Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: I have something to say about SB 1160.

  1. #1
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    I have something to say about SB 1160.

    Read it here: This is how I see it..

    Pass it around, let me know what you think; I'll be here.
    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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Milan
    Posts
    113
    Agreed I have already had the talk with my lady friend about this. I will not comply with any new laws

  3. #3
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    Re: I have something to say about SB 1160.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy bilt View Post
    Agreed I have already had the talk with my lady friend about this. I will not comply with any new laws
    My wife, as well; welcome, fellow outlaw! ;-)

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    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.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Anyone who votes for a law that contains what any reasonable person should know is violation of our bill of rights is guilty of treason and should be afforded the treatment that traitors historically have received.

  5. #5
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Anyone who votes for a law that contains what any reasonable person should know is violation of our bill of rights is guilty of treason and should be afforded the treatment that traitors historically have received.
    agreed 110%
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  6. #6
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Read it here: This is how I see it..

    Pass it around, let me know what you think; I'll be here.
    I strongly agree with the part about jurors. we need to spread the word about jurors' responsibilities to refuse to convict anyone under the new law
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    Re: I have something to say about SB 1160.

    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I strongly agree with the part about jurors. we need to spread the word about jurors' responsibilities to refuse to convict anyone under the new law
    Yup! We actually do have the final word. I'm actually considering a flier campaign to support just that point.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Yup! We actually do have the final word. I'm actually considering a flier campaign to support just that point.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    only problem is all the stuck up snobby yuppies in our state that will aggressively attempt the opposite. and we all know how court systems pick and choose the jurors
    Last edited by motoxmann; 04-06-2013 at 12:33 PM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    only problem is all the stuck up snobby yuppies in our state that will aggressively attempt the opposite. and we all know how court systems pick and choose the jurors
    Granted; but plant the seed... You only need one on a jury to hang it; right?

    You may also be forgetting that a fair number of those who are now felons at the stroke of Mr. Malloy's pen are also stuck-up snobby yuppies...

    I think those of us of like mind also need to be getting together loose groups of like-minded citizens in our areas that we can put the word out to if we should come under attack at our homes or places of business. Those who can get there might then hopefully show up in great enough numbers to let the JBT's know that A) we do NOT approve of their actions, and B) we will do whatever we can to interfere with them. If anyone's interested in this idea, contact me; I'm looking to get organized. We can do a lot to impede them with a little creative thinking.
    Last edited by DDoutel; 04-06-2013 at 12:51 PM.
    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.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I am already of the viewpoint to nullify ... for this law and many others ... for telephone calls made to any of the idiots who passed this bill, etc.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I strongly agree with the part about jurors. we need to spread the word about jurors' responsibilities to refuse to convict anyone under the new law
    This site has some very useful information on the subject of Fully Informed Jurors http://fija.org/ and voting to acquit based on improper or unjust laws.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    This site has some very useful information on the subject of Fully Informed Jurors http://fija.org/ and voting to acquit based on improper or unjust laws.
    Good stuff, SK! Thanks for posting it!
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member CT Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Northern CT
    Posts
    2
    I've been a lurker here for over a week. I strongly agree with your post and had to register on the site to voice my opinion. I agree with everything said by the OP. If we don't stick together now, we will always regret not fighting back against the unconstitutional "laws" placed on law abiding Citizens of this state. I truly believe that these 'laws' will be overturned as the SCOTUS has ruled that you CAN NOT ban firearms AND magazines that are in common use and that's exactly what our so called legislators have done. Also, I feel that this whole process was simply to get more revenue and does nothing for public safety!! All it will do is hurt people who follow the letter of the law and only wish to protect their loved ones. This whole episode makes me sick and we can only hope others will see this too for what it is and NOT convict people for simply having something that's perfectly legal to own, WITHOUT unconstitutional "restrictions". Carry on!!

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Patriot View Post
    I've been a lurker here for over a week. I strongly agree with your post and had to register on the site to voice my opinion. I agree with everything said by the OP. If we don't stick together now, we will always regret not fighting back against the unconstitutional "laws" placed on law abiding Citizens of this state. I truly believe that these 'laws' will be overturned as the SCOTUS has ruled that you CAN NOT ban firearms AND magazines that are in common use and that's exactly what our so called legislators have done. Also, I feel that this whole process was simply to get more revenue and does nothing for public safety!! All it will do is hurt people who follow the letter of the law and only wish to protect their loved ones. This whole episode makes me sick and we can only hope others will see this too for what it is and NOT convict people for simply having something that's perfectly legal to own, WITHOUT unconstitutional "restrictions". Carry on!!
    There is, I should point out, NO REQUIREMENT for the supreme court to ever hear cases to straighten this out. From 1939 through 2008 I don't think that there were ANY cases SCOTUS took up...Heller was a smart case as the issue of "incorporation" was moot to the case and they took on McDonald ... if they'll take up Heller II and other cases is not a given.

    We could have another 70 yr (or forever) drought ... so we may effectively end up with the east coast having no gun rights and other parts having gun rights and other parts being in the middle. And Scalia is not that great a supporter of 2nd amendment rights IMO so I don't know if I want a Scalia current court hearing any of this...it would be a crap shoot IMO.

    So looking at alternatives -- always a positive thing to do

  15. #15
    Regular Member CT Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Northern CT
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    There is, I should point out, NO REQUIREMENT for the supreme court to ever hear cases to straighten this out. From 1939 through 2008 I don't think that there were ANY cases SCOTUS took up...Heller was a smart case as the issue of "incorporation" was moot to the case and they took on McDonald ... if they'll take up Heller II and other cases is not a given.

    We could have another 70 yr (or forever) drought ... so we may effectively end up with the east coast having no gun rights and other parts having gun rights and other parts being in the middle. And Scalia is not that great a supporter of 2nd amendment rights IMO so I don't know if I want a Scalia current court hearing any of this...it would be a crap shoot IMO.

    So looking at alternatives -- always a positive thing to do
    Dave, I understand that there isn't a requirement to hear any particular case. But one would think they'll look at any challenge to the blatantly unconstitutional law just passed here, and in fact NY. But one thing is certain, I hope they look at these BEFORE we loose one of the (so called) conservative Justices because if they wait, and Obama appoints another far left loon to the court, well we're done.

  16. #16
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Patriot View Post
    Dave, I understand that there isn't a requirement to hear any particular case. But one would think they'll look at any challenge to the blatantly unconstitutional law just passed here, and in fact NY. But one thing is certain, I hope they look at these BEFORE we loose one of the (so called) conservative Justices because if they wait, and Obama appoints another far left loon to the court, well we're done.
    Welcome aboard, CT Patriot! I, like David McBeth, place no faith in the Roberts court, or any court for that matter. I believe that citizens do need to be educated about their rights as jurors, i.e. they have the moral obligation to judge the law itself, and nullify it by refusing to convict under unjust or unconstitutional laws. When the State wishes to punish someone under some law, they must first bring their charges before a jury of the accused's fellow citizens. It is not the juror's duty to mete out punishment, it is their duty to see that no one is convicted unjustly. That is a juror's obligation and responsibility. That is not ever explained to juries by black-robed martinets in their "jury instructions", so we have to educate the public.

    Spread that word; discuss it with your friends and acquaintances, ask them to spread it to theirs.
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Here's a direct link to the FIJA.org Juror's Handbook; excellent read! Pass it along! Jury Nullification is your ultimate power and responsibility as a citizen of the state and the country. Use it, and never let a black-robed martinet or anyone else tell you as a juror that you do not have this right.
    Last edited by DDoutel; 04-07-2013 at 04:28 PM. Reason: fixed link.
    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 DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    In a more "humorous" vein, I'd also like to see Malloy's ass and all his cronie's asses whipped from office like the "rented mules" they are. I for one, will also be actively working to see my own rep, Mr. Lawrence Cafero (R), soundly defeated. He's as treasonous a bastard as any of the democraps in the legislature.
    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.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by DDoutel View Post
    Welcome aboard, CT Patriot! I, like David McBeth, place no faith in the Roberts court, or any court for that matter..
    I need no parchment to instruct me of my rights, no court to vindicate my thoughts.

Posting Permissions

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