#ghettopitbulllivesmatter

OP post updated with several new proposed bills.

Proposed H.B. No. 6045 ‘AN ACT AUTHORIZING BOW HUNTERS TO CARRY HANDGUNS FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION FROM PREDATORY ANIMALS’

Proposed H.B. No. 6199 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING ACCESS TO THE STATE-WIDE DATABASE BY PAROLE OFFICERS’

Proposed H.B. No. 6301 ‘AN ACT CREATING A DATABASE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING A FIREARM DUE TO PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER'

Proposed H.B. No. 6302 ‘AN ACT REQUIRING THE SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS’

Proposed H.B. No. 6306 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE FIREARM PERMIT APPEALS PROCESS’

fucking dbag bow hunter on cthunting on FB is against this

why do i need to carry a gun while bow hunting?

it will cause poaching

blahblahblah

laid into the fudd

You should ask him if he can even carry or own guns legally....

Fudds taking such strong positions, often times have other issues underneath all this...

i think this guy is just a fudd

the classic fudd

if it doesnt benefit me, why should i care

i gave him all the classic talking points we discuss on here

Bows are silent and favored by poachers.

Crossbows bring even more poachers.

I bet that guy hunts over bait.


The loudest fudds are always cheats.  Always.  


The only honest sportsmen are the quiet ones.

true story

whats the law on carrying in a state forest again?

the permit system now encourages more poaching ..
the old way you would have to send out for tags and bring kills to a check station. , now you can just print that shit out and if you dont get stopped by dep with your kill, choot another one.

the deer reports have been way off since they put the new system into effect

You can't

Unless at one of the ranges IN a SP or hunting small game.  (Rimfire only)
Or deer hunting with .357 or above and I think a 6" barrel

cant hunt deer on state land with pistol. only private

Fucking gay

funny, i dont think ive ever been in the state forests where i hunt, without a gun. even when im not hunting.


opps

so now the guy is saying he doesnt want to be seen by the tree huggers if he has to wear orange

but but but hes pro2a

but against this, my right to defend myself at all times because he doesnt wanna get bothered by a tree hugger


hypocrite fuck

where is he hunting where he has to be worried about being seen?  i dont hunt in a  park, i hunt in the fucking woods. and try to do it where nobody else goes, aka farther then 50 yards from the truck

maybe the gold coast

dont matter, his want doesnt trump my right

fuck him

The butthurt is rampant as well on ct fishing

Its like GD for arfcom virgins

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

He doesn't want to wear blaze because he doesn't want ENCON seeing him.......

Surprised no one's commented yet on the safe storage proposal by two Republican legislators.

"That the general statutes be amended to require persons owning firearms to store unloaded firearms with a trigger locking device installed, with ammunition being stored separately, or store loaded firearms in a gun safe that, at a minimum, is made with ten-gauge steel and has an Underwriters Laboratories "Residential Security Container" rating, provided nothing herein shall prevent the owner of such firearm from keeping such firearm on his or her person."

Did they not read the Heller opinion?

Dunno, fb stalked him. Seems like an ethical hunter. Just preoccupied with tree huggers

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

No more amateur GD for me :-(

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Fucking busybodies

regardless. wearing blaze or not wearing blaze is not much of an advantage when deer hunting. deer dont seem to see it.
i wanna carry a fucking gun legally not while hunting. this may help. i doubt it will go through

That was submitted by Art Linares.  I know him and I know he is good peeps to us 2A supporters.  He's following the same strategy the gun control nuts are following- he knows asking for everything on the list all at once isn't going to swing, so instead he needs to ask for  little things, here and there, one after the other.  Once this bill gets out on the floor, amendments can be put in place later to include other recognized sporting ammunition...which is pretty much everything else.

As panty waisted as the process sounds, that is how the political game is played.  You either learn to play the game or you don't play it at all.

I know the game.  I know that Sampsons's bills are as bullish as they sound.  I know that this bill can sneak amendments.  But I'm not feeling it on this one.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!  These asshole are unbelievable!

About 10 years ago my German Shepherd bloated late at night (look it up if you aren't familiar with the term).  He was in unbelievable pain.  We lived in Mansfield at the time (litterally 1 - 2 minutes from our vet).  To make a long story short the local vet didn't have enough staff available and told me to take my dog to Bolton (about 30 minute drive in perfect conditions).  The dog was suffering, and my heart was breaking for him.  We made it to the vet, had the surgery done, and picked him up a few days later.

A few months (possibly a year later) there was a similiar issue, but in his intestine which is painful and life threatening.  That was handled surgically by my local vet.

After that I asked my vet if he would supply me with syringes and drugs to relieve my dog's pain or to "put him down" if this happened and we had a snow storm or other situation that prevented us from getting to a vet.  He said "no".

From that time on until the vet put my dog down three years later (for other old age reasons) I kept my backup car (summer sports car) always ready (snow tires in winter, battery always charged, etc) incase my daily driver failed, AND I kept a .45 ready incase I couldn't get to the local vet or Bolton  due to traffic on rte 6 or some other reason.  It was a horrible 3 years having to think of the possibility every fucking day that I might have to put down my best friend.

Now these assholes in Hartford would make someone a criminal if something like this happened?  FUCK THESE ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i couldnt put my dogs down. i dont have it in me. my sister is a vet tech and will get shit to us quick if we need it though

i couldnt either

but its nice to have that option

well probably not anymore

Well, when people start taking Rover out back and smashing his head with a brick because they can't afford to put their animals down, what is the state gonna do then? I don't mean to sound crass, I'm a dog lover myself, but that's the reality of it.

im on the same page as you

my opinion is, which has nothing to do with this bill, is that if you cant afford to have your vet put the animal down by injection, then you shouldn't have the animal in the first place.

too many people have no business owning pets because they can hardly take care of themselves.

Who is the rep that thought this bill up?


I recccommend taking sick dogs to his house in the middle of the night

See the op post on the first page for the details of who introduced each bill. For the dog bill it was REP. CASE, 63rd DIST.

Forget about pets... Lets talk about kids!!!! Need a dog license but no requirement for
Another welfare kid !

I've never been in a movie theatre either without at least one firearm in the room.... Strange...

Court house is the only place I'm naked without one. Dang metal detectors get you every time

Amen!!!

Pretty much

I would certainly hope so.

6306 would be nice. Too many people are jerked around in the appeals process with no accountability from the board. There are some great people on the appeals board that do help us very much. But only meeting once a month,they lack the support to really move cases along. Maybe this bill will help them out.

OP post updated with several new proposals. There are two from Looney (S.B. No. 645 & S.B. No. 650).

Proposed H.B. No. 6493 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING BACKGROUND CHECKS’

Proposed H.B. No. 6495 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING REINSTATEMENT OF FIREARMS PERMITS’

Proposed H.B. No. 6496 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION TO OUT-OF-STATE PURCHASERS’

Proposed H.B. No. 6497 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE REGISTRATION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AND POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES BY PERSONS WHO MOVE INTO CONNECTICUT’

Proposed S.B. No. 645 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING DEFINITIONS OF “DEADLY WEAPON”  

Proposed S.B. No. 650 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS’

So what are they trying to do with S.B. No. 645? How could it effect us?




 

Nothing good if Looney is involved. Figure they'll probably expand the list of what they call "Dangerous Weapon" and "Dangerous Instrument". The proposed bill text currently states the following: "That the general statutes be amended to reconcile various definitions of "deadly weapon" and "dangerous instrument" and to clarify that an electronic defense weapon is not a firearm."

Guess we'll have to wait and see what the actual proposed language is to know how bad Looney will be screwing us.

Edit to add: SB 650 may be one that gets passed since it has so many top progressive legislators supporting it. That one has the potential to really crack down on those who have firearms and have a temp restraining order issued against them. The current proposed bill text states:

"That section 46b-15 of the general statutes be amended to improve the service and effectiveness of temporary restraining orders issued, including, to: (1) Require a sworn police officer to serve such order in certain circumstances, including whenever the applicant indicates on the application therefor that the respondent has access to a firearm or ammunition or is in possession of a state-issued firearm or ammunition permit or eligibility certificate; (2) allow a court to extend such order if the applicant is present for the subsequent hearing fourteen days after issuance but the order has not yet been served; (3) increase access on the part of applicants to domestic violence advocates who can assist them in properly filling out applications; (4) broaden the methods by which respondents may be given legal notice of such orders by sworn peace officers; and (5) allow the court to order the respondent to a temporary restraining order that has been issued by the court to temporarily transfer, deliver or surrender all firearms and ammunition that he or she possesses, along with any permit issued pursuant to section 29-28 of the general statutes, and all eligibility certificates issued pursuant to sections 29-36f and 29-37q of the general statutes."

Thank you sir, clear and thorough as always.


 

id be suprised if hb6497 passes

Protip:


All of Martin Looney's proposals as submitted, are intentionally vague........


Go with your gut

He has the power to control the timing of the "real" bill to his advantage.

It would be nice if it did.

neva gona happen

An open letter was penned by "Thomas Paine" in the Weston-Redding-Easton Patch on the proposed safe storage bill...

Open Letter to State Representative Dan Carter and State Senator Tony Hwang

This is State Representative Dan Carter's response in the comment section to that open letter:

Dan Carter  • 2 hours ago  

Thank you all for the open letter.

The intention for the legislation I proposed is nothing more than to have guns locked up when people are not home. When we put bills forward we sometimes make them strictly a concept, such as "require guns be stored in gun safes." Other times it is helpful to be specific to communicate more intent, or specifics that would define the scope of the concept. When this idea was raised a few years back, the attorneys recommended coming up with a standard that would provide a reasonable barrier to a criminal who has broken into a home from stealing firearms. The standard that appeared to work was having containers with the UL Residential Security Rating. The 10 gauge steel was added to protect the gun owners ability to use other suitable security containers. In fact, the current language has an error and was supposed to require 10 gauge steel OR a UL rating, not both. In addition, we were trying to make it clear that guns need not be locked up when the owner is in control of the firearms, which is why the last clause was added about being able to carry the firearms.

I should remind everyone that the language proposed was all my responsibility, including the mistake with the "and" vs "or." Anyone who signs up to co-sponsor the legislation, including Sen Hwang, is supporting the concept. Everyone understands that the bill is a work in progress.

Like many bills we put forward, the people effected have reached out and stated thoughts on the legislation. It is clear that the current language does not support the intent of the legislation. IF the legislation were to move forward (I'm told it isn't being raised), the goal would be to have some clear standard that supports the safe storage of firearms and would allow people to use products on the market, such as drawer safes and other locking mechanisms (Yes, 10 gauge steel may be overkill). To the point raised in the discussion, perhaps we could look at alarm systems as part of the standard. The language would also be clear that firearms only have to be secured only when the dwelling is unoccupied.

As for the overall concept of requiring firearms to be secured in unoccupied dwellings, this is a conversation we need to have. I believe preventing firearms from falling into the wrong hands through illegal sales and theft is the best way to prevent deaths. I understand the onslaught of gun control measures and the intensity of gun control politics has resulted in an incremental erosion of the ability for honest people to own guns. Perhaps one of the problems is that most gun control laws are broad and are aimed at limiting guns for everyone, instead of affecting the ability of criminals or those with mental illness to obtain firearms. Unfortunately, guns are still falling into the wrong hands and it is everyone's best interest to make meaningful attempts to stop gun deaths.

I've thought about this issues from many angles and I am open to ideas. I really don't think people should have to lock up firearms in their own home, but the fact remains that many gun owners secure their firearms because it decreases the chance of theft. Another option raised is for the state to partner with a private organization to promote safe storage through education, but the organizations that currently provide gun safety information and training are widely portrayed as villains. Unfortunately, any law we come up with only be followed by the people who follow laws in the first place. But sometimes these laws could have a positive outcome and still need to at least be considered.

If any gun related bills move forward, I will be more than happy to get together and discuss the bills.

OP post updated with another proposed bill.

Proposed H.B. No. 6582 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEADLINE FOR REGISTERING AN ASSAULT WEAPON AND DECLARING POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE.’