Sen. Bye, Rep. Godfrey of CT Propose New Firearms and Ammo Bill

In the wake of the tragic December 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton which killed 20 children and six adults, state Senator Beth Bye (D-West Hartford) and state Rep. Bob Godfrey (D-Danbury) said today that they will introduce in the upcoming 2013 legislative session a comprehensive series of proposals focused on limiting access in Connecticut to high-capacity weapons, assault weapons and ammunition.

Sen. Bye and Rep. Godfrey‘s proposals—which will be packaged as one bill—will seek to:

Prohibit the sale and possession of any rifle, shotgun or pistol magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds;

Expand the definition of an ‘assault weapon’ under current Connecticut state law to apply to firearms which exhibit just one particular physical trait, as opposed to two (i.e., the presence of a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon);

Require the registration with state law enforcement officials—and the biennial registration renewal—of all firearms by model and serial number;

Institute a 50-percent sales tax on the sale of ammunition and firearms magazines;

Require a permit to purchase ammunition;

Prohibit the online purchase of ammunition;

Prohibit the purchase of ammunition in Connecticut by anyone who is not legally authorized to possess a firearm in Connecticut;

Prohibit the storage of firearms and ammunition in a manner that allows access by persons under age 18.

senatedems.ct.gov...

Full text not yet available.

If this bill were already in place, would it have prevented the Sandy Hook Massacre? How hard is it to carry a handgun and multiple clips in the place of a rifle? Two handguns? Multiple handguns? Do handguns jam less than rifles?

Originally posted by ClementWinters
If this bill were already in place, would it have prevented the Sandy Hook Massacre? How hard is it to carry a handgun and multiple clips in the place of a rifle? Two handguns? Multiple handguns? Do handguns jam less than rifles?

The answer is no, Sandy Hook was done with the use of multiple pistols. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with what happened. Just a knee-jerk reaction for political points.

50% sales tax on ammo, looks like NY will be getting a huge boost in ammo sales in that case, just like people from CT go to NY to get beer and liquor on sundays.

Must admit that this looks like a case of 'being seen to do the right thing' even if it makes no difference when applied to only 1 state. Changes need to be applied and enforced in all states (1 law nationally) or it'll be a waste of time.

And what's with this obsession on pistol grips?

reply to post by angrysniper

WOW WOW WOW.

50% sales tax. I'm sure no one would just go to a neighboring state...

Their M.O., if you will, is to first introduce a massive amount of garbage, things they know wont get passed. Then all of the bums will get together and "compromise".

Of-course these finalized restrictions are what they really wanted in the first place.

Its been proven, these gun confiscations/restrictions DO NOT WORK:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Must admit that this looks like a case of 'being seen to do the right thing' even if it makes no difference when applied to only 1 state. Changes need to be applied and enforced in all states (1 law nationally) or it'll be a waste of time.

And what's with this obsession on pistol grips?

"Assault weapons" bans don't have anything to do with actually going after fixing the problems. They are about attacking cosmetic features on guns. The whole point is to purposely go after things that make no difference. Then when it doesn't work they can scare people in to walking the next step torwards a ban of guns.

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”382
An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, National Institute of Justice, June 2004

“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”383

“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”384
383 Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
384 Ibid

After the original AWB passed the Washington Post came out and said it would do absolutely no good unless it was the first step in a bigger push for gun control. It had to be the "starting point" for further restrictions.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,’ I would have done it.” ~ Dianne Feinstein 60 minutes February 1995

By the time that becomes law everyone who read the bill will have warehoused all they will ever need to ensure they are not without
Plus the black market will FLOURISH

www.lohud.com...

A nice map of gun owners (non-free fire zones) for the state of CT. Looks like someone did their home work...

I guess they would have to start by kicking Colt Firearms out of the state, since their pistol-gripped, high-capacity "assault rifles" are one of the most common brands owned nationwide... bringing millions of dollars in tax revenue and thousands of jobs to Connecticut.


I'm sure that'll happen... since the state senate wouldn't want to be hypocritical.

Edit... I forgot that Ruger is also in the state. They manufacturer a couple of types of "assault rifles" as well, so they'll have to find a new state to set up shop.

Originally posted by Answer
I guess they would have to start by kicking Colt Firearms out of the state, since their pistol-gripped, high-capacity "assault rifles" are one of the most common brands owned nationwide... bringing millions of dollars in tax revenue and thousands of jobs to Connecticut.


I'm sure that'll happen... since the state senate wouldn't want to be hypocritical.

Edit... I forgot that Ruger is also in the state. They manufacturer a couple of types of "assault rifles" as well, so they'll have to find a new state to set up shop.

edit on 12/24/2012 by Answer because: (no reason given)

Just a correction. Ruger may be incorperated there but the business is actually in northern Arizona.

As for Colt I am not sure but Ruger is all AZ made

Originally posted by Azdraik

Originally posted by Answer
I guess they would have to start by kicking Colt Firearms out of the state, since their pistol-gripped, high-capacity "assault rifles" are one of the most common brands owned nationwide... bringing millions of dollars in tax revenue and thousands of jobs to Connecticut.


I'm sure that'll happen... since the state senate wouldn't want to be hypocritical.

Edit... I forgot that Ruger is also in the state. They manufacturer a couple of types of "assault rifles" as well, so they'll have to find a new state to set up shop.

edit on 12/24/2012 by Answer because: (no reason given)

Just a correction. Ruger may be incorperated there but the business is actually in northern Arizona.

As for Colt I am not sure but Ruger is all AZ made

Picking nits here but they have plants in CT, AZ, and NH. Not all of their manufacturing is in AZ alone...

Obviously I don't like being corrected

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Must admit that this looks like a case of 'being seen to do the right thing' even if it makes no difference when applied to only 1 state. Changes need to be applied and enforced in all states (1 law nationally) or it'll be a waste of time.

And what's with this obsession on pistol grips?

"Assault weapons" bans don't have anything to do with actually going after fixing the problems. They are about attacking cosmetic features on guns. The whole point is to purposely go after things that make no difference. Then when it doesn't work they can scare people in to walking the next step torwards a ban of guns.

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”382
An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, National Institute of Justice, June 2004

“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”383

“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”384
383 Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
384 Ibid

After the original AWB passed the Washington Post came out and said it would do absolutely no good unless it was the first step in a bigger push for gun control. It had to be the "starting point" for further restrictions.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,’ I would have done it.” ~ Dianne Feinstein 60 minutes February 1995

edit on 24-12-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

www.policymic.com...
Dr. Ron Paul has a reasoned article IMO

"Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones. Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. ... Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.

www.cbsnews.com...

"Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives," he continued.