Bad news for CT gun owners - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Bad news for CT gun owners

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,558
    I just love this great news. Everyday there is someone out there bent on infringing our rights at the least, at most denying us our rights. Guess this falls under "reasonable". It's "reasonable" they won't stop there.
    I am not from Ct. Do you have to register your gun purchases there? How would they know what mags you have? They going to tear your house down to find what you gave away or sold?
    That will surely make this end of gun violence tactic efficient, effective and interesting to say the least.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Rensselaer Co. NY
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    How will they get around those firearms such as some SKS's that have a 10 round fixed magazine
    There - fixed that for you... A 20 round fixed mag (and some kludged removable ones of from 5 rounds and up) have been made "after market", but are not standard.

    Perhaps you are thinking of something like the AK or AR platform, both of which routinely come with I think 30 round mags? Of course, smaller capacity mags are available for those as well, just not the default.

    As a current NY (upstate several hours away from NYC) resident, I've been cursed with such a limitation my entire time here. 10 round limit, and registration of each and every pistol (NYC even requires permits for long guns). According to the FBI statistics, we can see just how successful that has been though. And all of this in spite of the fact that Article 2, section 4 of NYS Civil Rights Law states, in part "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms can not be infringed". More laws are on the way, though - so I may be forced to move...

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by phoenixjim View Post
    There - fixed that for you... A 20 round fixed mag (and some kludged removable ones of from 5 rounds and up) have been made "after market", but are not standard.

    Perhaps you are thinking of something like the AK or AR platform, both of which routinely come with I think 30 round mags? Of course, smaller capacity mags are available for those as well, just not the default.

    As a current NY (upstate several hours away from NYC) resident, I've been cursed with such a limitation my entire time here. 10 round limit, and registration of each and every pistol (NYC even requires permits for long guns). According to the FBI statistics, we can see just how successful that has been though. And all of this in spite of the fact that Article 2, section 4 of NYS Civil Rights Law states, in part "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms can not be infringed". More laws are on the way, though - so I may be forced to move...
    no some SKS's have a fixed 20 round magazine

    Top pic is of a fixed 20 round magazine


    Standard fix 10 round magazine


  5. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Rensselaer Co. NY
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    no some SKS's have a fixed 20 round magazine

    Top pic is of a fixed 20 round magazine


    Standard fix 10 round magazine

    My apologies - seems as though I was misinformed? Is that top pic a chinese variant? I have zero familiarity with anything from that People's republic ;) Also seems I forgot the so-called sks-d and sks-m variants, designed from the factory to take removable mags...

    Regardless, if we are talking about the "Guvment" here, they'll just do what they always do and when there's any question at all (even if only in their own tiny minds) they will confiscate...

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by phoenixjim View Post
    My apologies - seems as though I was misinformed? Is that top pic a chinese variant? I have zero familiarity with anything from that People's republic ;) Also seems I forgot the so-called sks-d and sks-m variants, designed from the factory to take removable mags...

    Regardless, if we are talking about the "Guvment" here, they'll just do what they always do and when there's any question at all (even if only in their own tiny minds) they will confiscate...
    That would be a violation of the second amendment wouldn't you say?

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Let me be clear about this issue to the people of Connecticut



    I have already mentioned that some SKS semi automatic rifles have a fixed 20 round magazine as, meaning it cannot be removed without making alterations to it. If that happens according to the law would make that rifle illegal unless you make it 992r compliant, under Federal law. I think even if you are replacing the 20 round fixed magazine to a 10 round fixed magazine you will be altering the rifle into something other than it's original state that it was created as. This new legislation if passed would be violating the second amendment and the recently supreme court ruling Heller vs. D.C. and McDonald vs. Chicago.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    Let me be clear about this issue to the people of Connecticut



    I have already mentioned that some SKS semi automatic rifles have a fixed 20 round magazine as, meaning it cannot be removed without making alterations to it. If that happens according to the law would make that rifle illegal unless you make it 992r compliant, under Federal law. I think even if you are replacing the 20 round fixed magazine to a 10 round fixed magazine you will be altering the rifle into something other than it's original state that it was created as. This new legislation if passed would be violating the second amendment and the recently supreme court ruling Heller vs. D.C. and McDonald vs. Chicago.
    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
    weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
    doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
    felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
    in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
    laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
    arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
    “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
    of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
    Now what you have to define is what is "in common use at the time." AKs with fixed magazines, AKs with 30 round clips, AKs with drums, or only handguns for self-defense? One of the guns that always seem to make it under the radar are .22s with tubular mags due to being hard to convert so the AKs with fixed capacities might make it.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    Now what you have to define is what is "in common use at the time." AKs with fixed magazines, AKs with 30 round clips, AKs with drums, or only handguns for self-defense? One of the guns that always seem to make it under the radar are .22s with tubular mags due to being hard to convert so the AKs with fixed capacities might make it.
    The only thing I would like to address is this part of your reply, because you make a valid point about the tublar fed 22
    Now what you have to define is what is "in common use at the time."
    To bear arms is a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons.
    Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

    The court noted:

    "Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
    protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
    never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
    exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
    not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
    keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
    country."
    Summary of U.S. v. Emerson
    Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term and talking about military grade weapons

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    The only thing I would like to address is this part of your reply, because you make a valid point about the tublar fed 22


    To bear arms is a military term, and is talking about military grade weapons.
    Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

    The court noted:

    "Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
    protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
    never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
    exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
    not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
    keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
    country."
    Summary of U.S. v. Emerson
    Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term and talking about military grade weapons
    At the time of this country's founding, the citizens owned the military grade weapons. They brought their weapons to the fight. In fact, the citizen soldiers had better weapons than the British soldiers. The Army was designed to be disbanded within 2 years of peace breaking out. That is written into the Constitution by limiting Army budgets to 2 years. The militia is not the National Guard even though the gov't would like ( like you ) to think so. The true militias scare the daylights out of the gov't because the gov't does not control them. Citizens do.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    At the time of this country's founding, the citizens owned the military grade weapons. They brought their weapons to the fight. In fact, the citizen soldiers had better weapons than the British soldiers. The Army was designed to be disbanded within 2 years of peace breaking out. That is written into the Constitution by limiting Army budgets to 2 years. The militia is not the National Guard even though the gov't would like ( like you ) to think so. The true militias scare the daylights out of the gov't because the gov't does not control them. Citizens do.
    That is true because the framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State"

    They said A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast