Police.  They run the state database through their Firearms Unit.  It's a small unit and they are already overburdened.  I haven't heard anything that says the state is beefing it up.  But the troopers who work for that unit are the ones who watch over gun shows, show up at a gun range to see if anyone has one of the banned EBRs and stuff like that.  They are also the ones who do the big illegal gun investigations.  I think there were maybe 10 of them last I knew.

I'm still reading the law and it is poorly written as are most of the laws I see coming out of Hartford over the last five to eight years or so.  It makes it confusing for everyone.  I'm sure POST (the CT police officer training council) will be holding all kinds of legal up-date classes for it like they had to do when our genius lawmakers passed other laws like the ones concerning juveniles and the changes in marijuana possession and alcohol.  It's sad that they pass a law that requires a special class for attorneys and police so they understand it.  Makes a person wonder how a regular everyday citizen is suppose to understand it.

I'm of the mind to follow the Canadian civil disobedience route where folks up there registered all kinds of things.  For instance, I'm thinking the nail guns I have that I use for nailing into concrete fits the new assault weapon ban.  My roofing nail gun has a magazine with a high capacity and has a pistol grip.  :O  Guess I should register them.  Maybe even a DeWalt cordless drill/hammer or two as those have two pistol grips.  :lol:  I'm hoping if enough people play the GIGO game, the state database becomes worthless like the one in Canada did.  Many folks are saying they intend to take a broad interpretation of the law when they attempt to comply.  It should be pretty funny and not really all that illegal.  After all, things like a concrete nail driver shoots a 22-cal blank and "I was confused and erred on the side of caution thinking you meant it was a weapon.  Didn't want to be in violation of the law."  [ar15]

I honestly don't know how many high cap mags I have so I guess I will declare a estimated number- inflated of course.  God forbid I stumble across some I stored inadvertently in the attic or garage and hadn't included those in the count.  No language in the law requires you produce the number of items you declare upon demand from any authority.  In order to not violate the law, I'd suggest you overestimate the number of those. And the law doesn't prohibit you from selling them in another state, so should they ever find cause to raid you, they can't charge you with an illegal sale if your declared number doesn't match with what they find. I'm thinking of declaring something like 500 30-rd AR mags, 200 20 rd AR mags, twenty 100 rd Beta mags, fifty 50 rd Betas, and so forth.  About a week after I submit it I'll make a trip for my second home out of CT and leave everything there.  Since I'm leaving the state soon anyway, I'll remove any weapon affected by the law out of the state also.  Should prove interesting if they have the time to check the database and figure out I didn't register the firearms that use those mags in accordance with  the new law. A visit to my house by someone checking on the discrepancy would be entertaining. 

Obviously I'd be non-violent but I could have sooo much fun with them. The law applies to items in state.  It obviously doesn't apply to something you own outside the boundaries of the state.  Word of caution if you play the game though, they will attempt to get you to give them the address where the stuff is.  Don't do that because they'll enter it into the database and then share it with other agencies.

Bottom line. I wouldn't want to be a cop assigned to following up on suspected violations of this new law.  Nothing good will come of it and there is a high potential of "ugly" that may result from attempting to enforce it.  It's really shaping up to be a bad time to be a cop and I'm glad I'm retiring in 17 months.  When they pass laws I can't agree with and that I view as a violation of people's rights, I can't honestly say I'll enforce those laws and have to rethink my ethics as opposed to my career field.

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2013, 02:36:32 PM »
Damn, I didn't even think about my hammer drill! Oh Noes!! lol

I have an interesting problem. Somehow I am missing, hopefully misplaced, two mags for my BHP. One holds 13 rounds. But I will "declare" it and the other one I have just in case it's hiding somewhere and they find it if they ever come and ransack my house.
 
I see what your saying about the divide on LEO depts. Makes sense. Thanks! And, getting old I know, Thanks for your service too! Can I buy you some beers sometime? ;)
 
Avoid cliches like the plague!

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,671
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2013, 04:20:32 PM »

That's probably the same basic breakdown of officers and mindsets in most departments in the state.  The lion's share of enforcement of the law will fall to the State Police.  They run the state database through their Firearms Unit.  It's a small unit and they are already overburdened.  I haven't heard anything that says the state is beefing it up.  But the troopers who work for that unit are the ones who watch over gun shows, show up at a gun range to see if anyone has one of the banned EBRs and stuff like that.  They are also the ones who do the big illegal gun investigations.  I think there were maybe 10 of them last I knew.


Uh Huh.  I'm either not commiting a crime, or I'm standing here with a loaded weapon that's sooooo dangerous it had to be outlawed for public safety.  Either way officer FOAD.  Sir.


I see what you're saying 209, and props on trying to F up their stupid system.  I'm not reassured by your cop breakdown however.  For any given LEO interaction 30% chance I'm going to jail, and 50% chance It's up to weather the cop is having a good day? 

I don't know.  I'm glad I don't live in CT and don't have to make this decision.  I can say, for me personally, I damn sure wouldn't register a *expletive deleted*ing thing. 

Y'all need to GTFO.

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2013, 04:39:04 PM »
In "theory" my guns were all "registered" when I bought them. What they're talking about now is me having to go back and get a permission slip from them to keep it. I can't find out a damn thing either. is this now a yearly thing? is there a fee? The line at the Staties firearms division has been busy 3 days solid now.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2013, 04:48:44 PM »
Kalifornia did that with their "registration".

You're basically leasing your firearms back from the state. 

I see plenty of opportunity for civil disobedience in that.
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2013, 11:48:10 PM »
yea, a little too much actually.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,791
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2013, 10:08:06 AM »
Quote
Q. If I own a .22 caliber rifle, do I need to register it?

A. No. .22’s are not banned and do not need to be registered, even if the gun has military style characteristics such as a pistol grip.

.22 cal AR-15; buy proper AR-15 upper through Midway=loophole? The bill doesn't do anything to address the "lower=firearm" status quo, correct? So I can have as many AR-15 uppers as I want so long as my lower is a .22?
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

209

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2013, 08:25:43 AM »
.22 cal AR-15; buy proper AR-15 upper through Midway=loophole? The bill doesn't do anything to address the "lower=firearm" status quo, correct? So I can have as many AR-15 uppers as I want so long as my lower is a .22?

Excellent question!  And that is a perfect example of how screwed up the laws are.  They write these things and it takes "clarification" before you know what it says.  We'll start seeing so-called experts saying, "Well, I believe the intent of the law was to... and similar statements over the next few months.  DPS will start issuing FAQs on the law and we'll get to see what they believe it means.  Then lawyers will chime in.  ;/

It'll take a long time to get the alleged "official interpretation" on what is considered exactly what.

SteveS

  • The Voice of Reason
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,224
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2013, 08:44:23 AM »
I thought under Federal law a handgun with an additional forward grip was already considered an AOW?

It is, but AOW fees are pretty cheap, so CT just wanted to get rid of this entirely for their residents. 
Profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate mother****er.

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2013, 09:53:48 AM »
King Obama is coming to Hartford today. I suggested they take the motorcade down through the north end and preferably without his security team.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Devonai

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,642
  • Panic Mode Activated
    • Kyrie Devonai Publishing
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2013, 12:32:20 PM »
I know I'm going to get some flak for this, so I'll try to frame the issue as fairly as I can.

The new law exempts law enforcement and military, on or off duty, from the magazine restrictions (and presumably registration as well, though this is not spelled out):

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/ba/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm

Quote
§§ 23-24 — LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES

The bill defines "large capacity magazine" as any firearm magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that can, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It excludes:

1. feeding devices permanently altered so that they cannot hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition,

2. . 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding devices,

3. tubular magazines contained in a lever-action firearm, or

4. permanently inoperable magazines.

With exceptions, the bill makes it a class D felony to buy, distribute, import into Connecticut, keep for sale, or offer or expose for sale LCMs.

With exceptions, anyone who possesses any LCM on or after January 1, 2014 obtained before the bill's effective date is guilty of a infraction punishable by a $ 90 fine and a class D penalty for any subsequent offense; anyone who possesses a large capacity magazine on or after January 1, 2014 that was obtained after that date is guilty of a class D felony.

Exemptions from the Ban

The following may possess, purchase, or import LCMs:

1. members or employees of DESPP, police departments, DOC, or the Armed Forces (service members) (a) for use in the discharge of their official duties or (b) when off duty;

2. employees of a NRC licensee operating a nuclear power plant in Connecticut for providing security services at the facility, or any person, firm, corporation, contractor, or subcontractor providing security at the facility; or

3. in-state manufacturers of LCM that manufacture or transport LCMs in Connecticut for sale here to exempt persons and entities above or for sale out of state.

While I am against elitism, or a protected class of citizenry, as long as I'm enlisted, I'm exempt.  It seems to me that while some are advocating non-compliance, if I don't register my mags then I'm not in violation of the law anyway.  This seems to give me a couple of choices:

1: Register/underload my mags like everyone else in solidarity of our predicament, or,

2: Write letters to my representatives and Malloy demanding that the exemption should either apply to everyone or no one.

Since these type of laws rarely exempt off-duty military members, I fear that drawing attention to what seems to be an oversight in semantics will cause the clause to be "fixed," potentially screwing over hundreds of my colleagues who are currently protected by it.  So, I'm not sure what to think.  How say you?
My writing blog: Kyrie Devonai Publishing

When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2013, 12:58:22 PM »
Turns out armed guards are NOT exempt. On or off duty.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Devonai

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,642
  • Panic Mode Activated
    • Kyrie Devonai Publishing
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2013, 01:06:27 PM »
It would be pretty hilarious if the Air Guard relieved all of the PGS guards of their magazines on the day that Obama arrived at the base.  Maybe someone should call in an anonymous tip, Obama is supposed to arrive at 1400!  >:D
My writing blog: Kyrie Devonai Publishing

When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,671
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2013, 01:16:52 PM »
While I am against elitism, or a protected class of citizenry, as long as I'm enlisted, I'm exempt.  It seems to me that while some are advocating non-compliance, if I don't register my mags then I'm not in violation of the law anyway.  This seems to give me a couple of choices:

1: Register/underload my mags like everyone else in solidarity of our predicament, or,

2: Write letters to my representatives and Malloy demanding that the exemption should either apply to everyone or no one.
Since these type of laws rarely exempt off-duty military members, I fear that drawing attention to what seems to be an oversight in semantics will cause the clause to be "fixed," potentially screwing over hundreds of my colleagues who are currently protected by it.  So, I'm not sure what to think.  How say you?

It's a BS law, and the exemption is even more BS.  Write them and tell them what you think.  I think if they're going to fix it the military members need to be right up there in front sueing for repeal, and voting these folks out.

Also, don't register crap.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2013, 01:39:58 PM »
Put my in the "Malicious Obedience" camp.  I would "register" every hammer drill, nail gun, Nerf gun magazines, and any other stupid schiesse i could think of (or hear other people attempting to register.)

Break the system, make it worthless. 
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Devonai

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,642
  • Panic Mode Activated
    • Kyrie Devonai Publishing
Re: CT Bill 1066 FAQ
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2013, 10:59:31 PM »
Not a bad idea 'till they slap on an $80 "processing" fee for each registration.
My writing blog: Kyrie Devonai Publishing

When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!