I hope you have to fill out forms in triplicate, wait in line, deal with things that only a regular motorist has to deal with.

...vote out the people that are making their lives unnecessarily difficult?

The people that are affected by these sorts of laws get angry and get political. Remember all those posts about how the NRA only has 4 million members? And people that share your beliefs wring their hands in astonishment and wonder aloud "how does the NRA keep getting what they want? Polls show they're in the minority! I don't understand!"

It's because they're a minority with determination. They take it personally (guns, after all, are far more "real" to people than the debt ceiling, or expanding medicare, or the fundamentals of income taxation), and they put their money, time, and effort into organizing at all levels of government.

The segment of the anti-gun crowd, whether they just want more laws or actively seek a virtually gunless citizenry like England, that is as determined, organized, and financed like the pro-gun crowd is far, far smaller.

After all, it's gun owners that have more detailed knowledge of state, federal, and local gun laws; they have to. People that don't own guns generally have little clue about guns or laws, and don't get all fired up about changing them.


So, again... do you want to make it harder to pass progressive laws because you absolutely must make a pablum law that won't save a single life?

Well said.

Does a "regular motorist" have to do that to buy gasoline? No? Your analogy fails.

I like that idea, no background check, no waiting, no license or registration unless you want to take it out in public, no limit on accessory purchases, sporting and high performance models are available without a "special stamp"...

Yes, let's do that right away.

record-keeping for ammunition purchases; I don't remember the specific details, but it seemed clearly about upping the expense and difficulty rather than any rational safety measure.

Fortunately, it never made it out of the Legislature (and I suspect Gov. Brown would have vetoed it anyway, based on his other vetoes)...

Any roadblock in a storm I suppose.

When a regressive agenda isn't popular you end up with stupid shit like this.

It's for the children...

a citizens right to own and carry a firearm, no registration, no permit to purchase a firearm or ammunition.

permit to purchase long guns. Is that the same process as the permit to purchase ammunition? I would think they could have those forms filled out at the dealer where the ammunition is purchased. I guess the idea is not to prevent criminals from purchasing ammunition, but to make it harder for EVERYONE to purchase ammunition.

I am sure you are aware of this krispos42, but back in the old days (not all that long ago) you could buy ammunition from the Holiday gas station in Minnesota.

I was struck by one of DU's resident gun prohibitionists who considered the recall/loss of 2 Democratic legislators in Colorado as acceptable collateral damage in the overall, unreconstructed push for some kind of gun control legislation somewhere.

And they accuse us of being non-Democrats.

The Department of Public Safety website is not clear; again, I suspect that's the intention, or that nobody really knows how the process is suppose to work yet.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&Q=530224&desppNav_GID=2080

There is an "Application to Purchase a Firearm - DPS-67-C" and "Sale or Transfer of All Firearms - DPS-3-C"

And then there's this:



So.... your guess is as good as mine.



I just got a job. Pays about 22% more than my old job that I lost 6 months ago. I will get OT after 8 hours a day, as well as over 40 hours a week. I'm finally in a position where I was thinking about getting one early next year. I guess I'll have to depend on a dealer to walk me through it.

I don't even know if I can buy a used gun from another private citizen.

(I'm from Minnesota wih a family hunting shack off Highway 65 in Itasca County.)

And only bought one gun while I lived there.. a Ruger 10/22 Carbine, new, at a really good price.

I don't recall the process in Minnesota being unusual, but I also didn't buy any scary black rifles, either.

With my Texas CHL the last purchase I made, a Walther built Colt 22lr was easy fast and pain free. Just fill out the form, show my CHL, and pay the man.

the Holiday gas stations were all almost like Gander Mountain stores are now. They had their own brand of .22 shells as well as shotgun shells. They carried othe kinds of hunting gear and fishing gear as well.

Eventually, there were 4 huge Holiday Plus Superstores in the Twin Cities with outdoor gear. Eventually, they were bought out by Gander Mountain. This is about the same time that Burger Brothers were bought out by Gander Mountain in the early 1990s.

...with any new ammo laws specifically. Perhaps the restrictions are for in state retailers. Basspro which accepts online orders has this to say:

Check the wording of your local laws but the restriction may include only sales by CT state licensed retailers. In some states ammo sales by mail order and internet are regulated the same as sales between private citizens.

, especially those that only recently took effect.

Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you obey your state laws, because it will be YOU that is prosecuted.

...I did try to emphasize that in my last reply. I googled a bit but I couldn't immediately find a copy of the law.
It is always the individual's burden to comply with the law.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/pa_13-3.pdf

As of today's date, the police report on Sandy Hook has still not been released. When questioned the media is told it is still an "open investigation".

...section 14 appears to regulate the seller and the act of selling. I'm unfamiliar with any case law regarding whether a court would/could infer from this law the act of buying is also a crime. I also do not readily see provisions restricting the sale of separate primers, casings, bullets and propellants for individual assembly. I also don't know that any state has the authority to regulate business conducted by a organization based in a different state. I think that type of law would specifically come under federal ICC purview. I would generally recommend consulting with one's attorney.

IMHO, all of these efforts are analogous to trying to repair the damage in Fukishima with chewing gum. I can't believe there are folks that write such things and take themselves seriously let alone expect others to take them seriously.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control and control is a myth.

because it isn't worth the time, effort or money to fight it out with the state in court.

A prior MA attorney general was notorious for threatening to sue out of state Internet sellers of firearms related items, even when the companies were complying with the law. The companies would have almost certainly won the court case, but it wasn't worth the attorney fees & court cases to go through the effort.

It will be progress or at least lead to progress.

This is a losing issue for the Democratic Party. It seriously hurts our ability to achieve other, more pressing, progressive goals. The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. It makes us look authoritarian when we try to challenge it and weaken it.

-Laelth