TexasCHLforum.com

The new legislation clarifies some ambiguities and expands those who can legally possess and purchase banned "assault weapons". It also clarifies the status of .22 rimfire rifles to define them as assault weapons if they have detachable magazines and more than one of several defined features....

Connecticut lawmakers who passed strict new gun control measures in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre approved a package of revisions Monday to reduce confusion about the new rules and expand the list of officials who can legally possess restricted firearms.

http://news.yahoo.com/conn-lawmakers-re ... 56479.html

The revisions expand the list of inspectors and enforcement officers who can legally possess and purchase the banned firearms to include sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles, the chief state's attorney office, the department of energy and environmental protection and some constables with police certification. It exempts such officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership, and allows them to maintain possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them.

Folks they left out in the rush to get a bill, or marginal officials that wouldn't in the normal course of their duties require such weaponry?

Dadtodabone wrote:Folks they left out in the rush to get a bill, or marginal officials that wouldn't in the normal course of their duties require such weaponry?

Would not be my guess. My suspicion is "elitism."

"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

Fit's the bill very well IMHO.This is the same thing that was just shot down in Austin last week. The House tried to modify a bill to allow them to carry weapons without restriction, the same as law enforcement, on the premise they faced more danger than the average citizen. They were caught and the bill was handily defeated.

Larry

lfinsr wrote:

Dadtodabone wrote:Folks they left out in the rush to get a bill, or marginal officials that wouldn't in the normal course of their duties require such weaponry?

Would not be my guess. My suspicion is "elitism."

"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

Fit's the bill very well IMHO.This is the same thing that was just shot down in Austin last week. The House tried to modify a bill to allow them to carry weapons without restriction, the same as law enforcement, on the premise they faced more danger than the average citizen. They were caught and the bill was handily defeated.

Larry

... and then refiled (or something similar filed) for the extended session -- viewtopic.php?f=125&t=66728" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sjfcontrol wrote:

lfinsr wrote:

Dadtodabone wrote:Folks they left out in the rush to get a bill, or marginal officials that wouldn't in the normal course of their duties require such weaponry?

Would not be my guess. My suspicion is "elitism."

"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

Fit's the bill very well IMHO.This is the same thing that was just shot down in Austin last week. The House tried to modify a bill to allow them to carry weapons without restriction, the same as law enforcement, on the premise they faced more danger than the average citizen. They were caught and the bill was handily defeated.

Larry

... and then refiled (or something similar filed) for the extended session -- viewtopic.php?f=125&t=66728" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't see that. We can only hope it meets the same fate.