Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so far there has been 35 stabbings today already, and 15 taser attacks. we still need to get those darn pesty bb guns. our poor pigeons are getting hit by some kids.
The proposed laws DO want to limit type of firearm I choose to protect my family AND how many rounds I can load to do so.
If that doesn't violate the constitution I don't know what does.
Btw... you as a gun owner should be concerned about confiscation. Several legislators have said that if it were in thier power that they would collect every gun in America if they could. As more Sandy Hook type incidents occur in the future, more people are going to think like this too! The only thing they are lacking to do so is a national gun registry. That is something that will be required for Universal Background Check system to work.
You need 30 rnds to protect your family! No it doesn't violate the Constitution as Justice Scalia indicated that none of the rights under the constitution are unlimited. E.g., it's been pointed out many times that we have limits under the 1st & 4th Amendments. Why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?
No, I'm not concerned about confiscation, nor am I concerned about a background check as I have nothing in my records that would prohibit me from owning a firearm. It's not in the legislators power to collect and ban all guns as the court has also ruled that you have the right to own a firearm, so like I said earlier, you shouldn't concern yourself about having your guns confiscated. Stop listening to the NRA!
You need 30 rnds to protect your family! No it doesn't violate the Constitution as Justice Scalia indicated that none of the rights under the constitution are unlimited. E.g., it's been pointed out many times that we have limits under the 1st & 4th Amendments. Why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?
No, I'm not concerned about confiscation, nor am I concerned about a background check as I have nothing in my records that would prohibit me from owning a firearm. It's not in the legislators power to collect and ban all guns as the court has also ruled that you have the right to own a firearm, so like I said earlier, you shouldn't concern yourself about having your guns confiscated. Stop listening to the NRA!
Mellowmike,
I thought just like you till yesterday.
Here in Connecticut we must now register our so-called assault weapons. I was not happy about it but as a law abiding citizen I downloaded the forms from the state police. In addition to providing a police witnessed thumb print one must provide a DPS-3 and PROOF THE WEAPON WAS PURCHASED BEFORE APRIL 4, 2013.
When someone purchases a firearm in CT you sign four DPS-3 forms. These forms record the serial number of the firearm and the date of transfer. You keep one, one goes to the state police, one goes to your local police and one the retailer keeps.
Now to be in compliance you must have this form (which states when the transfer occurred) AND additional proof as to when you purchased the firearm. I called the state police and was told to use the sales receipt. SALES RECEIPT from 1995? "You don't save your receipts?" I was told. My option at this point is to get rid of the firearm.
I have stood up for individual rights my whole life, since I stood on UFW picket lines boycotting grapes when I was 10, voted straight democratic for 40 years, hold elected office in the party, I'll compare left wing chops with anyone .................. I too thought the NRA was mistaken, but they are right.
I don't think anyone stated this would result in no gun crime but sensible laws are a step in the right direction, I know it's going to be tough getting by with less than a 30 round magazine.
Yeah, because the law that states "your not allowed to kill anyone" didn't fair well, let's try another law. People who think passing more laws on top of ones that are already in place, seem to forget the little thing called "enforcing"
I think there are 11 little "evidences" running around in Sandy Hook today that may show otherwise, well, at least to some people.
This argument is rather old. Most gun owners know that the casualty count in Newtown would not be different if Lanza did not have large capacity magazines.
And more than one Newtown parent has publicly said gun laws are the answer. He wants more attention on mental illness.
Here in Connecticut we must now register our so-called assault weapons. I was not happy about it but as a law abiding citizen I downloaded the forms from the state police. In addition to providing a police witnessed thumb print one must provide a DPS-3 and PROOF THE WEAPON WAS PURCHASED BEFORE APRIL 4, 2013.
When someone purchases a firearm in CT you sign four DPS-3 forms. These forms record the serial number of the firearm and the date of transfer. You keep one, one goes to the state police, one goes to your local police and one the retailer keeps.
Now to be in compliance you must have this form (which states when the transfer occurred) AND additional proof as to when you purchased the firearm. I called the state police and was told to use the sales receipt. SALES RECEIPT from 1995? "You don't save your receipts?" I was told. My option at this point is to get rid of the firearm.
I have stood up for individual rights my whole life, since I stood on UFW picket lines boycotting grapes when I was 10, voted straight democratic for 40 years, hold elected office in the party, I'll compare left wing chops with anyone .................. I too thought the NRA was mistaken, but they are right.
I applaud your frustration. I don't live in CT. But there is no way I would register the standard 15 round magazine that so many 9mm handguns have. That is complete horse***t.
Who knew that simply banning high capacity magazines and certain weapons would end gun violence!?
Can we expect zero gun crime now?
now now now alpha, you know better than that to call them magazines, as most liberals wont know what you are talking about. you have to call them for what they are in their language, high capacity clips.
Yeah, because the law that states "your not allowed to kill anyone" didn't fair well, let's try another law. People who think passing more laws on top of ones that are already in place, seem to forget the little thing called "enforcing"
Ah yes, the argument that we need the perfect law otherwise it's useless.
now now now alpha, you know better than that to call them magazines, as most liberals wont know what you are talking about. you have to call them for what they are in their language, high capacity clips.
Actually many military people call them clips, what do they know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it doesn't violate the Constitution as Justice Scalia indicated that none of the rights under the constitution are unlimited. E.g., it's been pointed out many times that we have limits under the 1st & 4th Amendments. Why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?
People who think passing more laws on top of ones that are already in place, seem to forget the little thing called "enforcing"
