CT Considers Confiscating ‘Large Capacity’ Magazines

NRO ^ | 03/23/2011 | Daniel Gelernter

[Redcloak]

I suspect that the real reason for this bill is to boost some Democrat’s fund raising abilities. It’s not meant to pass; just to make the right noises for the right people for the right amount of money. The antis don’t realize that they’re being played.

[scott7278]

After 234 years, we don't need anymore laws - we need to enforce what's already on the books and rescind unconstitutional transgressions. Politicians need to be held to the following:

18 U.S.C. § 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[MrB]

Well, of course,

the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th rounds in the magazine are much more deadly than the first 10.

[Svartalfiar]

If I cannot show my receipt, I think it is fair to say that they would claim I am in non-compliance with the law.

As such, the point you bring up is a distinction without any difference.

Actually, that depends on if the law is worded with a grandfather exemption. From reading other posts, it seems that this law does not. Therefore, there is no ex post facto issue with legality, as they are disallowing ownership from now on. Ownership, NOT purchasing.

[Jack Hammer]

Uh... not that it matters, obviously, but something in the constitution about no seizure without just compensation....

Not to mention the Second Amendment.

[Labyrinthos]

From the article:

The California law also has something that Connecticut’s version lacks: a grandfather clause. Anyone in California who had a large capacity magazine prior to the law’s enactment was permitted to keep it. And since there is no way to determine when most magazines were made or who bought them, the grandfather clause renders the magazine ban unenforceable. Anyone bent on obtaining such a magazine can still drive to a neighboring state, buy it there, and claim he had it all along.

And any police officer in one of these states who is bent on giving you a hard time can arrest you, confiscate your firearm and high capacity magazine, and force you to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees while awaiting your day in court. Maybe they'll try to prove the magazine is illegal or maybe they'll drop the charges at the very last minute. Either way, those extra three, five, or seven rounds will cost you dearly. I live in a ten rounds state. I always carry a full mag in the my pistol and one or two extras in my pocket, and I practice shooting in the hopes that I will never need more than one mag and I practice reloading in the event that I do.

[NoNAIS]

PDF is available here:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=1094&which_year=2011&SUBMIT1.x=6&SUBMIT1.y=4

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2011) (a) As used in this section, “large capacity magazine” means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, but does not include: (1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds, (2) a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, or (3) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

(b) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine shall be guilty of a class D felony.

(c) Any person who (1) prior to the effective date of this section, lawfully possessed a large capacity magazine, and (2) not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, removes such magazine from this state or surrenders such magazine to an organized local police department or the Department of Public Safety for destruction, shall not be subject to prosecution for a violation of subsection (b) of this section.

---

---

According to section (c) - if you owned them prior to the effective date of this section and turn them in - you won’t be a felon as described in section (b)

‘nuff said.

[Svartalfiar]

(c) Any person who (1) prior to the effective date of this section, lawfully possessed a large capacity magazine, and (2) not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, removes such magazine from this state or surrenders such magazine to an organized local police department or the Department of Public Safety for destruction, shall not be subject to prosecution for a violation of subsection (b) of this section.

Correct. That is specifically a non-grandfather clause. This bill isn't saying that since they're now illegal, we're gonna charge you because you owned them before. It says if you already own one, we'll give you a grace period to get rid of em because they're illegal to own now. Ex post facto refers to charging someone for something which was legal at the time, but no longer is. You aren't going to be charging for having owned a "hi-cap" magazine, you're going to be charged if you still own one.

Note, I'm not defending the law here, I think its complete crap and illegal for other reasons, but anyone who challenges it on an ex post facto basis is gonna get shot down by any court. A conservative one because its not ex post facto, and a liberal one because they like restricting anything gun related.

[NoNAIS]

Got it.