Bye, Godfrey Proposing Sweeping Gun Control Legislation

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

Two Democratic state lawmakers are preparing a comprehensive gun control bill that would prohibit firearms with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition, expand the definition of an assault rifle, bar online ammunition purchases and institute a 50-percent sales tax on all ammunition buys.

\”Every constituent I have spoken to since this horrific event has demanded action,\” state Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, said in a press release outlining the proposal. \”They simply cannot fathom why we continue to pay such an awful price for such free access to firearms. I cannot either, and I plan to work very closely with both national and state experts to craft meaningful laws and reforms that will have a real and lasting effect on stemming the access to dangerous weapons here in Connecticut.\”

Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Danbury, sponsored Connecticut\’s original assault weapons ban in the early 1990s. But he said more must be done.

\”We have a unique opportunity to revisit our regulations and update them. We must focus on what are truly weapons of mass destruction, as we tragically learned last week, \”he said. \”The 1993 ban on assault-style weapons was upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court, but more needs to be done. We need to look at the definition of what is an assault weapon.\”

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

65 thoughts on “Bye, Godfrey Proposing Sweeping Gun Control Legislation

    1. Rose

      That was my first reaction also to the tax part of the proposal. But after giving it some thought, I think a high tax proposal on the sale of ammunition makes a whole lot of sense. If the point of the proposal is to deter large purchases of ammunition and/or to make it less likely for people to buy more ammunition than they expect to reasonably use for legitimate purposes then a 50% tax makes a lot of sense.

      Either way, the proposal is a good start and I for one am glad to see it. But I’d prefer seeing proposals that track and register every ammo purchase period. In other words, if someone is compelled to purchase more than 6 or 7 bullets why not have those purchases be made through the state police, or at a state approved shooting range? Pick up your package at the state barracks or wherever the state deems convenient for people and sign for the legitimate hunting purpose use of your purchase. Nobody needs more than 3 or 4 bullets if their gun is kept strictly for self defense. Anything more than that is for practice or hunting and can be kept at a proper state authorized facility.

      1. Mark

        Maybe the most ignorant thing Ive seen posted yet. You have no clue about firearms or the laws surrounding them do you?

      2. Ross

        So just like any other single state huge tax increase on a specific item, people will buy in another state. This looks more like yet another way for the legislature to take more money out of people’s pockets.

      3. Bruce

        Really? Only need 3 or 4 rounds for self defense? Have you ever heard of people not going down immediately after being shot? It could legitimately take more than 4 rounds to stop 2 intruders breaking into your house and trying to kill you or your family…

      4. Bob Fortier

        Hey Rose, do you actually know how much bullets cost already? I doubt it. I think there is a disconnect among some of you when it comes to the reality that millions of Americans own guns and do not kill innocent people. All you discuss is the few who do. You want to know what could have avoided the massacre in Newtown? This sick kids mother not making Automatic weapons and ammo accessible to her little monster. Ooh, there were in a gun box…what the hell is a gun box? Was this kid Houdini? Why will no one take personal responsibility any longer? Apparently, you think the solution is to melt down all legal guns, so that only the sickos, criminals, and government possess them. How is that working out around the world? You are correct in that we do not need 30 round magazines…but 3 or 4 bullets is a ridiculous idea. I have been shot, and I have had people try to attack me in the past. You can be a sitting target, buy not me and my family.

      5. Marx

        Rose, what despicable remarks. You obviously know NOTHING about firearms, OR self-defense. The fact you would make such ignorant remarks in regards to limiting the freedoms of your fellow citizens AND have it based on total ignorance is infuriating. This is nothing more than your incompetent lawmakers bringing up failed 90′s policies that never helped to begin with. CRIME and homicide is DOWN wince the last ban expired…and if you think you only need “3 or 4″ bullets for self defense, then you are living in a sheltered fantasy world where no one ever gets home invaded (with MULTIPLE ARMED CRIMINALS…like in Cheshire), assaulted, mugged, or raped. Yeah, you sentence your fellow man to death by giving them 3 heavily taxed bullets to use in futility against multiple armed intruders. So pathetic, so ignorant and ill-conceived. Do some objective research, because it’s obvious you know ZERO about this subject matter.

      6. onelnbuc2@yahoo.com

        Are you fricking kidding me. A 50% Tax . How incompetent are these politians. Never mind I know the answer to that one. This only hurts the law abiding citizen. NOT THE CRIMINAL,NOT THE WACK JOB, NOT THE MENTALLY INCOMPETENT. The NEXT ? is what do the politcians in conversation here plan on doing with that tax? Line their coffers. Spend it with reckless abandoned. Can they say that this tax money will go to a dedicated source with out question. Probably not. #^T$Q$^%*Q@ idiots !!!!!!!

  1. America Is Dying

    No Addressing the Root of the Problem?
    How is The War On Drugs Working? Apply that to Gun Control. Brain Washed American Sheep!

    “Adam had a lot of mental problems.” It’s time to address mental illness and Not Gun Control! Just like The War On Drugs is working? Lockup people with mental illness and addiction instead of addressing the root of the problem.

    Thomas Jefferson made the following observations: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

      1. Ken Krayeske

        So, for years, we have been talking about universal health care, and only when something like this happens do we have voices on the right calling for mental health care. This is easier to do than face the inevitability that the “guns fight tyranny” ethos is a fraud.

        Is it that lots of pistol-packing people with guns will prevent totalitarianism in the United States just by the fact that they own guns? Although the thinkers who posit the theory of inverted totalitarianism think we are already in a state of tyranny. I think they may be on to something, and I do not think the latent possession of arms is what keeps Americans “free.”

        So I am interested in listening to gun right proponents talk about how their semi-automatic maintains our collective freedom. As if a gun would have helped me when I was surrounded by a half dozen cops for taking photos on a street. That pre-emptive arrest was tyranny, and a gun wielded on my behalf that day would have only everything worse.

        Are gun right owners waiting for the day tyranny is announced in the United States (as if it will be announced), and all the gun owners will magically unite like a hive mind and organize into the state militias like the Connecticut Free Army or something? Or is that one guy with an AR-15, like John Wayne, will blaze into town and free us from our shackles? Either way you slice it, I’m not buying it.

        I understand the arguments about just war and the failure of non-violence in Syria is a potential argument for the maintenance of guns. However, we must dismiss the notion that 300 million guns now or in the future will somehow prevent a dictator in the United States. I find it silly to hear that a guy with a glock will stop a tyranny enforced with tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles in the streets, or by drones and Blackhawks and Apaches in the sky.

        If we are indeed to confront the forces of oppression, it must be through non-violence. It is a longer, more difficult path, but will lead to less suffering of all people involved.

        If the pen is mightier than the sword, than the internet is mightier than your AR-15s and high capacity magazines…

        1. johngaltwhereru

          Hah,

          Now providing unlimited healthcare to freeloaders is equivalent to protecting society from psychopaths and sociopaths?

          How does the First Amendment prevent totalitarianism in the US when it is used to offer straw man propaganda arguments on internet websites?

  2. Ant

    50% sales tax? You democrats are trying to make ends meet for your welfare reciepiants . Now you have made it a political issue and not a safety issue. Ban the mags over 10 and define your assault rifles. How dare you try to make money off this tragedy . You truly are pieces of sh*t

  3. Todd Mitchell

    Bob, According to Oxford Dictionary:
    Definition of assault rifle
    noun
    a lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically.

    Good thing select fire is already banned in CT. So you do not need to do anything and can focus on mental health issues.

    Regards,

  4. Jeff

    This is frightening… Beth Bye and Bob Godfrey want to disarm the American people while we’re on the verge of economic collapse? For what purpose? So you can rule with an iron fist and implement a state of martial law?

  5. Disgusted

    How exactly would expensive ammo have stopped the Newtown tragedy?? Why don’t you law makers take 5 minutes to LEARN about firearms or talk with people who do, THEN AND ONLY THEN, make a rational decision. All politicians should be fired from their jobs and replaced with reasonable thinking people, not those looking to just line their pockets.

    1. Greg

      I was thinking the same thing. How would a high tax rate on ammunition prevent shooting rampages. Do you honestly think that an insane individual that wants to murder people will be deterred by a high tax on the ammo he/she is purchasing?? They usually take their own life towards the end of the rampage or get shot. I doubt any of them are considering the ramifications of not saving for retirement by spending a large sum of money on ammunition.

      I also am not seeing anyone talking about the improper storage of Nancy Lanzas guns. Had she been a responsible gun owner and followed the LAW her guns would have been locked in a safe!!

  6. George

    So taxes will stop massacres? Free access to firearms? Connecticut already has very strict laws to legally obtain a firearm. Among other things you need a carry permit first to obtain a handgun. Legaly is not how this scum obtained any of those firearms. And taxes? Really?

  7. nohopeandnochange

    These “lawmakers” do not address the mental health issue. This would involve too much work. It is easier to propose more firearm restrictions in a state that already has many firearms restrictions. This is a mental health issue. Address it!
    While these “lawmakers” appear to be concerned by proposing more gun laws, they avoid anything to truly address this horrible crime. They should also be concerned about violent video games.

  8. Its not the guns

    It’s not the guns stupid! It’s the people! Ban an assault rifle, pick up a knife. Ban the knife use a rope! We need to revamp the mental health system in this country. The first thing to get cut, closed or shut down are the mental hospitals and cut mental health care. Its a huge problem in this country and we don’t address the root cause. Why? Because its difficult. Its emotional. Its discriminatory in some cases. Tackle the hard problems, put tax dollars to work, make the law makers do something substantial for a change.

  9. kevin

    Why not fix the real problem. Every event like Newton the shooter had mental health issues. Why not address the real issues. The Society we now have today is the all about me society and we don’t care about the anyone elese but our oun well being. Maybe if society cared about the menatl ill people and other sick people and did not leave these people to side because its all about me attitude this country has developed over the last 30 to 50 years is driving it right towards th toliet. Its easy to go after the low hanging fruit i.e. the weapons why not tacical the real issue the people with the menatl health issue. That would require goverment to help these pople. But I also say be careful what you ask, once you ban guns and make, whats next?

  10. jenmorezz

    Not a single one of their proposals will stop 12/14…not a single one. This is knee jerk legislation to the max. A ciminl or deranged person won’t abide by any of their proposals.

  11. Joe

    I live near Newtown. I am in a wondering how come in all of this anti gun ranting that no one has mentioned that in Newtown not 2 miles from the school is the former State of CT Fairfield Hills Hospital where 20 years ago this kid would have been and not planning this tragedy. It housed hundreds of patients who now walk the streets. Also if we ban semi automatic rifles what will be next. I have heard the argument that there is no legitimate reason to own these weapons. Is there also a legitimate reason to own multiple high perfoemance motorcycles and cars capable of doing the national speed limit in fisrt gear? They also have the ability to go 2 hundred miles and hour. Are they next? We are trading freedoms and liberty’s in the panic of this tragedy. I am all for better background checks or smaller magazine’s but outlawing semiautomatic rifles is over the top and against our freedoms.

    1. Karen

      Joe
      The cars going fast vs. guns killing is an asinine argument. You make yourelf look very naive when you use it. Guns are for one purpose only (or at least the last time I looked) and that is to KILL when necessary. An automobile’s main purpose is to drive from point A to point B; therefore necessary in the society for all people essentially. Assault weapons should be for the military only. No “regular” citizen should have any reason to own one.

      Also, regarding mental health, EVERYONE who still grieves over the Newtown tragedy realizes that the solution is a three-prong solution:
      1) banning assault weapon sales and other gun measures
      2) providing adequate and more mental health treatment
      3) banning or limiting the very violent television, movies, and video games

      THREE PRONG APPROACH.

      Please stop sending up a smokescreen that we should look TOWARDS the mental health portion only, in the hopes that we look AWAY from the guns issue.

      Furthermore, Adam Lanza’s mother WAS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN and did not handle guns properly. This is the CRUX of the issue. So-called law abiding gun owners are not handling their guns safely so they hurt the availability now for EVERYONE. Kinda like the Kindergarten teacher who punishes the entire class because Johnny was misbehaving. Remember those days? Same thing here. Gun owners are not safe, they are not reliable, and they are not responsible gun owners. Sorry.

  12. Stan M

    It’s very disturbing that immediately after a tragedy politicians try to cash in. Godfrey and Bye (with Obama, Blumenthal and Lieberman in the background) are squawking gun control and ignoring the real issues. (Is it payback to NRA for supporting the opposition?) Lies about “legal guns” being used, “automatic” or “assault” weapons, “high capacity”, etc. Taxes? Of course! That’s the democrats’ answer to everything!

    These guns were NOT legal but stolen from the assailant’s mother whom he murdered. They obviously were not securely stored. They were not “automatic/assault weapons” – that’s strictly controlled in CT. In a school with no security, antique revolvers would have been just as lethal. Capacity means little – a clip can be swapped in no time. More importantly, this animal had serious mental health issues. Why were those not addressed? Why can a mentally ill/unstable person refuse medical treatment under current laws? Why have our mental institutions been shut down over the last three decades, dumping dangerous/deranged patients onto the streets to be loosely supervised by social workers rather than health professionals? Why are these politicians so eager to assault our individual rights and yet so reluctant to address the REAL causes of this and many other tragedies?

    “Gun free” zones are just soft targets for those who’d consider such acts. I don’t know if a teacher with a gun could have stopped this. I believe they should have the option, rather than just being forced to await their turn at the hands of a psychopath.

  13. David

    Let’ see, how many laws did he already break (that I can think of):
    Stole the firearms
    Illegal possession of the firearms (no permit)
    Murdered his mother
    Illegally transported the firearms (no permit)
    Was within 500 feet of a school with a firearm
    Was in the school with a firearm
    Illegal discharge of a firearm
    Reckless endangerment (shooting the door)
    Breaking and entering
    MURDERED the students and staff
    And I’m sure there are a host more

    None of these already existing laws seemed to inhibit his actions. But apparently some believe that if we create just more piece of useless, do-nothing, touchy-feely, “but we have to do SOMETHING” legislation, the next shooter will think that’s too many laws to break and therefore not go through with the planned crime. (NOT!) No law will stop the criminally insane. When will they learn!

    Whether in a school, a mall, a parking lot, or just relaxing in our home, lawmakers want us like defenseless sheep in a pen, huddled together, unable to defend ourselves. Politicians think that by disarming us the wolves won’t come into the pen and do harm. Smarten up, people! We need to protect ourselves!

    Or, we can teach people to defend themselves, or at least allow them to do so. Newtown only goes to prove that laws and the police can’t protect us. We are responsible for our own safety. Yes, police do stop some crimes by their presence. However, in most cases they clean up after the fact, write the reports, investigate the broken laws, and hopefully, find and arrest the perpetrator. Don’t get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for our police men and women, but they can’t protect all of us all the time. Tell your politician that disarming the law-abiding citizenry will NOT disarm the criminal!

    1. DW

      This insane person murders, or better said, executes all those poor children and adults, and everyone blames guns.
      Specifically Assault Weapons. You cannot have in your possession, or legally buy an Assault Weapon in CT.

      Umm…ah, suppose the murderer had used a shotgun, or a bow and arrow or poisoned the water-colers? Would the anti-gun people be screaming about shotguns, ban all arrows, ban water-coolers? Bye… Bye, how many of your constituents have not favored your opinion? Oh, Bye the bye, I do not care what you and your West Hartford liberal friends say about gun control…I don’t live there in your paradise world of West Hartford. Why don’t you and your friends move down the road, a little south of you, on Albany Ave. for a few months, and then tell everyone how safe you feel with your anti-gun attitudes protecting you.

      Like previous posters have said, re-open the State Hospitals and Training Schools to house people who may pose a danger to themselves, or others.

    2. Karen

      David – Keep your guns, just not the assault weapons. Do you really need them to defend yourself and just how many do you need?

  14. joe867

    They tried to pass a high cap magazine ban last year, which meant if you did not hand it over or destroy it you were a Class D Felon. So, now they’ll probably pass both the high cap mag ban and add high capacity guns to that. But people are not going to destroy or hand these over, so they’ll go underground. How is the State going to charge and prosecute all of these gun owners as these items surface? Plea bargain down I would think, or a lot or average mom and pop people will be in jail. That’s the problem with bands. How do you deal with what’s out there?

  15. sue

    But we still won’t have a DEATH PENALTY for the CRIMINALS. We just continue to punish law abiding citizens. These are the losers you vote for

  16. Mike

    More knee jerk rubbish. These people are fascists – they care not whit about civil rights – one of which is the right to bear arms that are of use to the militia (which is all of us – not the National Guard). They get all hot and bothered about a nonexistant right to privacy (infanticide), but they could care less about rights that are written in plain English. Disgraceful.

    They should be focused on getting control of the nuts.

  17. Matt from CT

    “Assault weapons” are, in what most people think of when they hear that category, detachable magazine semi-automatic rifles that have a ergonomic stock design generally made out materials resistant to warping and corrosion.

    Often times you can buy the same rifle in a traditional stock. This is an issue of cosmetics, not function.

    The “capacity” however is an issue to look at whether it’s implemented well or not.

    Simply banning detachable magazines over 10 rounds is a feel good law of no practical effect — eject an empty magazine, one second later a fresh magazine is in place. THAT is the problem which needs to be addressed.

    However, if you required the magazine to be attached in such a way that a tool or manual manipulation is needed to change the magazine — say something that takes an average person 20 seconds to do — then you can accomplish a reasonable compromise.

    No need to expand the assault weapons ban; looks isn’t a reason to ban anything.

    You change the functionality that is unreasonably dangerous.

    Ten rounds is sufficient for self-defense. If you need more from a rifle, you’ve got bigger problems then one gun can handle.

    It will not impair hunting (being ergonomic and weather resistant they fill that role well, when in a caliber legal for hunting in Connecticut). The delay in changing magazines will reduce but not eliminate the fun of some target shooters who enjoy sending dollar bills down the barrel.

    10 rounds is arguably insufficient for a handgun used for self defense — rifles, when available, are faster and easier to aim accurately and more deadly; 10 rounds is enough for them. A handgun capacity of around 15-18 with a limiting device that slows reloading (except for individuals with an exceptional need such as security guards) would be a reasonable compromise.

    No tax on ammunition. You want to encourage people to practice, no discourage it. And it’s a camel’s nose under the tent I find unacceptable given proposals over the years in other states for a 10,000% tax.

    So what does this leave as my reasonable gun control?
    – No expansion of bans on pistol gripped, synthetic stock rifles because they look scary in their modern stocks.

    There is no functional difference from conventional stocked rifles that are just as deadly in mass shootings, just haven’t been used often before.

    – Limitation to 10 rounds per magazine in conjunction with:
    – Detachable magazines must be slow, say 20 seconds, to change. Transition period say over 20 years for existing guns must be retrofitted.

    – Pistols limited by user’s choice; 10 rounds in quick-change detachable magazines, or 18 rounds in slow-change detachable magazines.

    – No additional taxes on ammunition. Encourage people to shoot regularly and modestly, not be discouraged by the price of practice.

  18. Bruce

    This is disgusting. Ridiculous knee jerk bills like this will distract and take away the from the quality gun control, mental health, school security, etc., conversations that need to take place. These 2 are using this tragedy to push their own agendas, and are
    doing a disservice to the state and legislative process.

  19. Karen Fischer

    We need to several things simultaneously-increase access to quality mental health care and decrease access to firearms for those who shouldn’t be any where near them, and decrease access to weapons that can take large capacity clips, defined as more than 10 bullets. We also need to put payment for gun deaths and injuries on the backs of the manufacturers and users. My friend was wounded in the head at age 11 by a bullet falling from the sky when some idiot decided to shoot his semi-automatic pistol into the sky somewhere in the area. Joe survived, barely, is paralyzed from the waist down, is frequently hospitalized for compications from the bullet still lodged in his brain because the location is operable. Cost: his father’s insurance covered a million dollars, and now Joe is on disability and we taxpayers are covering the costs, which will be over the course of his life. So now tell me how terrible it is that bullets should be taxed at a high rate? Many of you protesting mightily on this issue might consider that law enforcement, ambulance costs, ER costs, hospitalization costs, not to mention the psychological toll on survivors, surviving family members and their extended family and friends, and the toll on our first responders dealing with what no one should have to see, as they did on Friday.

    1. Bob Fortier

      Karen, you don’t pay taxes on cigarettes, because you may not smoke them. I don’t kill innocent people, so why should I pay a 50% on bullets for target practice. Do you know how much they already cost? Most average Americans could not afford the sport because of the cost of the ammo. You think I join a gun range and pay fees so I can practice with 10 bullets? Mental illness and easy access to firearms is what made this massacre possible. Many more people die in car accidents, yes even children. I have never killed anyone in a car, or even had an accident, so in your thinking, should I pay the price for those others? I live in a desolate area, and there is no way the police are going to stop someone from breaking in and killing my family. How the heck are you to determine that I should not have protection. You can become a statistic, but I choose not to. Don’t worry, I am not crazy or evil, and at my age…I doubt I will develop any new mental illnesses. Maybe that would be a better argument. Raise the age for gun purchases. After all, most of these crimes, as well as the development of mental illness, occurs among those 11 to 22 years old. See a pattern? Good, jump on that bandwagon (no pun intended).

    1. Bob Fortier

      OK, maybe this will help some of the anti-gum folks understand out views a bit better. Everyone has been to an airport since 9/11. We all know that no white, black, yellow, Latino or native american has ever blown up a plane that they were a passenger on. How do you feel when your children have to walk through metal detectors, or you luggage is rummaged through? Or that you may miss a flight because of the mid eastern radical acts. If you have never thought about this,you are not telling the truth. We all know that once people my age in America are looking forward to retirement and spending more time with their grandchildren, lying on a beach in the Caribbean, and finally collecting out Medicare and Social Insecurtiy…we are not likely to blow ourselves up in a plane. Well, gun owners are in the same boat, especially of late. It is a rare event that older Americans commit mass killing of innocent people. It is not politically correct to profile…right?? Wrong. It is absolutely necessary to do exactly that. The consistency of these mass murders being done by young males is what we need to look at. To through the baby out with the bathwater is plain ignorance and wrong.

  20. Mike T

    So banning the magazines banning the guns will prevent the deranged from breaking the law. So why not ban the car ban the pub ban the liquour store to prevent the drunk from getting in his car and driving down the road and killing the people on the road.

  21. BobC

    None of the proposed measures will affect anyone but the law abiding gun owner. You propose to punish those who have done nothing wrong.

  22. Kevin

    Banning guns in d.c., chicago, and cali has helped the urder rates in those areas. Ayone remember Timothy McVeigh? No bans on fertilizer and box trucks. Which reminds me he didnt use gun, but he killed many more people and 19 of those were kids. Mental health is the issue here. And its not that services arent available. Parents maybe its time to spend more time with your children and get to know them. If they seem like a whack job, dont tell yourself ‘it’s just a phase’. It may be just a phase, but it can also be the sighns of much deeper mental issues. You cant wait and see if they will grow out of it. Late teens and early twentys is when most mental health issues really take over a person. Get a diagnoses or at least see a doctor before it is too late.
    Oh cant forget voilent video games. Apperently they densitize youths, and devalue human life. I call B.S. If this were truen there would be a whole hell of a lot more mass murders happening. Were talking about a lot of people playing these games, myself included. There are more people playing Call of Duty and Battlefield than there are Need for Speed or Gran Tourismo. The reason these games are popular is because they are fun and interactive and very competitiv. Every game is a different scenario, and most encourage team work to some extent. If they do spawn mass murders, I still say blame the parent if your kid doesnt seem your or is too immature dont buy they game for them. Maybe its time for people to start paying attention to their childeren. If your kid goes and steals a car in the middle of the night, you cant blame the ar, you should really be asking “what the hell is my kid out at 3am? and why didnt i know/care?” Just some food for thought.

  23. Robert hagedorn

    I can’t move out of this state fast enough. What a bunch of moron run this state. Jckass’s!!!

  24. Michael

    Drunk driving is illegal, these same state reps made it so. How’s that working out? Well, about as many people are murder in CT each year as killed by a drunk driver. That’s all forms of murder from knives to poison, not just guns. Are our state reps limiting alcohol purchases at package stores or tightening bar sales? No, because those groups line the pockets of state reps. My point is, current laws do not prevent deaths by legal means but they someone imagine that a new law on assault weapons will make us that much safer? Logic has left the building….

  25. Scott

    OMGosh are you serious???

    I’m in Law Enforcement and there is no way I’m turning my car or my station into a Ammo Store!!!

    And a Ammo Log?? So if I want to run out in the backyard and shoot a rabbit or two for supper . . . Then what? Call a cop to follow me around in the field so he can write down on my log how many bullets I shot???

    You tax ammo 50% and you put it right up there with Gold and Silver! You just made my house and the house’s of many other people with legal ammo a dangerous place to sleep. My wife and kids thank you!!

    Somebody needs to switch their brain on and try and work out the problem. Even my kids know the shooters steal the guns and ammo!! So your not addressing the problem!!

    Please stop making all these families houses a dangerous place to sleep!

    Oh and next time you ask where a cop is when you need him, he will be on the street corner selling ammo!!

    Please people . . . . Lets think first and just address the problems!!

    God Bless America!!

  26. jschmidt

    Democrats always are looking for money. Why didn’t they just make a thousand percent tax? THis is a money ploy.

  27. jschmidt

    At a school in Texas 20 minutes from the police have a automatic lockdown system triggered from various locations, and they have volunteer armed, trained teachers using bullets that will break into small plastic pieces and not ricochet. Add bullet resistant glass and you have a fairly well contained school protected until the police arrive. Alternatively hire retired police, or military with decent salaries who wouldn’t mind spending days with children- a better environment those officers probably worked in.

  28. BobC

    There is also a gun registry element to these proposals. Registration is the first step to confiscation.

  29. John Roberts

    I would agree with a ban on all firearms with a load capacity of 10 rounds. I also belive that each firearm owner shoud have a complete background and mental health review every 5 years as should all persons in the house that might have access to the firearms. This of course shoud be done at the gun owners expense. Nothing shoud be “grandfathered”. If there is a mentaly unsuitable or person with a criminal history in the enviroment the no gun.

    1. BobC

      Surely you jest…should I now turn in my squirrel gun…in .22, which happens to have a rotary magazine holding 10 rounds? I have held a Carry Permit for 30 years, and have had not so much as a parking ticket in that time. You will find, with just some quick research that I am NOT the exception, but the rule when it comes to gun owners. Why would you deprive innocent people of property without due process? Why would you have the cost of government mandates fall on the consumer? Your suggestions are not just absurd, but unamerican.

  30. Togger

    Let’s see, you can get a box of 50 45 cal ammo for about $30 so another $15 is going to stop someone hell bent on mass murder? Sounds like a money grab

    But…But…but…we have to do something

  31. Vick Michele

    How’d the 9’94 ban turn out? Or the drug war?
    More gun control will cause even more violence.

    Mark these words and remember them when you turn on the TV in a few years and see what will be happening in the streets as this economy continues to slide…

    Reactionary policy making will only lead to more and more desperate actions by people.

    Also good luck confiscating these weapons and magazines. There are now police who are hoarding mags ammo and weapons. Go to a gun store. Places look like night clubs now. Full of police and other normal citizens buying ar15′s hk91′s and high cap magazines.

    All they are doing is turning normal law abiding gun owners into potential felons.

    If you want to see the future of America look at Mexico’s drug war. Total gun ban, 40,000 people a year murdered with guns.Some of which Obama helped ship into Mexico in fast and furious.

    When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

  32. Murray

    Jennifer Hawke-Petit age 48
    Hayley Petit age 17
    Michaela Petit age 11

    More like this to come because of this anti gun hysteria.

    40k dead in Mexico last year-total gun ban.

    We’re tired of reactionary politics in this state.

  33. Tracy Deangelo

    “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”

    William S. Burroughs

    Just how liberal are liberals really these days?

  34. Betty Anderson

    Ban 30 round magazines and make possession a felony?

    Do they realize that will turn half this state into criminals over night?

    This is hysteria.

    Focus on mental health issues and securing the schools. Not turning the law abiding into outlaws.

  35. MAGNUSSEN

    Oh, looks like I’ll be buying my ammunition across the border…like everything else I buy. Gas, clothes, alcohol etc. no biggy.

    One scary thing I read here though “register every buy and pick them up at a Police barracks”. Wow, not big into civil liberties, disgusting POS.

  36. tundra

    These ignorant fools are so easy to predict. They jump at every opportunity (tragedy) to push their agenda, hoping more fools will fall in line with knee jerk reactions. Anyone who even remotely thinks any laws proposed by these idiots will work is just as much a fool. The only thing that will work is if we attack the root cause…..the lack of a moral foundation in people today. In other words, we have a human behavior problem, and not an inanimate object problem. Had this individual drove an 18 wheeler through the front of the school, killing a whole lot more kids, would we be looking at proposed legislation to ban or restrict 18 wheeler ownership??? Of course not, so why are we doing it now with guns? Put a little moral teaching back in our schools,…teach our children right from wrong (a lot of their parents apparently can’t or won’t do it), teach them all about consequences of their actions, and for Gods sake, take Rap music, violent video games, and this garbage Hollywood peddles to our kids out of their lives totally. THAT is the root of all this evil. It teaches our kids no consequences, and cheapens life in general. If we ban or restrict anything, it should be those things.
    Oh,…and yes, until we get control of this stuff, the NRA has a great idea with the arming teachers (those who want to and are trained) and or providing police officers in the schools. They’ve been doing it here in some parts of Texas for over 5 years. Guess what? No problems. In a few parts of California, they even have school specific police departments with K9 units attached. No problems there. Let’s put a little value on our kids lives and take care of business and quit this silly crap of chasing guns and other inanimate objects.

  37. etship

    No person shall be expected to follow any unconstitutional laws, and no court shall pursue those persons for following unconstitutional laws. This draconian push will stigmatize and potentially felonize hundreds of thousands of law abiding CT residents overnight, while doing nothing to stop crime. Don’t disarm the population, secure the schools. Lanza broke how many laws?; all of which bipassed everything your bill proposes.

Comments are closed.