• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SB1076: Ammunition face to face only with registration

LibertyUberAlles

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
50
Location
CT
You may only purchase ammunition suitable for your registered firearms and you cannot even possess ammunition that is not suitable for a registered firearm:

Sec. 33. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2013) (a) On and after July 1, 2014, no person shall purchase or possess ammunition without having first obtained a registration card identifying a firearm suitable for use with that ammunition.

(b) On and after July 1, 2014, no person shall deliver ammunition without having first verified that the ammunition purchaser possesses a registration card for a firearm that is suitable for use with that ammunition or a receipt demonstrating that the person has applied to register a suitable firearm in accordance with sections 31 to 43, inclusive, of this act and the application is pending.

Face to face purchase of ammunition only -- no more ordering through the internet:
Sec. 23. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2013) (a) No licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer shall transfer ammunition to a person in this state unless such licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer has verified the identity of the transferee by examining a valid identification document of the transferee that contains a photograph of the transferee.

(b) No licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer shall ship or transport any ammunition to any person in this state other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer.

(c) As used in this section, "licensed importer", "licensed manufacturer", "licensed dealer" and "ammunition" have the meanings ascribed to them in 18 USC 921, and "identification document" has the meaning ascribed to it in 18 USC 1028(d).

Now connect the above citations with this one, which means that if you have the wrong ammo floating around, you lose your registrations:
Sec. 37. (NEW)
(b) The department may grant or renew a registration card only if the applicant is in compliance with sections 31 to 43, inclusive, of this act and all other applicable federal and state laws relating to firearms and ammunition.

I stated in a previous thread that this law is designed to be almost impossible to abide by completely and each infringement leads to revocation of all rights to register (and therefore own) any firearms. This thing is a gun grab from top to bottom. Do not let this one out of your sight. It must receive your highest attention.
 

cteaglesfan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
133
Location
Branford
So if me and a friend are going to the range that day, he can't pick up a little extra ammo for my gun and vice versa?? It sounds to me like they're attempting to make us say "HELL, it isn't even worth carry or shooting a gun in this sate" and give up.
 

LibertyUberAlles

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
50
Location
CT
So if me and a friend are going to the range that day, he can't pick up a little extra ammo for my gun and vice versa??
Nope. The ammunition has to be suitable for one of the firearms listed on your registration.

It sounds to me like they're attempting to make us say "HELL, it isn't even worth carry or shooting a gun in this sate" and give up.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Now you're gett'n' it.
 
Last edited:

Freiheit417

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
167
Location
Connecticut
It sounds to me like they're attempting to make us say "HELL, it isn't even worth carry or shooting a gun in this sate" and give up.



15914194924b220a2becc139.16625995.jpg


BINGO!
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
ive always said, they wont directly take your gun but they will make your gun useless with ammo restrictions
 

LibertyUberAlles

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
50
Location
CT
I think that the bill was introduced 1 day after the legislative deadline .... ooops.

David - can you please provide more information on that deadline? Perhaps a statutory or constitutional citation so I can learn more about it?

Nevertheless, can't the assembly and the gov'na simply pass a law retroactively setting the deadline a day later? Hmmm... yes... I do believe that I remember reading something about a retroactive something or other being passed into law in CT merely two years ago.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
David - can you please provide more information on that deadline? Perhaps a statutory or constitutional citation so I can learn more about it?

Nevertheless, can't the assembly and the gov'na simply pass a law retroactively setting the deadline a day later? Hmmm... yes... I do believe that I remember reading something about a retroactive something or other being passed into law in CT merely two years ago.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/lco/pdfs/2013/2013 Deadlines from Joint Rules.pdf


Meaning that they missed the deadline for many of the bills (for the raised bills) ... I thought it was the 5th of March .. they did most raised bills on 6th

Also, the committee bills that were voted on on 7 FEB 13 (they were proposed bills then) -- They did not notice the 7 FEB 13 meeting within the time limits required (24 hrs prior to meeting ... they missed it by a few hours, only giving us only about 21 hrs) So the committee bills are not going to pass muster either IMO.

The BIG one, SB 1076 ... is a raised bill...

These time limits are important...

So they would have to wait until next session...
 
Last edited:

LibertyUberAlles

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
50
Location
CT
nearly ALL CT politicians are being intentionally deceptive

I spoke with my state representative -- a republican -- yesterday at the LOB. He assured me that he had never heard about SB1076.

"What's that you say? No, I never heard of that bill. I'll write the number down and take a look. A public hearing this week? I'll check into it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention."

If I was a cynical person, I would agree that there may be a touch of deception. If I was less than cynical I would say that it was a sign of complete obliviousness. Either way -- it ain't a good sign.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
I spoke with my state representative -- a republican -- yesterday at the LOB. He assured me that he had never heard about SB1076.

"What's that you say? No, I never heard of that bill. I'll write the number down and take a look. A public hearing this week? I'll check into it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention."

If I was a cynical person, I would agree that there may be a touch of deception. If I was less than cynical I would say that it was a sign of complete obliviousness. Either way -- it ain't a good sign.

If the guy is not on the PSS committee he is likely telling the truth ... they focus on what is on their committee ... when it gets out of committee then he become aware.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
my thoughts exactly. deception is quite powerful over those that fall for it. and nearly ALL CT politicians are being intentionally deceptive

The legislative deadlines are mandatory deadlines ... if passed into law, a judge would be compelled to strike it down.
 

LibertyUberAlles

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
50
Location
CT
If the guy is not on the PSS committee he is likely telling the truth ... they focus on what is on their committee ... when it gets out of committee then he become aware.

And I get that but I talked to him at around noon when I suspected that someone else would have raised it with him. Maybe nobody else in my district attended or spoke with him. If they had, they would have learned that they have a republican rep who told me he is in favor of universal back ground checks and likely a 10+ mag ban and a more restrictive AWB (with grandfathering).
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
The legislative deadlines are mandatory deadlines ... if passed into law, a judge would be compelled to strike it down.

I was referring to the potential of SB1076 deceptively being written bogusly after the deadline knowing it's bogus, but intending to appear real so as to take everyone's attention away from the real bills at hand.
though the fact that they spent so much time writing it in statutory form in full length that it is, just pisses me off even more knowing how much tax payer's money was wasted.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
I was referring to the potential of SB1076 deceptively being written bogusly after the deadline knowing it's bogus, but intending to appear real so as to take everyone's attention away from the real bills at hand.
though the fact that they spent so much time writing it in statutory form in full length that it is, just pisses me off even more knowing how much tax payer's money was wasted.

They were waiting for a e-cert bill from the task force but...what??? No e-cert bill?? Oh crap...
 

LibertyUberAlles

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
50
Location
CT
Meaning that they missed the deadline for many of the bills (for the raised bills) ... I thought it was the 5th of March .. they did most raised bills on 6th

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.ph...as_frozen_other_legislative_responsibilities/
While leaders continue to decide what will be included in the bipartisan gun control bill, the Public Safety Committee is planning to hold a public hearing Thursday on several gun bills. The committee has until March 21 to move legislation out of the committee.

So who is right?
 
Top