Felony, confiscation proposed in CT for possession of magazines holding > 10 rounds

[tonyz]

Just a heads up about proposed legislation in Connecticut -- basically, citizen possession of any magazine holding over 10 rounds to result in felony and confiscation.

Will law enforcement actually confiscate private property?

Will the citizen be compensated for the taking/loss? Should they be compensated?


Link to the proposed legislation below:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/s/pdf...094-R00-SB.pdf


A copy of an article from the National Shooting Sports Foundation is provided below.

Connecticut Magazine Ban to be Heard in Committee this Wednesday; Bill Sponsor Calls Gun Owners Criminals
March 18, 2011 By nssfnews

“Legislation (HB 1094) that would ban the possession of any magazine (rifle, pistol or shotgun) capable of holding more than 10 rounds will be heard in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary this Wednesday, March 23, 2011. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is urging all gun owners, sportsmen and hunters to attend Wednesday’s public hearing to be held in the Legislative Office Building in Room 2C at 10:00 A.M. and to contact their state representative, senator and all members of the Judiciary Committee immediately, urging them to oppose this magazine ban.

Earlier this week, at the Connecticut Bar Association Seminar on Firearms Law at the Quinnipiac University School of Law, State Senator Edward Meyer (D) addressed this proposed legislation. After noting his support for the bill and that he believed it would easily pass, Meyer volunteered that the only reason to have ‘high’ capacity magazines is “for criminal purposes.” That’s right — if you have a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, this state senator, and many others who will vote on this measure next Wednesday, already think you’re a criminal.

If this bill passes, law-abiding gun owners will have to begin surrendering their magazines by July, or face confiscation by the state police and a felony charge. Again, this proposal would not only ban the sale of these magazines, but would make simple possession a felony. Any gun owner (including off-duty police officers) found in possession of any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will be in violation of this proposed law, regardless of whether it was legally purchased.

This draconian measure will also affect non-gun owners as all Connecticut tax payers will be forced to foot the bill for the extraordinary process of having police confiscate — from law-abiding citizens — the millions of magazines already in the state.

Making matters worse, manufacturers including Colt, C Products, Mec-Gar, OKAY Industries and Metalform will be directly affected by this legislation. That means a loss of jobs and tax revenue to the state.

Arbitrarily limiting magazine capacity and threatening law-abiding gun owners with confiscation and felony charges is beyond the pale. These magazines are utilized every day for home defense and the shooting sports. As part of the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban, the production of higher capacity magazines was halted. This gun-control strategy soon proved to be a failure. A comprehensive study by the Centers for Disease Control — hardly a pro-gun entity — looked at the full panoply of gun-control measures, including this ban, and concluded that none could be proven to reduce crime. Another study, commissioned by Congress, found that bans were not effective since “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”



http://www.nssfblog.com/connecticut-...t+Relations%29

[dadof18x'er]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Just a heads up about proposed legislation in Connecticut -- basically, citizen possession of any magazine holding over 10 rounds to result in felony and confiscation.

Will law enforcement actually confiscate private property?

Will the citizen be compensated for the taking/loss? Should they be compensated?


Link to the proposed legislation below:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/s/pdf...094-R00-SB.pdf


A copy of an article from the National Shooting Sports Foundation is provided below.

Connecticut Magazine Ban to be Heard in Committee this Wednesday; Bill Sponsor Calls Gun Owners Criminals
March 18, 2011 By nssfnews

“Legislation (HB 1094) that would ban the possession of any magazine (rifle, pistol or shotgun) capable of holding more than 10 rounds will be heard in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary this Wednesday, March 23, 2011. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is urging all gun owners, sportsmen and hunters to attend Wednesday’s public hearing to be held in the Legislative Office Building in Room 2C at 10:00 A.M. and to contact their state representative, senator and all members of the Judiciary Committee immediately, urging them to oppose this magazine ban.

Earlier this week, at the Connecticut Bar Association Seminar on Firearms Law at the Quinnipiac University School of Law, State Senator Edward Meyer (D) addressed this proposed legislation. After noting his support for the bill and that he believed it would easily pass, Meyer volunteered that the only reason to have ‘high’ capacity magazines is “for criminal purposes.” That’s right — if you have a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, this state senator, and many others who will vote on this measure next Wednesday, already think you’re a criminal.

If this bill passes, law-abiding gun owners will have to begin surrendering their magazines by July, or face confiscation by the state police and a felony charge. Again, this proposal would not only ban the sale of these magazines, but would make simple possession a felony. Any gun owner (including off-duty police officers) found in possession of any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will be in violation of this proposed law, regardless of whether it was legally purchased.

This draconian measure will also affect non-gun owners as all Connecticut tax payers will be forced to foot the bill for the extraordinary process of having police confiscate — from law-abiding citizens — the millions of magazines already in the state.

Making matters worse, manufacturers including Colt, C Products, Mec-Gar, OKAY Industries and Metalform will be directly affected by this legislation. That means a loss of jobs and tax revenue to the state.

Arbitrarily limiting magazine capacity and threatening law-abiding gun owners with confiscation and felony charges is beyond the pale. These magazines are utilized every day for home defense and the shooting sports. As part of the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban, the production of higher capacity magazines was halted. This gun-control strategy soon proved to be a failure. A comprehensive study by the Centers for Disease Control — hardly a pro-gun entity — looked at the full panoply of gun-control measures, including this ban, and concluded that none could be proven to reduce crime. Another study, commissioned by Congress, found that bans were not effective since “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”



http://www.nssfblog.com/connecticut-...t+Relations%29

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that meeting this week, maybe there will be a you tube or something on Fox, should be fun!

[Combat Diver]

Since Members or employees of organized local police departments,
20 the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Correction are citizens (ie not military) then this should be amended to include them. Where's is the due process of conpensation?

CD

[Stingray]

Originally Posted by Combat Diver

Since Members or employees of organized local police departments,
20 the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Correction are citizens (ie not military) then this should be amended to include them. Where's is the due process of conpensation?

CD

It puts them in a bad spot anyway. It states "for use in the discharge of their official duty". It doesn't say they would be legal off duty.

For the attorneys on the board, in your opinion would they be allowed to posses them at home for personal defense? As a non-lawyer, I would read that as a no-go because it isn't "official duty." I am interested in the opinion of the legal community on here though.

V/r

[tonyz]

Not a Connecticut attorney - but to keep a good discussion moving - let me share some quick observations.

It appears that much of the rub (there are other problems with this bill) requires a definition of what exactly involves the discharge of “official duties.”

Although I am not a peace officer nor have I ever represented one, I suspect that there are many instances which could arise where an off-duty peace officer may or may not be in the discharge of his or her official duties when he or she possesses a firearm with a magazine exceeding 10 rounds. These possibilities, when combined with the language of this proposed bill places the peace officer in a very difficult position - it is not inconceivable to have a situation when a peace officer is validly protecting his or her life - but not acting in discharge of his or her official duty…and the magazine in their possession exceeds 10 rounds. Query, if they merely possess such magazines when facing and nullifying such a threat (with or without discharging the weapon) have they just committed a felony?

Should the legal result really be any different for an ordinary citizen? Why?

There are already many, many, many laws on the books in Connecticut - if a bad guy is willing to commit a gun crime will they really care about using a bad magazine?

Crimes against security of a person:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part6/

Crimes against life:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part5/

Crimes against public health, safety and welfare:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part8/

Vicarious liability and inchoate crimes:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part3/

IMO, the current bill has problems and invites potential litigation. As written, this proposal creates more questions than it answers.

General rule (persons possessing a magazine with a capacity > 10 rounds is guilty of a felony):

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

Pertinent list of exceptions to general rule (certain peace officers and military are exempt from the felony if they use the magazine in discharge of their official duties):

The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to
18 the possession of a large capacity magazine by:
19 (1) Members or employees of organized local police departments,
20 the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Correction or the
21 military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in
22 the discharge of their official duties

I certainly don’t claim to understand organized local police departments and thus there are probably common sense answers to my simple questions - but:

Can you ever discharge an official duty when you are off-duty?

Should the drafters/sponsors of this bill be concerned with various local department policies about carrying weapons off-duty?

What if you act off-duty within your own state (CT here) but outside of your local jurisdiction? Does this matter?

What’s the difference between a member and an employee of an organized local police department? Different duties?

What is the definition of military if it does not include naval forces?

What is the definition of the military or navy of the state of Connecticut?

There are problems with this proposed bill.

FWIW, members of the judiciary committee are listed below at this link: http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/Membe...?comm_code=JUD

[rdret1]

Just more liberal BS! An easy way around it though, have ten 10rd mags. It just requires a few more reloads.