Connecticut- Here's the text of the bill.

[TurtlePhish]

[Strike]This is SB 1076, the impending ban.[/strike]

Nevermind, this bill is old and dead. Thank you GlowinPontiac for the correction.

Still, assume the new bill will be similar.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-01076-R00-SB.htm

Pray for us.

 

[N003k]

Well...half my guns would become assault weapons that would need to be registered...and I think all but one magazine I own...

 

[CTPistol]

Uh, not "would"......."will"

 

[desidog]

Wow. So two week waiting period, and only one gun a month...which applies to "firms" too. I'm not a lawyer, but i believe that says a gun store can only sell one gun per month.

...and a $140 fee I have to pay, just to stay legal? that, my friends, is extortion pure and simple.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

THAT IS NOT THE BILL!!!

That is bill 1076 it died. It is gone. The current proposed bill is not being released until it is voted on.

Here is as close as anyone is going to get to seeing the bill until tomorrow.

http://cthousegop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Press-Conference-Material-4-1-13.pdf

 

[19-3Ben]

THAT IS NOT THE BILL!!!

That is bill 1076 it died. It is gone. The current proposed bill is not being released until it is voted on.

Yup. A lot of the text is similar to what we expect in the new one, but it's not the same bill and some significant portions could be altered.

I'll be at capitol tomorrow as part of the rally. I hope anyone in CT who can make it will join me.

 

[Zeke/PA]

Well, the Politicians HAVE to do SOMETHING to justify their existance.
They CERTAINLY would not SHINE if they admitted the fact that EXISTING Mandates regarding Gun Crime are and HAVE BEEN ignored for quite some time.
The Mental Health Issue MUST be addressed!

 

[Caliper_Mi]

I just wrote Ruger asking what they intend to do if this legislation (however it ends up) passes. I really do love my Rugers, but don't want my money going to CT in corporate taxes...

 

[Old Fuff]

Sturm Ruger is incorporated in CT., which is the only reason they retain a small office there. To change would be expensive in terms of legal fees, and what the state gets in revenue from that small operation is peanuts compared to what they lost in jobs and money when the company moved out their manufacturing plants.

It would seem that the loss of jobs and tax revenue doesn't concern the legislators currently in power. If those that live in the various "blue states" don't like it they can express they're feelings in the next round of elections.