Can this be reversed? New Gun Laws in CT?

[Lark]

Are there any CT residents here who spoke out at the committee hearings when this bill was heard? It is my experience that when a legislature tries to ban something it really drives people to act. Did this happen in CT? The legislature there seems to be open to all; http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/Content/YourVoice.asp and with a state as small as CT you're 90 minutes or less away from the capital.

In WA we were subjected to nearly the same crap but people turned out in droves to let their Reps know how they felt.

lark

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Lark

Are there any CT residents here who spoke out at the committee hearings when this bill was heard?

The bill was not subjected to any hearings. The bill (all 139 pages of it) was written entirely in secret by a small committee. The bill was finally given to the full legislature (both chambers) sometime late on Monday. They railroaded through getting it certified as "emergency" legislation, which meant that it did not have to go through any committees or have any public hearings. It was voted in on Wednesday, basically 48 hours after the rank-and-file legislators first saw it.

It is unlikely most of them read the entire bill. If they did, they could not possibly have understood it because the police departments are still trying to figure it out. It was like Pelosi with Obamacare: "We'll have to pass it to find out what it says."

{Edit to add} http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/new_lon...s#.UWVQdKyRdAN

[Lark]

That is messed up. While I have attended committee hearings in Olympia where they amended the bill just prior to the hearing without telling the public, passing legislation without public hearings is just bizarre.

lark

[Spats McGee]

Passing legislation without hearings may also violate Due Process. Unless I am sadly mistaken, "notice and an opportunity to be heard" are the cornerstones of Due Process.

[Aguila Blanca]

They did the same thing in New York. Connecticut got around it by certifying the legislation as "emergency" -- even though the shooting was 3-1/2 months prior and there was no history or pattern of similar mass shootings in Connecticut for something like 350 years.

Basically, it just shows how broken the political system has become in the United States today, but that's a topic probably beyond the scope of this forum. The bottom line is that Connecticut has an emergency process to streamline the adoption of laws, and they used it here even though there wasn't any emergency. I guess anything is an emergency if they have enough legislators to vote that it's an emergency. (How's THAT for due process?)

The word I received in a brief e-mail from my friend at the CCDL meeting is that there will be an appeal in Federal court. Supposedly the NRA will be part of the suit, or backing it in some way. No mention of the Second Amendment Foundation. I had asked about a challenge in state court under Connecticut's state constitution. The response was that the legislature thinks they worded the law in such a way that it doesn't violate the state constitution. Since there is no state supreme court affirming a right to be armed with the "weapons in common use," that may be a valid assessment. Connecticut folks are still allowed to carry 10-round firearms, so their RKBA under the state constitution has not been eliminated.

I just hope the legal team in Connecticut is up to the task. It is obvious from several news reports I've been reading that both Connecticut and the Obama administration are hoping to export the Connecticut approach to other states. To quote our old friend Barney Fife, "We've got to nip it in the bud."

[Spats McGee]

Oh, I understand the whole "emergency clause" bit. I'd have to take a long look at the procedures used, but as you might imagine, I have some concerns about CT's (&NY's) ability to circumvent Due Process using state law procedures.

[Tom Servo]

I have some concerns about CT's (&NY's) ability to circumvent Due Process using state law procedures.

One of the legal challenges to the NY SAFE Act is along those very lines.

[brickhouseblues]

Why don't the politicians come out and speak the truth for once. I mean in my opinion what they really are trying to do is control the citizens by doing away with our constitution and do as they please. It's apparent that power has corrupted many politicians. Our 2nd Amendment right's is a threat to them as they fear an armed populous. I don't fear an intruder nor a drive through some rough neighborhoods, what I do fear is our government... Now there's something to fear! What a shame.

[Uconnjack]

Bump to see if anyone knows the status of CT's legislation. Now that the Federal UBC is defeated, will the NRA turn the attention to the state issues?

......or am I stuck with this?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Uconnjack

Bump to see if anyone knows the status of CT's legislation. Now that the Federal UBC is defeated, will the NRA turn the attention to the state issues?

......or am I stuck with this?

The legislation was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor on April 4, so the status is that it is now law. As I posted above, a friend of mine in Connecticut has told me that the CCDL will be appealing the law in court (Federal court, I believe) and that the NRA will be involved in some way that was not clear to me from the very brief e-mail he sent.

If you are in Connecticut, I would suggest that you join the CCDL and attend their next meeting. Then you can update us on the status of the appeal.

[Uconnjack]

Thanks for the heads-up on the CCDL. I will look into joining.