.

Ammunition-Control Legislation Introduced in Connecticut General Assembly

In the wake of the Newtown shootings the first of what is likely to be numerous gun-related measures was introduced this week in the state legislature by a New Haven lawmaker.

State Sen. Martin Looney, D-New Haven, has introduced a measure to the Connecticut legislature that would make it illegal for anyone barred from owning a gun to own ammunition.

Looney, the state Senate's majority leader, told the New Haven Independent that such a prohibition is just common sense.

The state legislature has convened its first session of the new year and Looney's proposal is likely to be one of several filed by lawmakers in the wake of the Dec. 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown that killed 20 young students and six women.

Other state and federal lawmakers have called for stricter gun controls following the Newtown shootings, though Looney's is the first formally proposed in Connecticut, the Independent reports.

His proposal would prohibit anyone convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor or those under a court-ordered restraining or protective from buying bullets, the website states.

The idea is already being criticized by the leader of one gun-advocacy group in the state. Rich Burgess of Connecticut Carry, told the Independent that Looney's proposal is politically motivated and "has nothing to do with stopping these kinds of madmen from committing heinous acts.”

CAjones January 03, 2013 at 05:51 PM
Two things, first WHY is that communist RAG, "the Independent" getting the story first? and secondly, according to this piece and the source RAG, if passed anyone with a felony OR a "misdemeanor" will be barred from buying ammunition? So let me get this straight, if a gun owner is convicted of, lets say JAYWALKING, he is no longer eligible to buy ammo?......... Let's watch this closely guys is all I'm saying, here is a commie rag reporting a story put out there by a Looney. Need I say more?
Grace January 03, 2013 at 06:14 PM
This is a completely reasonable effort being put forth by Mr. Looney. Why would anyone want someone barred from owning a gun, to own ammo? It's not necessary for EVERYONE to have access to guns. Some people are not fit to own them.
Bill Fasula January 03, 2013 at 06:42 PM
Looney does his name proud.
CAjones January 03, 2013 at 06:44 PM
Indeed.
CAjones January 03, 2013 at 06:45 PM
Grace at face value it sounds like a slam dunk, no brainer. But they had to tweak it to include "misdemeanors"? That's going too far because there are numerous minor offenses that someone could be charged with a misdemeanor, which should in no way hinder their eligibility to buy or possess guns or ammo.
Grace January 03, 2013 at 06:51 PM
Mr. Jones, I think you'll find that many similar proposals being put forth call for exaggerated, sweeping overhauls. I find this to be acceptable. Why? Well, we have to start somewhere, in order to meet somewhere. Changes need to be made. Swift and broad changes. Do I think that someone whose only crime was "jaywalking" to lose their ability to purchase ammo? Not necessarily. I hope that the result of proposals such as this will end up curtailing some individuals ability to purchase ammo, though. It's about compromise.
Grace January 03, 2013 at 06:54 PM
I should have written Do I think it's fair.... someone could lose their ability... No, I do not think a convicted jaywalker, if this is their only offense, should be prohibited from purchasing ammo. Hope that's clear above.
thomas January 03, 2013 at 07:01 PM
bottom line this is a severely retarded species. amen
CAjones January 03, 2013 at 07:03 PM
I could agree in principal with what you say, unfortunately many empowered to make laws, themselves have no principals. Therefore I'd like to see this "legislation" in writing before making final judgement. I will however say this, as it pertains to "compromise". We law abiding citizens have had far to many of our civil liberties trounced in the past few years, in this regard there is not much room left for "compromise".
George Kenyon January 03, 2013 at 07:31 PM
CAjones- My interpretation of whats proposed is it would only be a crime for those who were barred from owning firearms by statute. Which would mean only certain misdemeanors, Restraining orders/Protective orders etc. On the surface, it makes sense. If you are legally barred from having a firearm, I doubt there is a legal intention for ammo.
CAjones January 03, 2013 at 07:39 PM
If that is correct then as I said earlier, it's a no brainer. Sounds like just stopping a loophole oversight that should already be on the books.
George Kenyon January 03, 2013 at 08:03 PM
Again I only read Looney's proposal, which as with anything would face possible amendments etc. This failed 2 years ago. Lets not forget, Sen Looney is also a very anti-gun politcian and very entitlement driven. Among his proposals this year are a bill to provide taxpayer funded transportation to jails so kids can visit their parents, and another bill to provide tax payer money to TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) to attend colleges. below are his wish list so far. http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2013/01/martinlooneybills.pdf
Lori Fogler Nicholson January 04, 2013 at 02:03 PM
Under democratic leadership we continue to have the top 3 out of 5 poorist cities in the United States even though we have the highest per capita income and per capita debt by the way. Sen Looney has placed himself in a position that will keep him" in power" and the area he represents has not improved for all the legislation he proposes. Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven all in the bottom 5 again...three years after the initial study. This law is publicity for him and a host of other coat tail legislators who will no doubt have this on their next mailer to constituents. Just watch...and in your lenghty tenure sir your district remains in abysmal shape.
Ct. Mama January 05, 2013 at 10:31 PM
Grace, you sound like a very sane person. As for the other commentators......
Voice of Reason January 08, 2013 at 06:29 PM
This article confuses. I read the actually Bill presented and it is directed to those that are Statutorily barred from firearms ownership. Doesn't sound like a bad thing but we already have this as a Federal regulation. States can turn cases over to Federal Court for a felony conviction for as little as possession of one round or even possession of components. Another case of Legislators acting without knowing laws and/or the topic. A waste of time when we can be looking at getting to the root of the problems.
joe January 10, 2013 at 02:48 PM
HERE HERE Lori, It lost past time these senators and congressmen take responsibility for there lack of any type of inprovement on our cities and country.
Lori Fogler Nicholson January 10, 2013 at 03:07 PM
I'd like to know what your definition of sanity is Ct. Mama. I worked at the connecticut general assembly and even though there has been a task force on domestic violence for years headed my mae flexor the number of incidents continue to rise on a yearly basis. All the talk in the world does not make for action or improvement. However politicians are great at earned media credit. Senator Looneys constituents are in worse shape than 99% of the rest of the country and yet he is elected year after year without any noticeable improvements. Is that sane behavior? I say hold the elected officials accountable. By the way I ran for state representative this past year and did put my neck out there in an attempt to improve our currant situation. I had hoped to win and would have gladly worked as hard and smart as possible to "improve" the lives of those I represent...not simply find any available camera and stand in front of it.
Lori Fogler Nicholson January 10, 2013 at 03:13 PM
Also...I agree with you gGace ...not everyone is fit to own a firearm nor should there be "access" to firearms in a household where an individual has demonstarted unstable behavior which has been documented. As I mentioned earlier , one of my dear freinds suffers from a mental disorder and when she experiences episodes I suspect that if a firearm were in the household she would either aim it at herself or at the voices she hears in the bushes. We need to have a conversation about mental illness if we are to "improve" the situation.
Mary January 12, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Looney indeed. Always attacking law abiding gun owners and giving criminals breaks.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something