CT circumvents process to pass Anti-gun bill...

[1stmar]

Newtown Hearings Giving Way To Expedited Legislative Schedule http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...,7260991.story
Some state legislative leaders want to pass a composite bill, the major issue firearms, by Feb. 28. To meet the deadline, lawmakers will bypass the normal system of legislative committee deliberations and public hearings by using the emergency certification, or "e-cert" process. Normally, legislation of this magnitude would have to go through numerous standing committees including appropriations, judiciary, public safety and insurance – each of which might have held its own hearing. But the emergency-certification process bypasses that. State Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams said there's been ample public input.

[adamc]

I would not be surprised if they pull something like that.....

I appears that our CT leadership both local and in Washington
Has no intention to listen to us residents who are legal gun owners...

The deals have already been made

2A is approaching dead here in CT....to join the ranks of NY. Etc.

What a joke

[Levant]

The saddest thing is that these states were among the original 13 states of the United States.

[HarrySchell]

They are afraid the hobby horses of emotion will not last long enough to see their agenda enacted.

Well, with all the school shootings all over CT every day for the last two years, they finally figured out what "emergency" means...

Makes me wonder more and more what the real goal is.

[Patriot86]

NY State, CT and any others who pass these unconstitutional 7 round limits are going to get slapped hard by the SCOTUS. They must really feel one of our favorable Heller/McDonald votes is going to be gone by the time this comes up, I hope the antis are wrong!

[Aguila Blanca]

Even if one of "our" votes is gone, the SCOTUS really doesn't like to reverse itself. And both the Heller and McDonald decisions are so well written and so well documented that even a new majority would have a difficult time reversing it. And in Heller Justice Scalia laid out why the very guns these knee-jerk gun grabbers want to ban are exactly the guns that the second Amendment protects: the firearms that are in common use.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Aguila, you are very cocksure of that. No one knows how SCOTUS will vote. If they vote these laws as constitutional we are absolutely screwed in the worst imaginable way. Right after that, the fed will throw out a 5-round limit and the next thing you know we will all be using bolt actions again.

We have 3 absolute socialists.

We have 1 relatively unknown who will probably be a socialist.

We have 1 populist.

We have 1 constitutionalist.

We have 3 conservatives in various forms.


Yes SCOTUS ruled recently (twice) on RKBA, but we still have a ton of ground to get the 2A as a respected "right" of the people with a firm history. For all they are worth Heller and McDonald have not made much headway for gun rights. The only major wins we've had were in the 7th (Ezell and now Moore). On the other end we have had the CA1, CA2, CA4, and CA9 all say that magically "keep and carry in case of confrontation" may be a the discretion of the state.

[Aguila Blanca]

Not cocksure at all, and I recognize the danger. I'm jsy not yet to the point of throwing in the towel and saying it's all over.

That said, we very much need to keep the pressure on right now, at this critical time as the mass hysteria following sandy Hook sweeps the politicians along in a tsunami.

[adamc]

Here in Connecticut the 2A is approaching extinction..........

letter from Senator Murphy


1. From: [email protected]
To: adamc
Subject: A message from the office of Senator Christopher Murphy
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:40:26 -0500
2. Thank you for contacting me about how we can prevent future gun tragedies. I appreciate your correspondence and hope that you find this response helpful.
Gun violence prevention is a sensitive and complicated issue that can be very divisive. While we may not agree on all aspects of how to best enact change, it is important to remember that we do all have the same priorities at heart: the safety of our children, the traditions of our forefathers, and the freedom of our fellow Americans. I can assure you that I am working hard every day to ensure that all of these priorities can be achieved.
Newtown will forever be a reminder of what can happen when even one deranged person can gain access to a deadly weapon. Newtown was not the first time it happened, but I am committed to making sure it is among the last. Too many lives have been traumatically ended or interrupted by gun violence, and our nation has waited too long to establish real safeguards that are capable of protecting the lives of our children and families. Now is the time to work together to establish stronger common sense gun laws that will simultaneously protect our Constitutional rights and keep Americans safe.
As you may be aware, I recently announced my support for the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, a bill that would take critical steps towards eliminating high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons that are designed to inflict deadly harm and mass casualties. Specifically, this bill will ban semiautomatic weapons that can accept detachable magazines and have at least one military feature, as well as eliminating high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It excludes weapons that are used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement, as well as antique weapons and a specific list of 2,258 makes and models of legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns. Passing this legislation is an important first step in preventing a mass shooting in the future.
But there is still more work to be done. Research has demonstrated again and again that background checks are effective in keeping guns out of the hands of potential criminals, and most American households--gun-owners and non-owners alike--agree on the importance of this safeguard. Unfortunately, 40% of gun sales today do not require background checks because they are private sales, made over the internet or at gun shows through non-licensed dealers. We need to increase the efficacy of our existing program by closing these loopholes and making it harder for dangerous people to obtain deadly weapons.







3.
Further, preventing the next Newtown is not only about reducing access to the deadliest of weapons. Mental illness is a common thread among the perpetrators of recent mass shootings, and identification and treatment of potentially dangerous people must be made a priority. At the same time, we must recognize that there is absolutely no inherent connection between mental illness and violent behavior, and any steps we take to address these issues must not further stigmatize mental illness or discourage individuals and families from seeking diagnosis and treatment.
As we debate ways to stop gun violence, we must also ensure that the conversation does not stop at Newtown, but encompasses the thousands of victims of gun violence across the country every year. Specifically, too many urban neighborhoods are plagued by unacceptably high rates of gun violence. Better access to mental health care and smarter, more effective common sense gun laws can reduce this violence, and I will do everything I can to address this issue not only in the coming months, but every day that I am serving in the United States Senate.
4.
Thank you again for contacting me about this matter. I appreciate hearing from you and assure you that I will always do my best to represent the views of my constituents in the Senate. In the future, please do not hesitate to call me in my Connecticut office at (860) 549-8463 or my Washington office at (202) 224-4041.
Every Best Wish,

Christopher S. Murphy
United States Senator

[spacecoast]

Wow, what a pathetic letter from the Senator.

Too many lives have been traumatically ended or interrupted by gun violence

I bet the count of innocents is far fewer than the count of criminals who have met their end by firearms, but the gun grabbers never seem to distinguish between the two. They would rather recycle the criminals through our "justice" system, the funding of which is used to justify even more theft by taxation.

[Tom Servo]

we still have a ton of ground to get the 2A as a respected "right" of the people with a firm history.

Actually, from McDonald:

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. [Majority Opinion, p. 31]

That's a hard thing to reverse, particularly in only a few years.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The emergency provisions to get a bill to the entire legislature is a double edged sword.

In TX, we had enough votes to pass a campus carry bill , however each time - it got stuck in committee and never made it to a vote.

It is thought that this was an explicit, backroom deal where progun folks could posture but not pass the bill - which was opposed by powerful business and university lobbies.

Gov. Perry could have gotten it out to a vote with the emergency power BUT didn't. That is seen as deliberate as he put other crackpot things on that agenda but not guns.

So, don't throw away that power - it can be useful. Too bad Perry chose to not to. It was noted by the local gun rights organization.

[Aguila Blanca]

And, from Heller:

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

And:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

And:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

It would be a huge stretch for anyone to argue that a Glcok with a standard capacity magazine or an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine is not "in common use."

[Patriot86]

It would be a huge stretch for anyone to argue that a Glcok with a standard capacity magazine or an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine is not "in common use."

I agree 100% yet you have Millions if not tens of Millions of magazines and firearms set to be confiscated, destroyed or otherwise displaced if the SAFE act stands, or if other states like NJ, MA, CT, CA, OR, MN, CO etc pass bills that have recently been proposed.

What will happen if say the SCOTUS says the SAFE act is unconstitutional ? What happens if CT or another state pass laws stating that you have to turn in all "assault weapons' and "large capacity magazines" to be destroyed?

Hopefully you quickly find a federal court willing to issue an injunction until things are not sorted out, but that is not a sure thing. If not it is doubtful gun owners will ever be "made whole' through any sort of compensation.

[Conn. Trooper]

That is the exact same email I got from him when I emailed him my opposition to any new gun control. I am sure it is his standard canned response.

[speedrrracer]

For all they are worth Heller and McDonald have not made much headway for gun rights.

Disagree. In only 3 years since McDonald, we already have recognition by the antis that they can't take away our guns, hence all these nuisance bills attempting to box in the RKBA into as small an area as possible. It represents a complete shift in their goal, which was complete elimination of guns.

The fact they've only had a few years shows in their immature, incoherent and largely unconstitutional strategy. Many of these new bills, even if passed into law, will not survive challenges in court.

If Kachalsky goes well (and you'd have to be pretty pessimistic not to at least acknowledge it has a decent chance, given cert), it'll be another total paradigm shift for the antis, and even the lower courts will then know which way the wind is blowing, furthering our cause.

3 years is nothing in legal time, esp at the SCOTUS level. To expect the many anti judges of the lower courts to fall in step this quickly is unrealistic. Having to wait this long just to get a right with which we were all born surely sucks The Big One, but that's our system, we just need to give it time.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

From what I've seen of antis discussing Heller - they have moved to the view that you can't take all guns away. But they will try to limit the types and ban/confiscate the evil ones - even those presently owned.

If the SCOTUS changes, they will undo Heller and McDonald.

[Pilot]

If the SCOTUS changes, they will undo Heller and McDonald.

That is my great fear. A product of the Obama victory many forget. Plus, Scalia left the door open for more "restrictions" in the majority opinionof Heller.

[Patriot86]

they have moved to the view that you can't take all guns away. But they will try to limit the types and ban/confiscate the evil ones - even those presently owned.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...atory-license/

Perfect example above of what you pointed out Glenn. This is why I will never register any of my firearms.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Patriot86

What will happen if say the SCOTUS says the SAFE act is unconstitutional ? What happens if CT or another state pass laws stating that you have to turn in all "assault weapons' and "large capacity magazines" to be destroyed?

Coincidentally, I had this discussion with a co-worker just two days ago. We both agreed that if we found ourselves in a state such as NY that "outlawed" our firearms and/or magazines on the basis of a blatantly unconstitutional law, we'd box 'em up and transport them to the home of a relative or good friend in a free state for safekeeping. If the law subsequently gets stricken, we can bring 'em back. If the law gets tested in court and survives -- we can move to a free state and pick up our gear on the way.

[kilimanjaro]

The Supreme Court will overturn Heller and MacDonald at the first chance they get, should there be 5 or 6 leftists on the Court. In the above decisions, the dissenting opinions were nothing but pages of anti-gun drivel cloaked as reasoned jurisprudence. We can expect nothing less from them should they gain the majority on the Court.

[Come and take it.]

The governments will have to depend on the payment of registration fees for the guns. If they cannot get enough of these funds it can cause a significant budget problem on state governments.

Not promoting civil disobedience, but only pointing out the consequences if gun owners by whole agreement chose to not register their guns and pay any fees into the program.

[shootniron]

The Supreme Court will overturn Heller and MacDonald at the first chance they get, should there be 5 or 6 leftists on the Court. In the above decisions, the dissenting opinions were nothing but pages of anti-gun drivel cloaked as reasoned jurisprudence. We can expect nothing less from them should they gain the majority on the Court.

I agree...and it could come soon...

[Tom Servo]

The Supreme Court will overturn Heller and MacDonald at the first chance they get, should there be 5 or 6 leftists on the Court

I doubt it. One of the central tenets of their trade is precedent. They're supposed to be making constitutional judgements that stick, particularly when it comes to civil rights.

If they start reversing decisions only a couple of years after they're made, then the Court's very credibility as an arbiter of the Constitution gets thrown into question.

Reversing Heller and McDonald would be a tremendous sea change. The only such prior action on that level would be reversing Plessy v. Ferguson, and that took nearly 60 years.

[adamc]

YUP, Connecticut is down the dumper.

There has NOT been ANY Connecticut Legislator ( Local OR Washington)
who Has publicly supported 2A

so therefore they are all SUPPORTING the extinction of 2A

OK Connecticut voters... next election (if there will be one)
VOTE them all out ! I know it is wishful thinking, as this state clearly
has it's head up the Democrat Party's Butt...

Side note.. It is noted by some of the responses , that the CT crowd will exempt the Law enforcement branch and the Military for any of the bans..
( unlike the NY bunch of bums, who now have to 'fix' their law. )