What is this?  An amnesty period?

Forget that noise.  They can't even get back the registrations from 2013.

The less registrations the better.  This past week has proven that more than ever.

And its Rep. Miner proposing that bill too. Not sure why he wants to open the registration back up. Probably because so many didn't register because they didn't realize they were supposed too.

I would assume the proposed bill will still say one had to "lawfully possess" the gun or mag prior to 4/4/13.

Not going to be surprised though if there is a huge influx of people registering magazines they "miraculously" found (after a trip out of state ) if this bill was passed.

How can the state prove you bought a magazine after 4/4/13? They can't. Just make sure if it has a date code it is prior to 4/4/13. Magpuls have date codes. Surplus magazines are usually years old so those are the best bet.

Of course the state would have a difficult time proving one bought a magazine post 4/4/13 if they enacted such a proposed bill opening up registration/declaration once again. But the reality is they don't care about when it was purchased only that one declares the magazine. They could if push came to serious shove figure out to some extent what people have purchased post 4/4/13 via credit card/online purchases and receipts one may keep but that would in tale a whole lot of work and court orders.

The whole point of declaring the magazine is so the state knows who owns them or is likely to own them so if they tax or confiscate they'll know who to go to. If the state really wanted to they could simply go down the weapons registry list and use that as a method of assuming that a gun listed on it that takes a standard capacity magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds and compare that list to those who declared and question those who didn't declare magazines. But again why would they. Too much work for very little return.

If they really did pass such a proposed bill extending the registration period and one is going to declare a bunch of magazines they should at the very least ensure the mags are not date stamped (like MagPul's are), pay cash for those mags, and loose the receipt.

What did I miss?

OP post updated with a couple more proposed bills.

Proposed H.B. No. 6581 ‘AN ACT REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF FIREARM REGULATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION’

Proposed S.B. No. 801 ‘AN ACT PROHIBITING LOCAL REGULATION OF FIREARMS’

Magpul and tapco have date stamps on their magazines

Which one could grind off/deface if they were so inclined...

I was giving everyone a heads up, thanks for being subtle

I like to stiple my mags....

A bit more back and forth between Rep. Carter and Thomas Pain at the Patch on the proposed safe storage law Carter proposed. See post one page back for initial Thomas Pain article link and Rep. Carter's initial response.

http://patch.com/connecticut/weston-ct/open-letter-state-representative-dan-carter-and-state-senator-tony-hwang#comment-1815449303

Thomas Paine > Dan Carter  • 2 days ago  

Mr. Carter, thank you for your response.

I take issue with your claim that you made an "error" by using "and" rather than a supposedly intended "or".

Two years ago, in January 2013, you put forward Proposed Bill No. 6249, "AN ACT CONCERNING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE AND STORAGE OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION." and in that bill, at lines 30, 31 and 32, you then proposed:

30 "...is made
31 with ten gauge steel and has an Underwriters Laboratories
32 "Residential Security Container" rating...."

You used "and" in that bill as well at the initial proposal and, as far as I can tell, that is the verbiage that was referred to Joint Committee on Public Safety. I believe the bill died in the Committee but there is no indication that you "corrected" that version of the 2013 bill before it went to the Committee.

2013 bill 6249 can be round here:
ftp://ftp.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/...

So where we are in 2015 Mr. Carter and you are suggesting that the wording in this new bill was a mistake and should have contained "or". Yet, it uses the same wording as your 2013 bill, exactly. Are you saying you erred in 2013 as well? Was that not raised in the Public Safety committee at that time? Do you not remember the 2013 proposed bill?

I am sorry Mr. Carter, but I left to believe that you intended to use "and" in 2013 and used it again in 2015, by intent. My guess is you are getting some blowback right now on your current bill and are seeking to do damage control by suggesting the intent was "or" and not "and".

Otherwise, I am left to believe that you made this "error" in 2013 and either did not realize it as an error then, or realized it then but have forgotten it in just two short year's time.

I and others would like a further clarification Mr. Carter.

http://patch.com/connecticut/weston-ct/open-letter-state-representative-dan-carter-and-state-senator-tony-hwang#comment-1816133221

Dan Carter > Thomas Paine  • a day ago  

Mr. Paine,

To clarify, the mistake was made in the original language 2 years ago. Since none of the proposals had any public comment, the flaws in the bill were never addressed. I brought the bill up this year with the original language.

Mr Paine, It might surprise you that many of us in politics are pretty normal people and, while we must be heald to a higher standard, once in awhile something gets by us. I understand you may question my intent, as so many gun bills have been used to create burdensome regulations that make it difficult for gun owners. But, if you look at my voting record you will see I am trying to be reasonable and do good work to support the ability for people to own guns, while trying to keep the streets safe from violence.

As fot my intent, I have always been willing to engage in an honest public discourse regarding controversial issues. I understand your skepticism, just as I have been skeptical of others. I've learned that I can't control what everyone thinks about me. I can only do my best to communicate with my constituents honesty, and accept their feedback.

http://patch.com/connecticut/weston-ct/open-letter-state-representative-dan-carter-and-state-senator-tony-hwang#comment-1817484235

Thomas Paine > Dan Carter  • 2 hours ago  

Mr. Carter,

Thank you again for your response and clarification. Yes, I might be skeptical but when a bill so crudely worded is introduced, twice, I have to either question the motive(s) of the proposer or think they are uninformed. Given your record, our discussions two years ago and other factors, I do not put you into the "gun grabber" category. However, I also do not put you in the class of those who believe there are already too many restrictions on citizens natural and Constitutional rights to self-protection.

To be clear, I am not an absolutist on either the Second Amendmant nor Section 2 Article 15 of the CT state Constitution. To a point, I believe in public safety and protecting my four children. However, I am also a long-time gun owner, pistol permit holder and believer in personal responsibility when it comes to all things related to firearms. And I am understandably concerned that many of your Hartford colleagues would like nothing better than to deprive me of my firearms, irrespective of articulated rights nor the efficacy of the restrictions they seek to impose on us.

Which gets me back to your bill. What I find most egregious about it is not just that you carried over the "error" from 2013 but that you apparently learned nothing about this issue in the interim. On a matter of such import, citizens expect legislators to do some research and learn more about that which they seek to legislate. I appreciate that you are just a normal person but that is no excuse. Ten minutes of Google use could have brought you to any number of articles about gun safes, their construction, their effectiveness and existing laws in other states. On the first page of "gun safe gauge" I found two discussions of the UL standard alone, including a description of California's similar law that uses "or". Staying with the Internet, you could have gone to the web pages of Cabelas, Brownells or any number of other online retailers for a quick education of the features of safes and their price points vs features.

Alternatively Mr. Carter, you could have sought knowledge from some of your gun-owning constituents or even walked into a local gun store to discuss safes.

The point is Mr. Carter, your bill showed you to be no better informed on such topics that your truly "anti-gun" colleagues and that is why your bill has led to so much outcry. It is not your intent that is necessarily being questioned as it is your knowledge on something so important to several hundred thousand CT taxpayers.

Worse, I and ours fear that your badly worded bill could be "hijacked" by some true anti-gun politicians and used to craft even more restrictive, and unconstitutional, legislation. To be an innocent dupe to such efforts, more than anything else, is why I so vehemently question this bill.

Thank you for listening.

Sorry I don't do subtle...

When did those curved 20 round pmags come out again?

20s were in CT before the ban, 40s on the other hand...

All it takes is a Dremel sanding tool to take care of that.

OR, so I saw in a movie once...  

That would be a very embarrassing problem. Do wonder what the state would do if they did enact this proposed law but said you had to have lawful possession of the magazine on/prior to 4/4/13 and someone then declares a bunch of Magpul Glock magazines or declared a bunch of Magpul's 60 round drums?

I wouldn't worry about anyone trying to declare them...

Unsurprisingly Looney's bill SB 0650 to remove guns from those who have temp restraining orders issued has moved to a public hearing.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2015&bill_num=sb0650

The decision to move to a public hearing passed on a voice vote and they haven't (or perhaps won't) list who voted which way on it.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/TS/S/2015SB-00650-R00JUD-CV37-TS.htm

That's going to pass


Orders from gov and leadership

Of course its going to pass. It'll probably get "bi-partisan" support too. It's low hanging fruit. It will give them a symbolic political victory and their much desired media face time while they inch forward the ball on banning guns from a few more people.

Guess I'll register my stag 22.. buy some 6.8 30 roundersup north too..

Yeah not going to be surprised if they money with the actual language of the bill and screw gun owners even harder.

At some point though I could see such a bill be challenged due to the fact that it's almost routine now for a woman's divorce attorney to file a temp restraining order on the man. In more than a few cases it appears such a temp order isn't warranted yet the courts seem to grant them anyhow without giving it much consideration. One's right is being taken away as a bargaining tool by the lawyers. If this bill goes through anyone who's married or in a relationship should consider moving their guns out of state and out of reach of the state if they even remotely get the hint they may get slapped with a temp restraining order. Or if they plan to go through a divorce, move the guns out of state immediately to avoid confiscation if the significant other's lawyer files the temp restraining order (probably a good idea to do that in any case if going through a divorce). Edit to add: This could be a back door method of soft confiscation if they don't have any method for transferring AW's and LCM's in addition to all other firearms to and from the owner who is about to be hit with or is hit with the temp restraining order.

does this mean if i get a temp restraining order on my wife, i get her guns???  

Funny but anyone want to wager that if this law is passed is will be applied almost 100% to men only.

im sure your correct

Microstamping in Cali is in the courts now. If it's upheld . Kiss your guns goodbye

I'll just get a "performance firing pin"

the gun companys have already said they wont do it .. so they will just pull sales with the laws

Paging echo5

Which is ultimately the goal of the idiotic microstamping idea. Its not about solving crimes, look to NY for proof of that where they spent millions on a now canceled casing tracking system, that solved a grand total of zero crimes. The unstated goal and the reason why the anti's want it enacted is because it drives up the cost of guns or simply drives the gun manufacturer out of state which means fewer guns sold to the peasants. When they talk about serializing ammunition the goal is not to track the ammo but drive up the cost or drive the manufacturer out of the state. They seek to regulate guns and ammo out of the state or out of business.

hoping that judge pulls it from cali. if they do we have a good chance that it wont even make it to the floor.

Another bill was proposed. Main op list updated.

H.B. No. 6962 (RAISED) JUDICIARY . ‘AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARM SAFETY’, to amend provisions concerning the safe storage of firearms and associated liability and penalties to be applicable to the storage of unloaded firearms and to extend liability to any person, rather than just minors or residents ineligible to possess a firearm, and to provide for additional oversight by the court governing the return of firearms or ammunition seized from a person considered to present a risk of imminent physical danger to himself or herself or another.
REF. JUDICIARY

Edit to add: Direct link to proposed legislative language for this proposed bill:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/TOB/H/2015HB-06962-R00-HB.htm

Not sure how the safe storage portion will fly legally with the proposed changes since they are proposing to extend it to include all firearms and all persons in the home. Basically all guns would have to be locked up regardless of being loaded or not if there is anyone else in the home who might gain access to the firearm. They also propose to hold the gun owner strictly liable and be found criminally negligent if the gun isn't locked up and the gun is used to harm anyone else.

how about a big FUCK YOU

so what happens when good time home invader breaks in and you throw a round in his leg? if they find that your gun isnt locked up when you hammered down your going to the big house?  

im not shocked

This is how the proposed change would read:

"No person shall store or keep any firearm on any premises under such person's control if such person knows or reasonably should know that another person is likely to gain access to the firearm, unless such person storing or keeping the firearm (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or (2) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that such person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if such person carried the firearm on his or her person."

It doesn't specify the owner of the firearm, only that any firearm on the premises under one's control (like a husband or wife in their home) is supposed to keep all firearms locked up unless they are carrying it on his or her person or in close proximity to that person. Don't see how this could be remotely seen as constitutional post Heller. Since the Heller opinion stated: "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Correct me if Im wrong - but aren't we allowed to buy replacement parts?

Who's to say the body of the PMAG didn't crack and you bought a new body for it? Date stamp wouldn't mean anything.

The first of the public hearings on the proposed laws has been scheduled as indicated in another thread. The derpy expansion of the safe storage statute is one of the three proposed bills under consideration.

More on the hearing from CCDL.

March 11th Public Hearing
http://ccdl.us/blog/

Apparently the hearing will cover the following three proposed bills.
CT HB06848 Changed An Act Protecting Victims Of Domestic Violence.
CT HB06962 Changed An Act Concerning Firearm Safety.
CT SB00650 Changed An Act Concerning Temporary Restraining Orders.

Another bill proposed. OP post has been updated.

H.B. No. 7028 (RAISED) 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ACCESS TO THE FIREARMS DATABASE BY PAROLE OFFICERS, AND PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT.' To make technical changes to the Department of Correction statutes, to permit parole officers access to the firearms database and to require the holder of a pistol carry permit to present such permit upon request of a law enforcement officer.
Introduced by: Judiciary Committee

It appears (at the end of the language) they add "any parole officer" to the list of persons who an access the state's weapons registry.

They also add language mandating one show their pistol permit if law enforcement asks for it. They want to add the following text to subsection (b) of section 29-35:

"Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer for purposes of verification of the validity of the permit or identification of the holder."

Gee golly.  Thanks to the douche bag down on the coast who refused to show is permit (while his companion did not refuse) and later was at a BFPE hearing and continued to be a jerk.

HB 7028 is on the agenda for the March 20th Judiciary public hearing. See the separate thread announcement about the hearing.

Judiciary Committee Public Hearing March 20th, 2015 - H.B. No. 7028

FYI the video of Sampson grilling Lt. Gov. Wyman was posted a couple of days ago to the Update: Judiciary Committee Public Hearing March 11 - Streaming Live on CT-N thread.

It appears SB 650 is moving forward. It Joint Favorable Substitute on the 11th and was Filed with Legislative Commissioners' Office yesterday. It appears the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the bill, 22 to 18. See this link for the vote tally. Once this lands in the full legislature it will probably be passed due to having so many of the top gun hating progressive Democrats (like Looney & Bye) behind it.

S.B. No. 650 An Act Concerning Temporary Restraining Orders
http://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB-650

Committee Bill Text: http://cga.ct.gov/2015/TOB/S/2015SB-00650-R01-SB.htm

The major part pertaining to firearms is being added to Section 46b-15 (Effective October 1, 2015):

(2) When (A) an application indicates that a respondent holds a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver, a long gun eligibility certificate, an ammunition certificate or possesses one or more firearms or ammunition, and (B) the court has issued an ex parte order pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, service of process shall be effectuated by a police officer in lieu of service by a proper officer. When service is to be effectuated by a police officer, the clerk of the court shall send, by facsimile or other means, the application, the applicant's affidavit, the ex parte order and the notice of the hearing to the law enforcement agency, for the town in which the respondent resides, not later than two hours after the issuance of such order. The law enforcement agency shall receive all process directed to such agency. A police officer of the law enforcement agency shall promptly execute such service and make true return thereof. Service of process by a police officer on a respondent shall be in hand. At the time a police officer effectuates service, the respondent shall surrender all pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition in the control, ownership or possession of such respondent to the police officer. In the event that pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition cannot be surrendered by the respondent to the police officer at the time service is effectuated because such pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition are at a location other than the location where service is effectuated, the respondent shall, not later than twenty-four hours after the time service is effectuated, transfer, deliver or surrender such pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition in accordance with section 29-36k, as amended by this act. When service is effectuated by a police officer, the information contained in the application or applicant's affidavit shall not alone constitute grounds for arrest under subsection (a) of section 46b-38b. A photographic copy, a micrographic copy or other electronic image that clearly and accurately copies the application, the applicant's affidavit, any ex parte order and the notice of hearing shall be permitted when effectuating service under this section.

This is extremely gay

Im tired

but but but but... we wrote our legislators and even called and stuff!

They've got to e-cert something this year... just kinda like a symbolic f-u if nothing else.