Tag Archives: Connecticut Legislature

Governor Malloy Incompetent And/Or Ignorant Or Just Plain Gangsta?

Posted on by
Reply

I got a, frankly, disturbing email from my good friends at CCDL today pointing me to this article on their blog and am reposting it here to help get the word out. This is the kind of thing that happens when legislators meet in the dark back-rooms in the state capitol building in Hartford, sneaking through legislation under the false pretense of so-called Emergency Certification to bypass the normal procedures a bill goes through.

Governor Malloy was on the Chaz and A.J. show this morning where he took a call on the new gun law.

Caller:
Hey governor. I’m just curious about this new gun bill that came out especially with pistols with high capacity mags. Right now I’ve got two 14-round mags that are only loaded to 10 as required, but it’s unclear, can I carry both of them if they’re loaded to 10 or can I only carry one?

Malloy:
First of all what you have to do is disclose – there’s a way to disclose that you have them and you’re grandfathered in. So, that’s how our law works in Connecticut. You don’t lose the right to have them, you just have to say that you have them. “Hey, I’m Joe. I’ve got two of these.” and that’s it. So the limitations that you’re fearing aren’t necessarily in our bill. They are – I think you’re referring to New York’s law, quite frankly, and New York has a different set of laws than we do.

The Governor is mistaken. The law he signed into law back in April does indeed prevent someone from carrying a so-called ‘Large Capacity Magazine’ even if it is properly declared, and absolutely limits the number of bullets to 10.

Section 25(f)(7) of Public Act 13-3:
“Pursuant to a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver, provided such large capacity magazine (A) is within a pistol or revolver that was lawfully possessed by the person prior to the effective date of this section, (B) does not extend beyond the bottom of the pistol grip, and (C) contains not more than ten bullets.”

By requiring the magazine be “within” a pistol or revolver you are limiting the number of declared ‘large capacity magazine’ one is able to carry, along with the number of bullets it can contain. For the governor’s statement to be true you would need to carry multiple guns or find a gun the holds 2 or more magazines.

The Governor and Legislators were in such a rush to pass SB1160 they did not even hold public hearings, denying citizens their due process. Maybe if Governor Malloy had given the people, you know, those of us he called the “fringe of the fringe” a chance to speak about the bill, we could have pointed out issues such as this. Maybe if Governor Malloy had listened to those of us he labeled as the “fringe” he would understand the points of these new laws that are so confusing to us, the ones that actually try to obey the law. But, apparently, he doesn’t know what he signed into law.

This legislation is so convoluted that lawyers and elected officials are not sure what’s legal and what’s not. Donate to the CCDL’s Litigation Fund as we work to overturn this nonsense.

I strongly doubt that the wording of the specific section in the law is a mistake. I think they worded it that way intentionally to obfuscate the law and further disarm law abiding citizens. I had previously noted this almost tricky language and was planning on going to my local police dept. and ask for a clarification. But if Governor Malloy doesn’t know what he signed into law (bad), or doesn’t understand what it means (worse), or knows AND understands, but deliberately misinforms (worst), what can I expect from the police who are supposed to enforce the law? If I ask five different officers, how many different answers will I get? How many good people are right now unwittingly in violation of the law the governor himself doesn’t comprehend, risking arrest and imprisonment, a permanent criminal stain on their records and quite possibly losing their right to own (and much less carry) firearms?

Connecticut: Lawsuit Filed in U.S. District Court Challenging Constitutionality of New Firearms Law

Posted on by
Reply

Not to sound repetitive, but I just want to make sure the word gets out that we’re not taking governmental abuse and overreach lying down. I’m not saying “from my cold, dead hands“, but I strongly oppose the manner in which, as well as the content of, Governor Dannel Malloy et al’s recent attempt to circumvent democratic process and undermine the 2nd Amendment. If you have an agenda, promote it openly, don’t try to sneak shit past the electorate with lies and deception. Just sayin’.

From my in inbox, courtesy of The National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action:

Connecticut: Lawsuit Filed in U.S. District Court Challenging Constitutionality of New Firearms Law

Bridgeport, CT – Yesterday, a widely-anticipated lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, challenging the constitutionality of the new firearms law that was passed hastily by the Connecticut Legislature in response to the tragic shooting in Newtown by a disturbed individual. Despite this new law being called “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety,” Connecticut’s new firearms law makes Connecticut citizens less safe. This lawsuit seeks immediate injunctive relief and a ruling declaring the new law unconstitutional under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It alleges that Connecticut’s new firearms law violates the Second Amendment, and makes both citizens and law enforcement less safe by depriving citizens of modern firearms that are in common use throughout the country for self-defense.

Brought on behalf of individual gun owners, retailers and Second Amendment groups, this lawsuit seeks to vindicate the constitutional rights of citizens who are harmed by the broad prohibitions and unworkable vagueness of the new law. This legal challenge focuses on Connecticut’s ban of more than 100 additional commonly-owned firearms, demonizing design features that provide improved safety, accuracy and ease-of-use features, including magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. This lawsuit also challenges the practical bans imposed by the new law on an even broader array of firearms due to the new law’s vague language and interpretative confusion combined with severe criminal penalties.

Plaintiffs bringing this lawsuit include an elderly widow who lives alone in a rural area where the emergency response time of a lone resident trooper serving the area is 45 minutes, a Rabbi whose synagogue in the Bridgeport area was broken into by intruders, a young professional woman whose efforts to defend herself are made more difficult by the loss of an arm due to cancer, among other individuals. In addition, retailers whose businesses have been severely harmed by the law have joined this lawsuit, which was conceived and organized by fellow plaintiff organizations: the Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League (CCDL) and the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. Both organizational plaintiffs represent large numbers of Connecticut citizens whose rights to own the firearms of their choice for self-defense and other purposes such as sports shooting and hunting has been infringed upon by the new law.

Bob Crook, Executive Director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, says, “This law will do nothing to prevent a tragedy or solve the problem of crime committed with guns. Instead of violating constitutional rights, we need to get serious about addressing violence and mental illness.” He continued, “Two recent independent studies by Pew and the federal government have just revealed that gun homicides are down almost 40% and general crime involving guns has dropped a whopping 70% since 1993, which corresponds with the elimination of the federal assault weapons ban. In contrast, the few areas of the country where gun crimes have increased dramatically are the very places where local or state governments have banned or severely restricted gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.”

This Connecticut lawsuit, along with similar legal challenges in New York and Colorado are expected to better define the extent of a responsible citizens’ right to own a commonly used firearm of personal choice for self-defense, defense of family and other lawful uses. Each of these states has enacted new firearms laws that, despite law-makers best intentions, make citizens and law enforcement less safe against criminals and the mentally ill who do not obey these laws.

Your NRA will continue to work in Connecticut and in other states across the nation to support and protect our Second Amendment rights.

PS
I realize that I may start to sound like a gun nut to some, and that I will have to diversify the targets of my ire to maintain my cred as a sane member of society. Stay tuned.