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.”

Phil Sengle January 03, 2013 at 05:54 PM
No problem with this suggestion but it won't solve anything. There are three main factors involved in violence. 1. the person and their mental or emotional state. 2. the culture of violence promoted by games and Hollywood and 3. the weapon used. The least culpable of these is the weapon. But politicians will focus on #3 because it is the simplest, costs the least and will get them the most publicity. But it will cause health care costs to go up as they break their arms patting themselves on the back.
Art Kuever January 03, 2013 at 07:44 PM
I am in total agreement with you. If I am barred from having a gun and I have one, what makes anyone think that I will not be able to get the ammunition for the gun that I am not supposed to have. This suggestion should have been included whatever bill the restriction of the ability to get the gun was done under. Actually, it is probably implied by that gun restriction in the first place. Why another law? just to say that he introduced the first bill so he can put it on his resume for re-election. Sort of like the Cell phone Laws, I believe they were probably covered under distracted driving, reckless driving, or some other motor vehicle law but it made good sense for whomever put the new law foward for the recongition.
DisgruntledInClinton January 03, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Let me be the first to say it- is this senator aptly named or what?


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
See more »