• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SB 1094 Dead in Committee!

Lenny Benedetto

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
470
Location
VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
Now let's vote out the individuals responsible for proposing it

Just wondering,
Has anybody actually found the real person responsible fro this "Cluster F" of a bill?

Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, 3rd Dist. has his name on it as a COSPONSOR. His name was not on the bill even as we testified against it.
The many hours I sepnt at the LOB that day gave me time to engage in many, hallway, conversations with members of the Judiciary Committee as well as many other elected officials.

Not a single one actually knew who was the actual person that initiated the bill. People that I consider friends up there all figured that Looney had something to do with it, yet not a one could find any actual proof.

If it is Looney, just remeber that New Haven Loves him and all the Dems that they elect.
 

Tactical9mm

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Manchester, New Hampshire
Lenny,

I recently researched this in great detail and was not able to find any other names attached to the bill (just the one you mentioned). Even on the official CT.gov sites there was nothing attached to the bill.

This strikes me as extremely odd that something of this magnitude doesn't have a paper trail of sponsorship. Correct me if I wrong but isn't it "standard procedure" to have someone introduce a bill, and then sponsors need to sign on? There should be at least a few other names on this shameful list.

The "Judiciary Committee" seems to be the ones responsible for introducing it, but I can't find a definitive list of names for people in it, or ones directly responsible for introducing this bill.
 
Last edited:

Lenny Benedetto

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
470
Location
VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
Lenny,

I recently researched this in great detail and was not able to find any other names attached to the bill (just the one you mentioned). Even on the official CT.gov sites there was nothing attached to the bill.

This strikes me as extremely odd that something of this magnitude doesn't have a paper trail of sponsorship. Correct me if I wrong but isn't it "standard procedure" to have someone introduce a bill, and then sponsors need to sign on? There should be at least a few other names on this shameful list.

The "Judiciary Committee" seems to be the ones responsible for introducing it, but I can't find a definitive list of names for people in it, or ones directly responsible for introducing this bill.

Isn't it amazing!
A bill that has the potential of doing so much damage to honest gun owners and NOBODY can find out WHO started it!
Not even legislators that are on our side.

Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to hide themselves from us. Even Martin Looney who did testify that day on another bill, never mentioned 1094.
 
Last edited:

Alex.EastHartford.

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
112
Location
East Hartford, Connecticut, USA
Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, 3rd Dist.

Hey Lenny! bringing up this NAME GARY D. LEBEAU. i e-mail him to oppose this bill 1094. he or someone in office e-mail me back. and wrote: sorry Mr.Alex Sanchez. i support this bill. so I know he not for gun owners best interest.
 
Last edited:

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Alex,

Isn't that the email you showed me where he didn't mention his constituents once, just 'I support this bill......"

Gotta love the fact that he is a REPRESENTATIVE...... and he forgot what the word meant.

Jonathan
 

2A_Smith

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
6
Location
Ct.
sponsor of 1094

I only saw LeBeau's name associated after it was raised from the Public Safety Committee. Who 'introduced' it to PS? It seems that the trail gets deleted electronically when bills get 'raised'. Perhaps the 'Way-Back Machine' has a snapshot, I'll check.

2A
 

2A_Smith

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
6
Location
Ct.
current 1094 status

the only record I can find is here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/juddata/cbr/TBFRAMECBR3.HTM

the Judiciary Committee 'Bill Record Book' 3rd section, (...ecBR3.htm...)
and it says SENATOR LEBEAU, 3RD DIST.

Senate bills apparently are numbered 1-4,999
House bills apparently get the next 5000 numbers (5,000 - 9,999)

Bill Record Books are kept in 'sections'
Proposed Senate Bills 1
Proposed House Bills 2
(Senate) Raised & Committee 3
(House) Raised & Committee 4
Senate Resolutions 5
House Resolutions 6
Change of Reference Senate 7
Change of Reference House 8
from the Senate floor 9
from the House floor 10
Governor's bills and ECERTS 11

So the most likely place for a Raised bill originating in the Senate is section 3, and that's where I found it.
I'm new to this so I'd appreciate any pointers from those more familiar.

The bottom line is that we need to take action to educate people as to why the 2nd amendment is important.

Let's count backwards. The second amendment is to assure that if and when the People need to, they can fight for what's right.
The First amendment is so that if and when the People are disgruntled about what's not right, they can SAY something about it.
The Zeroth Amendment may not need protecting, (freedom of thought) but it sure needs some exercising. Our duty is to get people thinking about where all this is leading! The rest will follow its course.

2A
 

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
I heard back from my Rep a couple of days ago. He said that there is some talk of trying to put it in as an amendment.

Here's the danger. If it comes back as an amendment, it will probably be written as to only ban future sales.

Its pretty well accepted that the original bill was an over reach. My rep does not consider himself to be either pro or anti-gun. He was prepared to vote against the original bill because it had significant potential to turn normal non-politically aware citizens into felons. And also because it could represent forfeiture without compensation.

However, if the amendment were to just ban future sales, it would get MUCH more support.
So we need to keep pushing. We need our reps to know that even that type of legislation is unacceptable since it only hurts law abiding citizens and will not affect criminals.

Don
 
Last edited:
Top