New Amendments To SB1160

You thought just because SB1160 was already signed into law as Public Act 13-3 that they were done with it?

According to the bill listing for Raised Bill SB1094 on the Connecticut General Assembly website there are two brand new amendments that actually modify SB1160/Public Act 13-3.
Senate LCO Amendment #8513 [pdf]
Senate LCO Amendment #7936 [pdf]

It looks to me they are trying to correct some of the mistakes they made. On a quick skim of the amendments I see clarification about banned items purchased but not delivered prior to the new law, what appears to be an exemption for high-end rimfire target pistols, and what seemed to be clarification that the new law does not apply to firearms purchased with a Federally-issued firearms collector’s license (C&R/FFL03) There also seems to be clarifications on exemptions for law enforcement and state agencies.

13 thoughts on “New Amendments To SB1160

    • Michael, when you read these things blue underlined text is a new addition and red bracketed text is old text to be deleted.

  1. If they can offer amendments, why can’t we through one of our “friends” in the legislature???

  2. MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! This law/bills is a sad joke. It is a sin that a judge doesn’t read our suit, agree and issue an immediate injunction. If a law is so complex the average person can’t possibly understand and follow it, then it is null and void.

    God I wish I could move south.

  3. not only that I didn’t see a change to the definition of fire arm relative to it being a weapon able to fire a projectile… thus all black powder guns are now a “firearms” under the new laws and subject to pistol and rifle regulations. Banning ball and powder caused 1 revolution…..

  4. Seems like some amendments will be in the future due to the charges filed against the state. Their hoping to defuse the support for the fight. Just remember if the law is on the books, changes can be made…. good and bad.

  5. hahaha = the despp stuff, like they made the law to copy their stupid form they posted and took down … I oppose all amendments !

  6. Looks like they still left .22 caliber rim fire rifles alone unless I missed something.

  7. Rimfire rifles appear have been reverted back their pre-SB1160 status. You are allowed to have one “evil feature” without it being considered an “assault weapon” or at least that is my understanding. There was a single line added to the amendment that states “(ix) Any semiautomatic firearm that meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection (a) of section 53-202a of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013;”

  8. An ex post facto law is unconstitutional, therefore until such time as ammendments go into effect, the act signed on 4/4 is in effect. That being said, from 4/4 until ammendments are effective that state otherwise, .22 rifles are exempt and can have any features.

  9. The situation with respect to .22 caliber rifles is very unclear; I simply cannot figure it out.

    I believe they are legal so long as they have either an adjustable stock or a pistol grip, but not both.

    But, it’s unclear whether the definition of “pistol grip” that now applies is the old “protrudes conspicuously” language, or the new definition which calls anything a pistol grip if it allows the rifle to be fired with any finger of the trigger hand — other than the trigger finger itself — held below any portion of the action. If the new definition of “pistol grip” applies to the old two-feature test, then the rifles used in Olympic Biathlon are now illegal in Connecticut. (The stock is designed so you can ski while carrying it; the grip is a prominent bend in the butt itself.)

    The “exemption” for Olympic-style target pistols is not really an exemption. They are still “assault weapons” and have to be registered as such. Once Public Safety publishes a “list”, then some models will be legal to sell and register. There is no indication of when that list will be prepared, and who they might consult to prepare it. (I don’t have much confidence that the State Police know much about competition; if they did, then target pistols would have been exempted from the get-go. At least I hope so.) And these “assault .22 caliber pistols” are still subject to all of the restrictions on transportation, etc. that apply to other “assault weapons.” And there are restrictions on transporting them into the state. An out-of-state competitor can transport it here for 48 hours before and after a competition, but someone who vacations here cannot bring his/her target pistol to use for recreational purposes during the vacation. This is probably the end of out-of-state members for Connecticut clubs, since they would not be able to bring their pistols to the club range.

    Note that the law provides for this exception for “Olympic style pistols” but no exemption for rifles that are used in Olympic sports. It also refers to USA Shooting, which is the US governing body not only for Olympic shooting, but also for the International Shooting Sports Federation (ISSF) which sponsors other international shooting competitions. (The Olympics are held only once every four years; there are international ISSF events every year.) There are a more limited number of events in the Olympics because the games encompass all the other sports, too. It’s unclear whether pistols appropriate for other ISSF events can be placed on the “list” so they can be sold and registered.

    The June law also reinstates some of the criteria that were removed from the definition of pistols as “assault weapons.” The weight restriction is back in the law now, for example.

Comments are closed.