CT Senate Bill 1094: "felonize" posession of 10+ round magazines

NRA ILA e-mail ^ | March 3rd, 2011 | DTogo

[DTogo]

(Via NRAILA e-mail) March 1st: Senate Bill 1094 was introduced and referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary. SB 1094 seeks to prohibit the possession of firearms magazines that accept more than ten rounds of ammunition. If passed and signed into law, any person in possession of any magazine greater than ten rounds, who has not already surrendered the magazine prior to enactment or ninety days after enactment, will be guilty of a class D felony.

[DTogo]

Not just banning the sale, but making it a Class D felony to even posess one. So this would "felonize" posession of numerous handguns that come with 10+ magazines?

If you purchased a 10+ magazine in handgun in CT, and via the background check state authorities know you have it, will they come to arrest you and confiscate your guns?

CT Freepers and your 2nd Amendment-exercising friends, find your CT Rep here and let them know that SB 1094 will not stand!

[DTogo]

CT FReeper (and future Class D Felon??) ping!

[backwoods-engineer]

If passed, I will never, ever go to CT again. They can just do without my business and that of my colleagues. We will avoid trade shows in CT.

[Rio]

Yikes. That’s even worse than the CA version.

Is it only detachable magazines?
My Winchester holds 13 rounds in a fixed tubular magazine.

[diverteach]

Next up will be like Barney Fife allowing for one bullet only to be kept in your pocket.

[rahbert]

I had to turn down a contract in CT because having AR based rifles is already a felony.

[longtermmemmory]

taking without compensation.

[backwoods-engineer]

I had to turn down a contract in CT because having AR based rifles is already a felony.

Way to go. I said "NO" to another trade show because they wanted to hold it in Chicago, where I couldn't be armed. Screw it. Those hoplophobic states can just do without my business.

[hosepipe]

THIS Will die with a whimper in the House..

[Obadiah]

Exactly. Isn’t this an ex post facto law? What about compensation? On what basis would the government be confiscating these magazines? What about scissors? Aren’t they dangerous? Should they be outlawed? Box cutters? Nail guns? Cars? Old people who drive cars? Where does the tyranny of the heavy-hand of government stop?

[ArrogantBustard]

(d) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity magazine by:

(1) Members or employees of organized local police departments, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties;

Standard capacity mags for public servants, but not for citizens ...

Typical leftist power grab.

Tar ... feathers ... rail ...

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Will they go after the honest, law-abiding citizens but deliberately and willfully refuse to go after criminals?

[dartuser]

Next up will be like Barney Fife allowing for one bullet only to be kept in your pocket.

Followed quickly by the Sargent Shultz bill that doesn't allow any ammo at all.

[SIDENET]

Well, when SHTF, nothing will be illegal. SBR? No problem. Pistol grip? No problem.

I'll have my AK, and whatever damn magazines I wish.

The nanny statists can shove it, and I'll laugh when they're being preyed upon by the bad guys.

[Red Badger]

See tagline..............

[Red in Blue PA]

Effing Unconstitutional. Period.

[Red in Blue PA]

That has been their precise strategy for some time now.

Path of least resistance and all that.....

[Myrddin]

The "exemption" for "public servants" is a violation of the 14th amendment. Equal protection. There is nothing special about these "public servants". Total BS.

[paul51]

You will do as you are told or we will stand on your neck. Anything the gov’t wishes to impose that the people may resist...just make it a felony. Outrageous

[WKUHilltopper]

You all up there seem to take a lot...