Another nail in CT 2A's coffin; Temporary restraining order passes senate

[allen-1]

http://fox61.com/2016/05/02/bill-re...s-to-surrender-guns-passes-state-legislature/

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Senate-approves-gun-seizures-7388578.php



Okay - so, I'm not a lawyer, yada, yada - but as I understand all of this, here's how it works -

Someone files a complaint - you don't get to face your accuser. The temporary restraining order is issued by a judge without you being able to defend yourself. If a temporary restraining order is filed, you have 24 hours to transfer your firearms. You then get a hearing within 7 days at which the judge determines under normal proceedings if he's going to issue a restraining order. If the restraining order isn't issued, you get your guns back.

Yeah. Let's see how many problems I can find with that.

1 - I went through very ugly child custody court battles with my ex, the police visited multiple times. If this card were available to her to use against me, I'm sure it would have been played.
2 - Firearms are being seized just upon an unsubstantiated complaint, without being allowed to face your accuser, and without due process.
3 - Firearms have to be "transferred", I don't know for sure, but I doubt that there's language in the law to allow the transfer back of firearms such as "assault weapons" that can't currently be transferred to private owners in Connecticut.


These are just the problems with this that come immediately to mind. More "common-sense" gun laws that screw the gun-owner.

Fck you Malloy, and Fck Connecticut.

Allen-1; living quite happily in Georgia now...

 

[Paul455]

Connecticut has really gone downhill since Malloy took over.

It is a worst place than Mass. now.

 

[Woda]

I to hate say it because it just feels the same as saying "its better to get your hand cut off than your foot" but I'd still take CT over MA any day.

 

[todd c]

I to hate say it because it just feels the same as saying "its better to get your hand cut off than your foot" but I'd still take CT over MA any day.

i dont have to register mags with the state yet

 

[Carl in Ct]

I haven't read this bill thoroughly yet but my understanding is just what allen-1 said. I really don't know how this can be considered constitutional when it removes a constitutional right (to bear arms) while ignoring another (due process). Still, this will pass and be signed by Gov. Dan "Obama Butt Swab" Malloy. Even if it is successfully struck down as unconstitutional it will take years (and a lot of taxpayer money for lawyers and court costs) and many law abiding gun owners will have been denied two of their constitutional rights in the meantime and will probably never be able to get all of their guns back. The other thing is, from what I have read almost half of these temporary restraining orders do not result in a real restraining order being given by the judge. These things will absolutely be used as a weapon to punish gun owners for doing nothing wrong. I am so sickened by this crap. It just feels like no matter how hard we fight it, this stuff keeps getting passed and there is no checks or balances and the SCOTUS is useless.

 

[Tallen]

Hit back twice as hard. File temporary restraining orders against all the governor and all politicians that voted for it - and their bodyguards. Then up the ante: start filing restraining orders against police officers.

 

[Carl in Ct]

Hit back twice as hard. File temporary restraining orders against all the governor and all politicians that voted for it - and their bodyguards. Then up the ante: start filing restraining orders against police officers.

It may come to that. I am sure they will just pass an exception clause if there isn't one already.

 

[Paul455]

I to hate say it because it just feels the same as saying "its better to get your hand cut off than your foot" but I'd still take CT over MA any day.

I have no ax to grind with Conn., but the economy must be bad as there is a huge number of Conn. folks commuting to Mass. everyday to work.

 

[JAD]

I have no ax to grind with Conn., but the economy must be bad as there is a huge number of Conn. folks commuting to Mass. everyday to work.

While Connecticut does have a lousy job situation, I think that statement is a little disingenuous. I could say that Massachusetts has a crappy economy because I have coworkers who commute to the Hartford-area to work. The reality is, they found a job that they don't intend to give up. When I interviewed for a position in a wealthy Danbury suburb, about 40% of cars in the lot had New York tags (my guess is housing quality and cost). Similarly, when I was working in NW CT, my plan (if I kept working there) involved moving to Mass- because of lower real estate costs and a better gun situation. I've also applied for jobs in Mass before. With some of them, my plan was to stay in Connecticut and commute- at least for a while, if hired. Others, the plan would have been to relocate to either Mass or NH, if hired. I wasn't hired, but regardless my motivation for applying wasn't lack of opportunity in Connecticut but rather because I really liked the job or employer in Mass.

 

[RImike]

JFC, how the frack does this shit pass? We had 10 ****ing "domestic violence" *cough* gun control *bills* introduced and they all got held in committee, both the senate and the house and they will never see the sight of day sans one bill that has due process and actually mirrors federal law.

Other than that what the frack?

 

[JAD]

JFC, how the frack does this shit pass? We had 10 ****ing "domestic violence" *cough* gun control *bills* introduced and they all got held in committee, both the senate and the house and they will never see the sight of day sans one bill that has due process and actually mirrors federal law.

Other than that what the frack?

We have Democratic Supermajorities in both houses and a Democratic governor. All of those (collectively) hate guns but have done about all they can for the time being (as a matter of political practicality, without stepping too far onto potential constituent toes). In the past couple of years, there has also been a couple of high profile crimes that added impetus. (Articles in Connecticut papers have been pushing this for the last two years, or so). Certain papers have also been pushing that its wrong that Superior Court judges don't decide in favor of the petitioners when hearings are held.

In some ways, I'm sympathetic. However, the reality is that within our existing structure if somebody poses enough of a threat there was already viable mechanisms to get the guns out ASAP (i.e. via at risk warrant). After all, if somebody were planning to use the gun criminally against the protected person- what risk is a criminal possession rap when you're prep'ed to go down for murder, attempt, or assault 1?

 

[allen-1]

We have Democratic Supermajorities in both houses and a Democratic governor. All of those (collectively) hate guns but have done about all they can for the time being (as a matter of political practicality, without stepping too far onto potential constituent toes). In the past couple of years, there has also been a couple of high profile crimes that added impetus. (Articles in Connecticut papers have been pushing this for the last two years, or so). Certain papers have also been pushing that its wrong that Superior Court judges don't decide in favor of the petitioners when hearings are held.

In some ways, I'm sympathetic. However, the reality is that within our existing structure if somebody poses enough of a threat there was already viable mechanisms to get the guns out ASAP (i.e. via at risk warrant). After all, if somebody were planning to use the gun criminally against the protected person- what risk is a criminal possession rap when you're prep'ed to go down for murder, attempt, or assault 1?

"All of those (collectively) hate guns but have done about all they can for the time being (as a matter of political practicality, without stepping too far onto potential constituent toes). "

I absolutely agree with the first part of your statement, but disagree with the second part. I left Connecticut for several reasons, but two of the three were the taxes/economy and the gun laws being enacted by the current administration.

Right now - as in - TODAY - Wednesday May 4th - it's the final day of the legislation and there's no budget in place for next year. The state of Connecticut is looking at a 256 million dollar deficit for the current fiscal year and a 960 million dollar deficit for the next fiscal year. Yet instead of dedicating their time and resources to solving this financial crisis - they're taking time to fck with gun owners and patting themselves on the back. They should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

 

[Whutmeworry]

We have Democratic Supermajorities in both houses and a Democratic governor. All of those (collectively) hate guns but have done about all they can for the time being (as a matter of political practicality, without stepping too far onto potential constituent toes). In the past couple of years, there has also been a couple of high profile crimes that added impetus. (Articles in Connecticut papers have been pushing this for the last two years, or so). Certain papers have also been pushing that its wrong that Superior Court judges don't decide in favor of the petitioners when hearings are held.

In some ways, I'm sympathetic. However, the reality is that within our existing structure if somebody poses enough of a threat there was already viable mechanisms to get the guns out ASAP (i.e. via at risk warrant). After all, if somebody were planning to use the gun criminally against the protected person- what risk is a criminal possession rap when you're prep'ed to go down for murder, attempt, or assault 1?

I have to pile on with allen-1's disagreement regarding your second paragraph but for a different reason.

Collectively as a firearms-rights community we HAVE to start reminding people that our government at all levels is doing little (in fact less and less) to remove violent people from free society and/or keep them removed from society.

The left is successful at achieving their progressive agenda because they keep pushing simple (wrong-headed though they are) talking points, slogans and messages. We can likewise push this very simple message:

IT'S NOT THE GUNS, IT'S THE VIOLENT PEOPLE THE GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO KEEP REMOVED FROM FREE SOCIETY THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!

We need to repeat this message over, and over, and over, and over again, and we need to get "in your face" about it!!!

Everybody knows this is the simple truth - they just forget because they're being bombarded with lies perpetuated by the liberal press and liberal politicians. There needs to be a sustained campaign to counter these lies and remind people of what they already know, because it really IS that simple! /rant.

 

[Woda]

i dont have to register mags with the state yet

First its not possible to register something that does not have a serial number on it.

Second, I have dozens of legal magazines that the state doesn't know about.

Third, how's your $800 Glock treating you?

And that silencer on your glock... must be fun right?

Last, I don't go hat in hand to get my pistol permit. SHALL ISSUE.

 

[Carl in Ct]

As gun owners there is no defense for CT or MA, or NY, CA, MD, etc, they all suck so lets not bother fighting about that.