• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Connecticut Carry - HB 5268 moves forward

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
how has this even made it this far? so rediculous.

I see a vote has already taken place, 10 yay, 4 nay, 5 absent/not voting. is that the vote for actually passing the bill to law? or is that a vote just for the change of reference as labelled in that pdf?

what's the next step?
 

SWY

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
5
Location
Weston
Does the kind of insurance required even exist?

It cannot be constitutional to impose a discriminatory tax selectively impinging on the expression of a fundamental Constitutional right, right? Heller already rejected the concept that the 2nd Amendment right can be treated as less worthy than the other fundamental rights--so ff this passes it will end up on the ash heap of CT bills being ruled unconstitutional. Unfortunately it will take several years and court cases to get there. A great way to waste taxpayers' funds while insulting the Bill of Rights.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I foresee people kidnapping the children of the legislators to ransom them for cash to pay the tax.

Oh well....sucks to be them
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
It cannot be constitutional to impose a discriminatory tax selectively impinging on the expression of a fundamental Constitutional right, right?
Right, but unless you can get a preliminary injunction against the requirement (has one ever been granted for a 2A case?) you're stuck with the mandated insurance for the duration of litigation (years), and possibly without a gun entirely if nobody offers it (which I presume is the hope of the authors of this bill). "Nobody offering it" could be helped along with changes in insurance regulations.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
don't worry - i filed a FOIA request with the sponsor of the bill

Asking him what the heck he is talking about and all records in respect to the bill ..

I assume he has zero records, he's talking out of his ass will be the result

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Inappropriate
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top