Connecticut lawmakers reach deal on 'most comprehensive' gun limits in US - Polidicks

By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News [quote] Connecticut lawmakers on Monday said they had reached an agreement on compromise gun control legislation that they said would be one of the toughest in the nation, 3½ months after 20 children and six other people were killed in a mass shooting at an elementary school. The bill includes a ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines like those Adam Lanza used to fire 154 shots in four 4 minutes Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, a new registry for existing high-capacity magazines and background checks for private gun sales, NBC Connecticut reported. While the measure would ban the sale of ammunition magazines able to handle more than 10 bullets, Gov. Dannell Malloy and parents of the Sandy Hook victims objected to a "grandfather clause" that will allow current owners of such magazines to keep them. But state Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield, a Democrat representing New Haven, told NBC Connecticut that the bill, which could be voted on as early as Wednesday, would still impose some of the nation's toughest gun control laws on Connecticut residents. At a news conference Monday, Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Republican whose district includes Newtown, agreed that the deal was "the most comprehensive package in the country because of its breadth," The Associated Press reported. In what was being described as a first in the U.S., gun owners would have to register current magazines accommodating more than 10 rounds with the state by January, The New Haven Register reported. The measure would also require universal background checks for all firearm sales — many states don't require them for private sales, such as those between family members or collectors — and would add 34 more weapons to the state's list of banned semi-automatic assault-style weapons. * The Register reported that the bill would also strengthen penalties for gun trafficking and would expand the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to include a mental health professional and a retired judge. House Speaker Brendan Sharkey, a Democrat representing Hamden, told reporters the measure was meant to send a message to Washington that "this is the way to get this job done."[/quote] [url]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/01/17557867-connecticut-lawmakers-reach-deal-on-most-comprehensive-gun-limits-in-us?lite&[/url] Stepping on the graves of children to pass your legislation. I guess criminals follow laws in Connecticut. :v:

[quote]In what was being described as a first in the U.S., gun owners would have to register current magazines accommodating more than 10 rounds with the state by January, [/quote] This would be a nightmare to accomplish.

[quote]In what was being described as a first in the U.S., gun owners would have to register current magazines accommodating more than 10 rounds with the state by January, The New Haven Register reported.[/quote] Good fucking luck, hahaha

Damn, makes me want to load up on 30 round STANAGs, drive to Connecticut, and sell them out the back of a truck for $1,000 each. You know every gun retailer in the state is backordered for the next ten years, and with the sale and transfer about to be banned, those things must be worth their weight in gold. Gotta love exploiting the mass murder of children to pass legislation they could only dream about this time last year.

"yes sir i only have two of these 30 round mags, certainly not more hidden in the walls of my house or buried in my back yard, no sir, please register these two magazines. "

I don't mind the idea of more comprehensive background checks, but the rest of those measures are ridiculous. This country needs to stop dancing around the issue and improve its healthcare system for the mentally ill. That will have far more benefit than reducing magazines to 10 rounds or banning "assault-style weapons."

I wish this was some kind of April fools joke but these clowns are serious.

[IMG]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c392/imtheflash/Misc/Iwishgunsafe.jpg[/IMG] yeah, cause the guy that owns something like this is totally going to register all of his mags.

[QUOTE=Siminov;40126106]By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News [url]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/01/17557867-connecticut-lawmakers-reach-deal-on-most-comprehensive-gun-limits-in-us?lite&[/url] Stepping on the graves of children to pass your legislation. I guess criminals follow laws in Connecticut. :v:[/QUOTE] If kids dying is a good reason to pass your law then maybe you should use kids dying as a reason to pass your law

DAMN YOU! YOUR LEGISLATION STOPPED ME! Now I'll never murder another cop of baby again >:c [t]http://images.pcworld.com/images/article/2011/10/printedmagazine-5224703.jpg[/t] wait...

In other news, 3D printer sales up 3000% in Connecticut as polymer magazine blueprints uploaded to TPB.

I live in Connecticut and I hate our legislators who are putting a bandaid on the issue. Adam Lanza was planning the attack for YEARS. He didn't just see a gun and decide to shoot children, he had chosen the target because they were easy targets. It's amazing stupid that we are not looking at the real issue, the people BEHIND the shootings.

also im really jealous of that gun safe

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40126199]Damn, makes me want to load up on 30 round STANAGs, drive to Connecticut, and sell them out the back of a truck for $1,000 each. You know every gun retailer in the state is backordered for the next ten years, and with the sale and transfer about to be banned, those things must be worth their weight in gold. Gotta love exploiting the mass murder of children to pass legislation they could only dream about this time last year.[/QUOTE] I can only imagine what some Mapul PMags would go for if you were selling steel STANAGs for $1000 each. Speaking of gouging people, American Specialty Ammo is charging a shitload for the same shitty steel mags i was talking about.

[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;40126251][IMG]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c392/imtheflash/Misc/Iwishgunsafe.jpg[/IMG] yeah, cause the guy that owns something like this is totally going to register all of his mags.[/QUOTE] Guy is a moron, stores his mags loaded. His springs are fucked.

as a resident of connecticut: good [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40126199]Damn, makes me want to load up on 30 round STANAGs, drive to Connecticut, and sell them out the back of a truck for $1,000 each. You know every gun retailer in the state is backordered for the next ten years, and with the sale and transfer about to be banned, those things must be worth their weight in gold. Gotta love exploiting the mass murder of children to pass legislation they could only dream about this time last year.[/QUOTE] god forbid we try to take [I]ANY STEPS[/I] in the direction of reducing gun violence that actually legislate guns themselves, no we have to go in roundabout ways to try and reduce them before even applying the bandaid i swear to god fp gun nuts consensus regarding gun violence is that instead of the EMTs adding a tourniquet to stop the bleeding for a couple of minutes while the surgeons get ready back at the hospital they might as well fuck off and start masturbating violently while the poor sod bleeds out no one thinks this is the be all end all to crime reduction, it's part of something called "comprehensive policy reform" [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;40126169]This would be a nightmare to accomplish.[/QUOTE] nope actually the political will in connecticut even among gun owners is that we want this pretty overwhelmingly only the nra fuckheads disagree and their membership in connecticut is pathetic

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40126713]nope actually the political will in connecticut even among gun owners is that we want this pretty overwhelmingly[/QUOTE] Bullshit. The only gun owners in favor of arbitrary magazine restrictions and mandatory registration are the fudds who don't care what happens as long as they keep their hunting weapons.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40126776]Bullshit. The only gun owners in favor of arbitrary magazine restrictions and mandatory registration are the fudds who don't care what happens as long as they keep their hunting weapons.[/QUOTE] /gun owner [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] welcome to connecticut bastion of the rich liberals of the united states who are actually quite progressive. believe it or not, most gun owners aren't actually ideological nutjobs and are totally fine with the state legislating their use and manufacture! [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Inplabth;40126756]Good thing mag changes take more than 3 seconds. Oh wait. They don't.[/QUOTE] maybe if you're speed shooting at a range and you've trained extensively lmao

[QUOTE=draugur;40126285]Guy is a moron, stores his mags loaded. His springs are fucked.[/QUOTE] I was wondering about that. You can't just pack a magazine full and throw it in a safe forever, won't the springs wear out and cuase feeding problems? Of course it's possible he just put 2 or 3 rounds in each magazine for the photo op.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40126818]I was wondering about that. You can't just pack a magazine full and throw it in a safe forever, won't the springs wear out and cuase feeding problems? Of course it's possible he just put 2 or 3 rounds in each magazine for the photo op.[/QUOTE] To me it looks like he only loaded them halfway, but from the picture I can't be certian. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;40126783] welcome to connecticut bastion of the rich liberals of the united states who are actually quite progressive [/QUOTE] I don't think it is too progressive to take away peoples rights.

[QUOTE=Siminov;40126823]I don't think it is too progressive to take away peoples rights.[/QUOTE] they said that the civil rights act of 1964 was taking away peoples rights they said roe v wade was taking away peoples rights they say enabling gay marriage is taking away peoples rights see a lovely pattern here?

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40126869]they said that the civil rights act of 1964 was taking away peoples rights they said roe v wade was taking away peoples rights they say enabling gay marriage is taking away peoples rights see a lovely pattern here?[/QUOTE] Yeah, too bad it doesn't work with the subject.

[QUOTE=Inplabth;40126756]Good thing mag changes take more than 3 seconds. Oh wait. They don't.[/QUOTE] Forget reloading, just buy multiple guns and swap 'em once they're empty. Arbitrary restrictions like this do nothing but add inconvince and demonize law-abiding citizens and can easily be circumvented by those intending to do harm (can only have 10-round magazines? Bring more guns for mass shootings!)

wow huh you mean adding a mental health professional to the board is a bad thing jeez "...Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to include a mental health professional and a retired judge..." fp you can be so silly at times. how is the government knowing that you have a couple of large magazines a bad thing

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40126869]they said that the civil rights act of 1964 was taking away peoples rights they said roe v wade was taking away peoples rights they say enabling gay marriage is taking away peoples rights see a lovely pattern here?[/QUOTE] That is a terrible argument, because the rights in this case are spelled out pretty clearly in the United States Constitution. It is undeniable therefore that such laws infringe on that amendment.

[QUOTE=Siminov;40126878]Yeah, too bad it doesn't work with the subject.[/QUOTE] i don't see how it doesn't work, it's pretty clear and obvious that being progressive entails reducing the rights of individuals in favor of assisting disenfranchised groups for the good of the collective? sort of the basis of the entire progressive movement?? [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40126905]That is a terrible argument, because the rights in this case are spelled out pretty clearly in the United States Constitution. It is undeniable therefore that such laws infringe on that amendment.[/QUOTE] do you remember the part where the 3/5 clause is in the consitution

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40126905]That is a terrible argument, because the rights in this case are spelled out pretty clearly in the United States Constitution. It is undeniable therefore that such laws infringe on that amendment.[/QUOTE] Not like we regulate any other Amendments... Oh wait. We can talk about the effectiveness of gun regulation all we want, but the constitution argument is ridiculous, and various gun control methods have been upheld in the Supreme Court.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40126869]they said that the civil rights act of 1964 was taking away peoples rights they said roe v wade was taking away peoples rights they say enabling gay marriage is taking away peoples rights see a lovely pattern here?[/QUOTE] The Civil Rights Act curtailed state's rights to conduct elections. Roe v. Wade redefined what it means to have privacy, it also curtailed state's rights to regulate abortions Gay Marriage is also another state rights issue with legalizing gay marriage. They're not taking away individual's rights, the court has always focused on the balance of power between Federal and States, it did not deprive citizens of their rights but merely redefine the base definition. The Court never says 'this person cannot do this' or 'these people cannot do this.' All they do is look at the constitution and see if the law fits or not. They see a state is fucking with the citizens by barring students into different schools? Bam, De Jure Segregation is at an end. Yeah, so it fucks up the Southern States' efforts to literally create a Black/White sides of a town, but it's not with in the constitution, they can bitch all they want about their states' rights but Supreme Court defines the Law of the Land.

[QUOTE=draugur;40126285]Guy is a moron, stores his mags loaded. His springs are fucked.[/QUOTE] Keeping mags loaded isn't bad, it's constantly loading and unloading that wears the spring.

There should be no regulation. Give the American people a carte blanche to decide what they need/want to defend themselves with. Punish the criminals.