Don’t know how to post a link but on the Governors website they just posted “Governor Lamont introduces comprehensive package of legislative proposals on gun violence.

Total shit.

Here is Red Ned's wish list for 2022 gun control. He wants to go after; "others", braces, stop and frisk (show your papers), and unserialized firearms (so called ghost guns).

https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/02-2022/Governor-Lamont-Introduces-Comprehensive-Package-of-Legislative-Proposals-on-Gun-Violence

The legislation Governor Lamont is proposing this session includes:

Establish a Gun Tracing Task Force to identify the source of illegal guns

Background: Connecticut needs a coordinated statewide effort to identify the source of illegal guns.
Proposal: Reestablish a Connecticut Gun Tracing Task Force to work with local and federal partners to stop the flow of illegal guns into our state. The task force will take advantage of the interstate compact to share eTrace reports that the administration entered into last year. This will be supported by $2.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding.

Create a statewide community violence intervention program

Background: Connecticut has strong local violence intervention programs. These programs provide a crucial service to the community: they reduce violence by working with law enforcement, hospitals, and the people most at risk of perpetrating and experiencing violence. However, they are not present in every community, they face limited resources, and there is little statewide coordination and evaluation.

Proposal: Direct the Connecticut Department of Public Health’s Office of Injury Prevention to create a statewide community violence intervention program. The program will fund and support individual programs, and it will evaluate programs to create a statewide strategy for the most effective violence intervention approaches in the future. This will be supported by $3.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding.

Stop the flow of illegal “ghost guns”

Background: Untraceable “ghost guns” without serial numbers have been showing up with rapidly increasing frequency in crime in Connecticut. These guns are typically sold as partially-assembled kits and can be easily finished into operable weapons. “Ghost guns” are banned in Connecticut, but those that were manufactured prior to 2019 were grandfathered in, making the law nearly impossible to enforce.

Proposal: Require registration of pre-2019 “ghost guns," much like registration was required for large-capacity magazines in 2013.

Ensure gun stores take their obligations seriously

Background: While most Connecticut gun dealers take their obligations under state law seriously, a few do not scrupulously follow Connecticut’s laws. The lack of state licensing for gun dealers makes it difficult for the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to enforce those laws, and lax security or inventory tracking can lead to diversion of guns into the wrong hands.

Proposal: Create a state license for all gun dealers in Connecticut, so the state can provide oversight and guidance to gun dealers as they comply with state law. Existing businesses would receive a license without needing to pay the application fee.

Modify carry laws

Background: Gun owners are allowed to open and concealed carry essentially everywhere in Connecticut, even in many sensitive locations like polling places and protests. Police officers cannot ask those openly brandishing weapons, even on the streets of our center cities, for their permit unless they suspect they’ve committed a crime.

Proposal: Make it easier for our law enforcement officers to request the gun permits of those openly carrying firearms, and ban the carrying of firearms in polling places, public buildings, public transit, and at demonstrations (such as marches, rallies, vigils, sit-ins, protests, etc.)

Close loopholes in assault weapons laws

Background #1: Gun manufacturers have ramped up production of assault-like weapons that evade assault weapons bans in Connecticut and other states. Those guns are functionally identical to the banned guns.

Proposal #1: Expand the assault weapons ban to include guns with so-called “arm braces” and open a registration period for those who own these weapons.

Background #2: Guns manufactured before 1993 are exempt from the assault weapons ban and can be sold and transferred, including those from out-of-state into Connecticut. Out-of-state gun dealers collect older assault weapons from other parts of the country and ship them into Connecticut.
Proposal #2: Expand the assault weapons ban to include pre-1993 guns and open a registration period for those who own these weapons.

Make domestic violence convictions an automatic disqualifier for holding a carry permit

Background: Anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence is automatically disqualified from owning a gun federally, but not from holding a state permit, and the definitions differ. This forces the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to hold a time-consuming suitability hearing in each case.

Proposal: Automatically disqualify anyone who has been convicted of a family violence crime from holding a state gun permit.

Strengthen laws on safe storage of firearms

Background: Accidental deaths and illegal weapons frequently originate from improperly stored firearms. While Ethan’s Law – which Governor Lamont signed in 2019 – banned the negligent storage of a firearm, the law should provide more guidance to gun owners on what quantifies as safe storage. One example is that trigger locks are only currently required for handguns.

Proposal: Require all firearms, not just pistols and revolvers, to be sold with a trigger lock.

Its just his wish list of proposals that he and past CT governors put out every year at the start of the legislative session. Most times these proposals go no where. Most that are introduced tend to die in legislative committees. Usually the power brokers in the legislature choose one or two bills that they put their weight behind. They won't past his entire wish list. They need to keep somethings shelved to use for campaigning during elections.

Regardless of what Lamont does, the brace issue is likely going to be a national one once the BATFE releases the final "verdict" in early August.

Any reason to believe all of this won’t pass? Except maybe the CT licensing of shops?

I think this is what's going to finally cause lots of people to leave CT.

Enjoy lost tax revenue.

Most is just a wish list and done to have the presser (and use at campaign time).

Some of it like going after prebans likely won't happen simply because doing so opens up the entire AWB to being ruled unconstitional on the grounds of banning an entire class of weapons.

The stop and frisk/show your papers is unpopular with inner city politicians and typically quickly dies once it is explained to them.

Edit to add: A reminder for those unaware. The legislature could have gotten rid of prebans entirely in 2013 when they passed PA 13-3 and subsequently realized they created a mess with the preban statute due to changing to numbering/lettering structure of the AWB. They could have chosen to simply repeal the preban statute. They didn't. Instead they specifically went in with PA 13-220 and fixed the preban statute so it is still in effect. They know that removing the preban statute is a very risky move that could trigger the entire AWB being repealed.

Just speeding up me leaving this state.

With their proposed ruling about braced firearms in conjunction with the potential federal brace ban, it seems like the state knows something we don’t about the ban at the federal level. I say that because the millions of “others” out there in ct wouldn’t be able to be filed F1 SBR, thus making “others” illegal and or practically unusable here in CT over night (providing you can add or replace with a bare m4 extension tube with foam on it) potentially. CT might be trying to open the door for those who own those styles of firearms for a legal way to keep them under a federal ban? That’s their only legal way out of this, by opening the registry. But this will now prohibit new gun owners from ever owning a “AW” style firearm in the future.

Idk…
I can see the above happening to be honest. And potentially the preban statues..but as it was said before, preban statues keep the law intact due to NOT banning a entire class of firearms….
We all thought 2013 ban was BS and would never fly…

Time to hoard lowers and various style of “other” firearms.

I think your edit is key here.  Very risky move, and even the leftist CT supreme court may overrule a ban on preban rifles.  Realistically, our best hope is a favorable SCOTUS ruling on all these issues.

I have been anticipating and preparing for this situation ever since others made their introduction. There was no way CT was going to allow this to stand

the main hope here is that we are tied to the federal AWB cases, and the brace situation being a national hot potato ... hopefully SCOTUS will deliver, or it may not.  Our backs are not just against the wall, we are almost inside the wall.

The country is lost. SCOTUS will disappoint us. The only thing left is to decide wether to abide by the "laws" or to just thumb your nose and live your life.

They just saw the largest invasion in history from New York. They could care less if a few gun right advocates move elsewhere.

Start emailing reps and let them know that this is BS. CT still has a so-called 'gun crime' issue after all of its current gun control yet they continue to blame law-abiding citizens of the state even after all the permitting BS they have to go through.  This shows it's never enough for these politicians and they will always keep infringing.

Emails are here. It is worth the 10 minutes to voice your opinion if we all can come together and do this.

https://www2.cbia.com/ga/CT_State_Representatives/-AZHOUSE  

https://www2.cbia.com/ga/CT_State_Senators/-AZSENATE

Unfortunately as we saw with the NY safe act ruling a few years ago where a lower court basicly admitted the Safe Act (and by extension CT's AWB) was an infringement upon the 2nd amendment, but they let the laws stand because of "intermediate scrutiny". That lower level of scrutiny (which I don't think is applied to most other declared "rights") allows the court wide latitude on reasons to uphold most gun control laws. Current reason they use to uphold such bans is "public safety". The courts accept pretty much any reason offered by the state as justification to keep most gun bans on the books.

SCOTUS is reluctant to issue wide sweeping rulings or hear more than one or two 2A appeals/briefs each session let alone take even a single 2A case up each session. What we need is for SCOTUS to get off their ass and rule "strict scrutiny" applies to 2A. Until they do this stupid game of; yes its obviously unconstitional but fuck you gun owners it stands anyway because reasons, will continue.

They almost * have to * rule in favor of strict scrutiny because of the f'ed-up conflicting rulings at circuit courts.  Citizens' rights depend on which circuit court their state falls under.  We are either all citizens of the same federation with the same rights, or we are not.  Enough is enough.

Agreed. The recent 25 state brief that pleads with SCOTUS to end the Maryland AWB is a great read that hits on this discussion; incorrectly applied scrutiny level and differing state laws.

Has the MD AWB case been docketed by SCOTUS?  I think they have one from CA already, plus the "large capacity" mag case.  This year has the potential of being the best or worst year for gun rights ... for generations.

Don't know. The PDF I linked to indicates the 25 states are petitioning SCOTUS for a "Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit". No doubt someone more well versed than my very limited knowledge can opine on what all this means court process wise.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/firearms-policy-coalition-ask-supreme-court-to-strike-down-marylands-assault-weapons-ban/
https://patriothq.org/2021/12/18/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-gun-control/

Connecticut Governor Submits A Ton of Additional Gun Control

Here is the governor's proposed gun control bill:
S.B. No. 16
https://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00016&which_year=2022
Non PDF version: https://search.cga.state.ct.us/dl2022/TOB/DOC/2022SB-00016-R00-SB.DOCX
PDF: https://cga.ct.gov/2022/TOB/S/PDF/2022SB-00016-R00-SB.PDF

Whole lot of derp in it including getting rid of prebans, making them subject to feature bans and being registered as AW's. and making others subject to being registered if they violate the a new feature ban section aimed squarely at others.

I’m going to guess this will all go through

Wait so if the Others violate the new feature ban they can become extra assaulty after registration? . (mind you CT already knows what FFL transferred guns you own)

I don't know about that. They've made it so confusing it appears they've duplicated portions of the AWB twice in the same statute. Other portions likewise are confusing and likely to be unpopular with some. The changes to the carry language may turn of some Democrats due to how broad it is. Could impact folks like Antifa who we saw carrying guns are many of the protests/demonstrations. Not to mention impacting inner city folks with the ban on carry in certain locations. They've made it that some simply won't be able to legally carry outside their home if they ride public transit at any time during the course of their day. The "show your papers" tends to be unpopular with inner city politicians who know it is designed and exclusively aimed at their constituents.

I suspect this will be tabled by the Judiciary Committee and instead we'll see this carved up to come back as several independent bills. That way the fence sitters in the legislature can pass certain portions while not putting their vote on other portions that could be used against them during elections.

That wood kill machine guns too

Sure appears that way. The relevant language they want to add, note the new section affecting rimfires too:

(G) Any semiautomatic firearm regardless of whether such firearm is listed in subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, of this subdivision, and regardless of the date such firearm was produced, that meets the following criteria:

(i) A semiautomatic firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun, that has at least one of the following:
(I) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;
(II) An ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine that attaches at some location outside of the pistol grip;
(III) A fixed magazine with the ability to accept more than ten rounds;
(IV) A flash suppressor or silencer, or a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor or silencer;
(V) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to fire the firearm without being burned, except a slide that encloses the barrel;
(VI) A second hand grip; or
(VII) An arm brace or other stabilizing brace that could allow such firearm to be fired from the shoulder, with or without a strap designed to attach to an individual's arm;

(ii) A semiautomatic, rimfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
(I) A folding or telescoping stock;
(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;
(III) A forward pistol grip;
(IV) A flash suppressor; or
(V) A grenade launcher or flare launcher;

It appears currently legal rimfires rifles that violate the new single feature rimfire ban would be registered as AW's by Jan 1, 2023 under this proposal.

They would also remove the preban statute so that all prebans would be subject to the feature ban(s) and have to be registered an assault weapons by Jan 1, 2023.

A LOT of people, including FUDDS are going to have their guns banned as AW's under this proposal and they're supposed to register them as AW's.

There is a whole lot more in the proposal. Including language on limiting where handguns can be carried and showing one's permit when asked if observed open carrying. They want to leave it up to the towns to decide if showing the permit upon reasonable suspicion of a crime should be a local condition to showing the permit when demanded.

New language and restrictions for those selling 10 or more guns in a year from their private collections who are not FFL's.

A felony or misdemeanor violation of any law of this state that constitutes a family violence crime, as defined in section 46b-38a, during the preceding twenty years would be added as a disqualifier for permits/certificates. That's going to ensnare a bunch of otherwise law abiding folks and cause those who have current permits/certs to be revoked.

There is more, everyone really should take some time to read through it to fully understand the idiocy they want to enact. Mostly it punishes and is aimed at law abiding gun owners (as they always do).

Not sure it would. Machine guns are not mentioned in the proposed bill. Most of what I've read in the proposed AWB section additions applies to semiautomatic firearms.

What is your opinion about the “any other stock” regarding rimfires.
Would that include a standard wood stock 10/22 as a example?

It seems like a pretty vague statement.

The current AWB already includes such language:

(i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
....
(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;

SLFU/DESPP has stated a "palm swell" grip stock is not a pistol grip. See this document; page 5, question 11: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DESPP/SLFU/FAQS06192013pdf.pdf#page=5

11. Q: I have a rifle which is a semi-automatic center fire and has a curved portion of the stock directly behind the trigger guard which extends very slightly below it. It has none of the other banned features. Is this stock considered a pistol grip which would require me to register it as an assault weapon?
A: No. The type of stock you are describing is considered a “palm swell” and not a pistol grip. However, if the stock has a thumb hole, it qualifies as an assault weapon and must be registered by January 1, 2014.

This is the key point.  They will carve up in separate bills and the "AWB" ones can pass easily.  It's a matter of when, not if.  However, they are  stupid because they are considering all these bills while SCOTUS has taken up (or may take up) cases on these same issues.  Even CA (and the malevolent 9th Circuit) put similar cases on hold in anticipation of SCOTUS rulings this year.  All gun rights boil down to the court this year.

In an ideal world SCOTUS would be aware of such proposed laws when looking at the cases already before them and take such proposed laws into effect when issuing a ruling on existing AWB challenges either before them or those cases petitioned to the court. They could head off such garbage ahead of time. Makes it impossible to get rid of these bills after they've been enacted because the state has unlimited money and friendly state level courts behind them.

Either that or the State Supreme Courts or the Federal Circuits should put a hold on such proposals when similar cases have reached SCOTUS.  But they like playing games with our rights.  Who cares about the peasants.

From the WA state magazine ban

This is from the recent WA state senate ban on "large" capacity magazines.  There is a portion with study findings that make strong arguments when it comes to mass shootings and magazine capacity, unfortunately.  I don't know if these are peer reviewed studies, or the product of anti gun liberals.  

One thing especially jumps out IMO.  Don't know if this is true but it says ... "All seven federal courts of appeals to look at this issue have concluded that bans on the sale of high-capacity magazines are constitutional because state and local jurisdictions demonstrated an important government interest in enacting these policies" and further "seven federal courts of appeals have upheld laws prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines. There is currently no split or controversy in the federal courts of appeal on this issue. The United States Supreme Court has allowed appeals court decisions upholding these laws to stand."

Based on this, I can see SCOTUS rule in favor of individual states being allowed to restrict the sale & manufacturing of "large" capacity magazines within their borders.  The one gray area is possession, which seems to be handled differently from state to state.  And that might be the silver lining.  In other words "you can't sell/buy/manufacture this magazine in your state, but you can drive to another state where it's legal and buy it from there in person".  I am just speculating, for argument's sake.

If you are pinning your hopes on the ruling of SCOTUS you will be disappointed. This country is done, just put a fork in it.

The only hope is one of the countries to come out of the forthcoming war will follow the US Constitution.

Any updates on this?

Thanks.

One can follow the bill's progress on the state's website, here is a repost of that link.
https://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00016&which_year=2022

They just set a public hearing for it on 03/14.

CCDL is also tracking the bill: https://ccdl.us/ccdl-gun-rights-bill-watch/2022-2/gb16/

https://ccdl.us/ccdl-gun-rights-bill-watch/2022-2/

Does the proposed law address the banned by name weapons purchased post Bradford and pre Kaminsky?