Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Response to Governor Malloy’s proposed gun bans

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Response to Governor Malloy’s proposed gun bans

    From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/f938...b-7a4a1f300cb8

    Response to Governor Malloy’s proposed gun bans

    Unconstitutional measures abound in the Governor’s proposal to circumvent the Legislative process

    Hartford, Connecticut, February 21:

    Since the Newtown Massacre, Governor Malloy has promised that the gun control agenda he has been pushing would be done in a bi-partisan manner in the legislature. Along the way we have seen all manner of reckless behavior from the legislature and from the administration including a rush to try and use an ‘emergency certification’ to push through bills without proper public hearings. Today, the Governor released a set of proposed legislation that he intends to be pushed through the legislature. This would also circumvent the task force and advisory panels currently assigned to provide legislative recommendations on these issues.

    This is a clear attempt at an abuse of the Governor’s office and of the separation of powers in our government. Laws and legislation should come from the legislature and be from the people of Connecticut. There is a clear interest in keeping the enforcement arm of the government from also deciding the laws. The laws are supposed to be decided on by the people.

    We must reason that the Governor is feeling the pressure from the 100:1 turnout against his agenda at the legislature for public hearings and the overwhelming public opinion in Connecticut that the proposed bills are not welcome. Perhaps he is feeling the fleeting emotional crisis of the citizens of Connecticut and he knows that he won’t be able to take advantage of emotion as leverage against our rights for much longer. It is clear that his administration does not want to ‘let a good crisis go to waste’.

    The proposals that Governor Malloy makes are full of unconstitutional and unenforceable edicts.

    * District of Columbia v Heller has already established that firearms in ‘common use’ are not subject to bans. They equated common use specifically with ‘military use’, so the Governor’s insistence on the repeated lie that the AR-15 is a military weapon is in line with his not understanding the case law out there.

    * The ‘high capacity magazines’ he seeks to ban and confiscate are not ‘high capacity’, they are standard capacity. They are also in common use, and the Governor should know better than to think that the government can institute ex post facto bans. At the very least, the state would have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate every gun owner for every magazine they turn in. Connecticut does not have the money necessary to implement such a ban.

    * ‘Safe storage’ laws are unconstitutional. Ask New York state. Their law was deemed by the New York Supreme Court to be ‘unenforceable’ since it was unconstitutional to require residents to keep all of their firearms locked up. (Colaiacovo v Dormer - 2008)


    Instead of haphazardly throwing his gun banning agenda around, Governor Malloy should be paying attention to our proposal to open up the background check systems and make them freely and readily available to the public. He might actually meet some of his stated goals without having to make the residents of the State of Connecticut spend millions of dollars fighting his laws in Federal court.

    More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com

    View this press release online: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/f938...b-7a4a1f300cb8

    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Contact:
    Richard Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203-208-9577
    Email: rich@ctcarry.com
    http://ctcarry.com
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

    This is what Malloy will throw out as being case law supporting all this

    DC Heller II ... which opinion bangs into Heller I, McDonald and Miller

    ex:


    United State Supreme Court, 307 US 174, US v. Miller, 1939, US DOJ Brief, stated:

    …While some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property as well as the right of the people to bear them collectively (People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455), the cases are unanimous in holding that the term "arms" as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes…


    United State Supreme Court, 307 US 174, US v. Miller, 1939, Court Opinion, stated:

    …In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158….
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-21-2013 at 09:56 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    fox news reported tonight on their 10pm broadcast that Malloy's bills intend to reduce semi-auto mag fed rifles from FOUR military characteristics down to one characteristic to be defined as an illegal assault weapon.

    do you think they said the incorrect number of FOUR to show he's taking drastic measures and to oppose them? or do you think they did it to make people think our current laws are too lax and to encourage people to support the new bills? or possibly just a legitimate screwup?
    Last edited by motoxmann; 02-21-2013 at 10:58 PM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    125
    Is four a federal limit or somethin? Even i know ct is limited to 2 characteristics.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/f938...b-7a4a1f300cb8

    Response to Governor Malloy’s proposed gun bans

    Unconstitutional measures abound in the Governor’s proposal to circumvent the Legislative process

    Hartford, Connecticut, February 21:

    Since the Newtown Massacre, Governor Malloy has promised that the gun control agenda he has been pushing would be done in a bi-partisan manner in the legislature. Along the way we have seen all manner of reckless behavior from the legislature and from the administration including a rush to try and use an ‘emergency certification’ to push through bills without proper public hearings. Today, the Governor released a set of proposed legislation that he intends to be pushed through the legislature. This would also circumvent the task force and advisory panels currently assigned to provide legislative recommendations on these issues.

    This is a clear attempt at an abuse of the Governor’s office and of the separation of powers in our government. Laws and legislation should come from the legislature and be from the people of Connecticut. There is a clear interest in keeping the enforcement arm of the government from also deciding the laws. The laws are supposed to be decided on by the people.

    We must reason that the Governor is feeling the pressure from the 100:1 turnout against his agenda at the legislature for public hearings and the overwhelming public opinion in Connecticut that the proposed bills are not welcome. Perhaps he is feeling the fleeting emotional crisis of the citizens of Connecticut and he knows that he won’t be able to take advantage of emotion as leverage against our rights for much longer. It is clear that his administration does not want to ‘let a good crisis go to waste’.

    The proposals that Governor Malloy makes are full of unconstitutional and unenforceable edicts.

    * District of Columbia v Heller has already established that firearms in ‘common use’ are not subject to bans. They equated common use specifically with ‘military use’, so the Governor’s insistence on the repeated lie that the AR-15 is a military weapon is in line with his not understanding the case law out there.

    * The ‘high capacity magazines’ he seeks to ban and confiscate are not ‘high capacity’, they are standard capacity. They are also in common use, and the Governor should know better than to think that the government can institute ex post facto bans. At the very least, the state would have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate every gun owner for every magazine they turn in. Connecticut does not have the money necessary to implement such a ban.

    * ‘Safe storage’ laws are unconstitutional. Ask New York state. Their law was deemed by the New York Supreme Court to be ‘unenforceable’ since it was unconstitutional to require residents to keep all of their firearms locked up. (Colaiacovo v Dormer - 2008)


    Instead of haphazardly throwing his gun banning agenda around, Governor Malloy should be paying attention to our proposal to open up the background check systems and make them freely and readily available to the public. He might actually meet some of his stated goals without having to make the residents of the State of Connecticut spend millions of dollars fighting his laws in Federal court.

    More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com

    View this press release online: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/f938...b-7a4a1f300cb8

    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Contact:
    Richard Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203-208-9577
    Email: rich@ctcarry.com
    http://ctcarry.com

    Good info. thanks.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/f938...b-7a4a1f300cb8

    Response to Governor Malloy’s proposed gun bans

    Unconstitutional measures abound in the Governor’s proposal to circumvent the Legislative process

    Hartford, Connecticut, February 21:

    Since the Newtown Massacre, Governor Malloy has promised that the gun control agenda he has been pushing would be done in a bi-partisan manner in the legislature. Along the way we have seen all manner of reckless behavior from the legislature and from the administration including a rush to try and use an ‘emergency certification’ to push through bills without proper public hearings. Today, the Governor released a set of proposed legislation that he intends to be pushed through the legislature. This would also circumvent the task force and advisory panels currently assigned to provide legislative recommendations on these issues.

    This is a clear attempt at an abuse of the Governor’s office and of the separation of powers in our government. Laws and legislation should come from the legislature and be from the people of Connecticut. There is a clear interest in keeping the enforcement arm of the government from also deciding the laws. The laws are supposed to be decided on by the people.

    We must reason that the Governor is feeling the pressure from the 100:1 turnout against his agenda at the legislature for public hearings and the overwhelming public opinion in Connecticut that the proposed bills are not welcome. Perhaps he is feeling the fleeting emotional crisis of the citizens of Connecticut and he knows that he won’t be able to take advantage of emotion as leverage against our rights for much longer. It is clear that his administration does not want to ‘let a good crisis go to waste’.

    The proposals that Governor Malloy makes are full of unconstitutional and unenforceable edicts.

    * District of Columbia v Heller has already established that firearms in ‘common use’ are not subject to bans. They equated common use specifically with ‘military use’, so the Governor’s insistence on the repeated lie that the AR-15 is a military weapon is in line with his not understanding the case law out there.

    * The ‘high capacity magazines’ he seeks to ban and confiscate are not ‘high capacity’, they are standard capacity. They are also in common use, and the Governor should know better than to think that the government can institute ex post facto bans. At the very least, the state would have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate every gun owner for every magazine they turn in. Connecticut does not have the money necessary to implement such a ban.

    * ‘Safe storage’ laws are unconstitutional. Ask New York state. Their law was deemed by the New York Supreme Court to be ‘unenforceable’ since it was unconstitutional to require residents to keep all of their firearms locked up. (Colaiacovo v Dormer - 2008)


    Instead of haphazardly throwing his gun banning agenda around, Governor Malloy should be paying attention to our proposal to open up the background check systems and make them freely and readily available to the public. He might actually meet some of his stated goals without having to make the residents of the State of Connecticut spend millions of dollars fighting his laws in Federal court.

    More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com

    View this press release online: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/f938...b-7a4a1f300cb8

    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Contact:
    Richard Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203-208-9577
    Email: rich@ctcarry.com
    http://ctcarry.com
    I forgot to mention. I was looking at the Office of Legislative Research and there was research done on what affects a high cap magazine ban would do to the CT economy. Has anyone read this? It's very interesting. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0158.htm

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by LESGTINCT View Post
    I forgot to mention. I was looking at the Office of Legislative Research and there was research done on what affects a high cap magazine ban would do to the CT economy. Has anyone read this? It's very interesting. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0158.htm
    It is linked in our press release.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    It is linked in our press release.
    Ah, should have known you would've had that info.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by LESGTINCT View Post
    Ah, should have known you would've had that info.
    We get it right every now and then.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    between windsor and north grandby, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    37
    Rich,
    i don't see any real purpose in contacting the gov.s office or the legislatures anymore on these matters.
    here's why;
    There beliefs are completely different then ours.

    We as the voters, taxpayers and citizens are unfortunately are not going to change or influence that. If they won't follow the constitution, there's no way in hell there going take in info from responsible firearm's owners. that apose the job there doing or action there considering(the one group of people these laws are aimed at)

    I think we need to take a step back and reconsider a uniform approach which might actually gain us some ground. What that is, i don't no. What i do no, see and read is that our letters, polls,calls, and face to face chats with legislators and so on has no actual effect, just lip service.
    There may be legal recourse but I've pretty much given up on our legal system and most of government.

    The system is clearly broken and i think we all no it, but don't have a plausible solution, so we keep going on as nothing has changed.
    Thanks for the updates though, we do appreciate them.
    .

  11. #11
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by LESGTINCT View Post
    I forgot to mention. I was looking at the Office of Legislative Research and there was research done on what affects a high cap magazine ban would do to the CT economy. Has anyone read this? It's very interesting. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0158.htm
    link is broken? doesn't work for me
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    link is broken? doesn't work for me
    Linky works .. 4 me ..


    Look at this crap in the report:

    Prior to Heller, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld an assault weapons ban in Benjamin v. Bailey, 234 Conn. 455 (Conn. 1995). The court found that the ban did not violate the state constitutional right to bear arms, in that:

    the constitution does not guarantee the right to possess any weapon of the individual's choosing for use in self defense. [And] as long as our citizens have available to them some types of weapons that are adequate reasonably to vindicate the right to bear arms in self-defense, the state may proscribe the possession of other weapons. . .


    Yeah, PRIOR to Heller (ie they did not consider the 2nd amendment)..Benjamin is bad case law to be citing..all/most the opinions relied upon in the Benjamin case were struck down with Heller.

  13. #13
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Linky works .. 4 me ...
    well what the heck, I keep getting the good ol "cannot display the webpage" error after about 30 seconds of attempting to load
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by sidelinellc View Post
    Rich,
    i don't see any real purpose in contacting the gov.s office or the legislatures anymore on these matters.
    here's why;
    There beliefs are completely different then ours.

    We as the voters, taxpayers and citizens are unfortunately are not going to change or influence that. If they won't follow the constitution, there's no way in hell there going take in info from responsible firearm's owners. that apose the job there doing or action there considering(the one group of people these laws are aimed at)

    I think we need to take a step back and reconsider a uniform approach which might actually gain us some ground. What that is, i don't no. What i do no, see and read is that our letters, polls,calls, and face to face chats with legislators and so on has no actual effect, just lip service.
    There may be legal recourse but I've pretty much given up on our legal system and most of government.

    The system is clearly broken and i think we all no it, but don't have a plausible solution, so we keep going on as nothing has changed.
    Thanks for the updates though, we do appreciate them.
    .
    I don't see any point in giving up.

    The governor clearly acknowledges that this fight is not going his way in the legislature, but you are ready to throw in the towel?

    It makes no sense to me. Now is the time to push harder, not quit.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sidelinellc View Post
    Rich,
    i don't see any real purpose in contacting the gov.s office or the legislatures anymore on these matters.
    here's why;
    There beliefs are completely different then ours.

    .
    I still like to yell so i still call 'em .. they cringe when they hear my name....

    I do have a case pending (actually many) before the freedom of information commission .. several deal with illegal committee meetings ..

    1) Public safety meeting that did not give enough notice (they moved along 1 gun bill)
    2) Task Force meeting of 30 JAN 13 where they only allowed the Newtown folks to testify
    3) Task force meeting of FEB 4th - gun violence which they did not give enough notice
    4) Task Force meeting of 13 FEB - school safety where they gave a whopping 2-3 hour notice

    The 1st one was issued a docket # but refused a quick hearing ... I am appealing that decision
    The 2nd one was not issued a docket # yet .. I found out today that they misunderstood the request and said "the FOI act does not require to allow you to testify" which is technically correct but incorrect based on the facts plead ... so I am submitting more information together with some case law to sway them to docket the case.
    The 3rd and 4th I am awaiting a docket # and a ruling on my request for a quick hearing.

    Also, from Malloy's ramblings of an idiot he seems to indicate that the task force cannot reach an agreement on anything.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    between windsor and north grandby, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    37
    I respect your actions but i just don't think it's really going to make any difference.
    A new, outside the box approach from people much smarter then me, needs to be dreampt up. Yes, your actions are getting results and causing waves but how much legal political sway is really going to be accomplished in the end.

    Looking at the currant government and the people in there, unfortunately i don't have much hope even if you win the foi request and so on. I get this opinion by reading various court rulings on seemingly black&white issues which they have repeatably got wrong all over the nation, not just CT.
    I wish you guys luck but continue to look for a better way.

  17. #17
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by sidelinellc View Post
    I respect your actions but i just don't think it's really going to make any difference.
    A new, outside the box approach from people much smarter then me, needs to be dreampt up. Yes, your actions are getting results and causing waves but how much legal political sway is really going to be accomplished in the end.

    Looking at the currant government and the people in there, unfortunately i don't have much hope even if you win the foi request and so on. I get this opinion by reading various court rulings on seemingly black&white issues which they have repeatably got wrong all over the nation, not just CT.
    I wish you guys luck but continue to look for a better way.
    As I said in another thread, we need to get an overwhelming number of people to tell him via email/phone point-blank that his proposals are unconstitutional, and "We Will Not Comply.". Let them know they're up against something they absolutely cannot win.
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167

    Financial Impact of Magazine Ban in CT

    Aside from the issues of constitutionality, here's a section worth noting in the aforementioned OLR 2011-R-0158:

    "According to the NSSF, a ban on large capacity magazines could directly cost the state more than $100 million. Owners surrendering large capacity magazines would need to purchase new magazines to have a functional firearm, thus reducing their spending on other sectors of the state's economy, such as groceries, clothing, or other goods and services. NSSF estimates that this would result in a loss of $10.6 million to $42.3 million in economic activity and between 80 and 320 jobs in Connecticut. In addition, the total cost to consumers based on the replacement of four large magazines per firearm would be close to $58 million. We note that while replacement of large magazines may reduce spending in other sectors of the state's economy, it would likely increase spending in the firearms industry.

    Retailers would also suffer a loss because they would have to adjust current inventory. For example, NSSF estimates that 65% of the semi-automatic firearms sold at Cabela's have high-capacity magazines.

    In addition to these direct costs, NSSF claims that a ban would ultimately force the state's firearm and magazine manufacturers to leave the state. They base this assertion on the fact that the state's firearm manufacturers have stated that they will not be able to continue business in Connecticut without the commercial retail market. NSSF notes that tax revenue would be lost from relocating manufactures and jobs. The industry and its employees pay over $81 million in taxes, including property-, income-, and sales-based levies."


    If your elected official has some disagreement with you about your rights, then ask him/her if a bill that would cost the State of CT hundreds of millions of dollars is wise, especially in the current economy.
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  19. #19
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Freiheit417 View Post
    If your elected official has some disagreement with you about your rights, then ask him/her if a bill that would cost the State of CT hundreds of millions of dollars is wise, especially in the current economy.
    Absolutely. Appeal to anything that might get their attention.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    As I said in another thread, we need to get an overwhelming number of people to tell him via email/phone point-blank that his proposals are unconstitutional, and "We Will Not Comply.". Let them know they're up against something they absolutely cannot win.
    Don't forget Sen Williams and Rep. Sharkley .. 2 who signatures are required ...

    And I told 'em that I would only turn over my AR15 to him at his house ... they did not like that idea

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    125

    Question

    Well it makes a lot more sence now. Our governor is dyslexic. It's not that he doesn't care about the 2nd amendment. He just doesn't understand the words. Lol

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by smokeyburnout View Post
    Well it makes a lot more sence now. Our governor is dyslexic. It's not that he doesn't care about the 2nd amendment. He just doesn't understand the words. Lol
    Oh, he understands ... he wishes to ignore. Now, in other states this would fall under "official misconduct" but we don't have such statues .. so the closest I can think of is treason.

    If Malloy wants to press on he must first get SCOTUS cases Miller, Heller, etc. over turned. The state is free to file a federal case to review the law again; it would go anywhere but that is what is required.

    And our president? He touts that "no one should have guns that our soldiers have" .. is a direct opposite opinion of Miller & Heller SCOTUS rulings. His rantings actually supports the claim that these weapons are covered under the 2nd for us lowly citizens.

  23. #23
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And our president? He touts that "no one should have guns that our soldiers have" .. is a direct opposite opinion of Miller & Heller SCOTUS rulings. His rantings actually supports the claim that these weapons are covered under the 2nd for us lowly citizens.
    our president also repeatedly publicly states that the vast majority of all americans support: a 1-characteristic AWB, universal background checks, and max 10-round mag capacties. he has zero [legitimate] evidence to support his claims, he's lieing through his damn teeth in all 3 aspects.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  24. #24
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    our president also repeatedly publicly states that the vast majority of all americans support: a 1-characteristic AWB, universal background checks, and max 10-round mag capacties. he has zero [legitimate] evidence to support his claims, he's lieing through his damn teeth in all 3 aspects.
    "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

    That is why they they keep repeating the same rubbish.
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •