An act banning large capacity ammunition magazines.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HozayBuck, Mar 3, 2011.

  1. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    What gets me is that so may gun mfgr are in Conn !!


    AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
    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.
    (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;
    (2) A person, corporation or other entity that manufactures large capacity magazines for persons specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection or for export in accordance with federal regulations;
    (3) Any person engaged in the business of selling or transferring large capacity magazines in accordance with state and federal regulations who possesses such magazines solely for the purpose of such sale or transfer; or
    (4) A gunsmith who possesses such large capacity magazine for the purpose of maintenance, repair or modification.

    This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
    Section 1

    July 1, 2011

    New section
    Statement of Purpose:
    To prohibit the possession of certain ammunition feeding devices that accept more than ten rounds.
     
  2. OldCootHillbilly

    OldCootHillbilly Reverend Coot

    3,848
    7
    So if there eliminatin em, why do the cops need em? I mean everbody is gonna obay the law an turn em in right? No one includin the criminals will have large capacity mags so why should the cops?

    Politician=overpayed, underworked idiot!
     

  3. jungatheart

    jungatheart Beginner's Mind

    230
    1
    Yeah, this is some important stuff and I can see why government considers it a higher priority to ban large capacity magazines over working on those unimportant issues like pension reform or excessive union power or........

    "I wouldn't vote for anyone who wanted to be a politician."
     
  4. kyfarmer

    kyfarmer Well-Known Member

    638
    0
    The assault on our rights will never stop period. Stupid stuff like this will always be on the agenda. Think of all the lines of gang members lining up at police stations to turn in those nasty old mags. Lolly pops and sunshine that's what the left expects when they rid the world of firearm's. Dumb a** s** ** *******! :nuts: Can't keep thinking about this kinda crap will drive ya nutser lol. :gaah:
     
  5. Clarice

    Clarice Well-Known Member

    983
    1
    The trouble with laws like this is the fact that only the good guys will be effected. This gives the government a "foot in the door" to go further in banning the sale of too much ammo or some such. The economy is on the verge of collapse and the government is worring over the average gun owner having too much fire power, and being able to run them out of Washington, you think?
     
  6. unclebob

    unclebob Well-Known Member

    56
    0
    How about a link?
    Is this state or federal?
    Time for the rest of the story. Please :gaah:
     
  7. Bigdog57

    Bigdog57 Adventurer at large

    541
    0
    We need more short ropes and tall trees for those politicos............ :mad: