Connecticut governor set to sign gun control law

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    April 5, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    @ Irony Guy

    Was that a joke? Because the well regulated part refers to the militia, not the guns.

    @ The Skeptical Chymist

    Question. You call it a reasonable step forward. I'd like to know how far the steps should go before they become UN-reasonable. In your opinion.

  • DisturbedOne LEWISTON, UT
    April 5, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    So Obama says the school kids were killed with a fully automatic weapon. Either he is an idiot that has no clue what he is talking about or the government is lying about what happened.

  • tlaulu Taylorsville, Utah
    April 4, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    I heard on the evening news that people who have been killed by guns probably would have supported the ban on guns. I sure hope they don't. If I was killed by a violent incident with a gun. I would go to my grave wishing that I would've had a gun.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    April 4, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    I always enjoy comments from people who declare a law "unconstitutional" because they read part of the Constitution once and think themselves experts. Our third branch of government - the courts - have the final say. By all means, read the Constitution, but don't forget to read all the court cases that follow.

  • hubbardesquire Alabaster, Alabama
    April 4, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    This law is clearly unconstitutional. Further, it will not survive any Court challenges in United States District Court. It therefore is destined for the trash heap, which is definitely where it belongs.

  • John A Johanson Murray, UT
    April 4, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    This law is ridiculous as it will do nothing to stop criminals from getting what ever weapons they want, it is just another example of the nanny state getting stronger. If I lived in that state and my represenitive voted for this nonsence they'd be hearing from me every day. What part of keeping and bearing arms shall not be ifringed do they not understand. THE ONLY THING THAT STOPS A BAD GUY WITH A GUN IS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN!!!

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 4, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    BRAVO, Connecticut! As techpubs points out, this doesn't solve all the problems but it is a reasonable step forward.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    April 4, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Not sure what's practical about parts of this bill.
    1. Magazines don't have Serial Numbers on them so it will be difficult to register the existing ones.
    2. Will the Law Enforcement Officers and State Security Forces also be banned from having these guns and magazines?
    3. How much additional cost will be involved in background checks that are required to purchase ammunition or magazines?
    4. Will all of these background check records be destroyed after verification or will they become a defacto gun registry?
    5. Doesn't really address the problem of preventing guns, etc. from being purchased or stolen by people who are not on the Do Not Sell Registry but are mentally unstable.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 4, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    At least one state is finally carrying out the 2nd Amendment mandate 'well regulated.' Good work, CN.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    April 4, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    Good for Connecticut. Let's hope their example of practical gun control shows the remaining states how to get it done.