Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Is the new Gun Owner Control Law an ex post facto law?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108

    Is the new Gun Owner Control Law an ex post facto law?

    I know the governor signed the bill April 4. The only version of the bill I've been able to read bans sales of certain guns and magazines after April 1. We know the gun stores were moving product with fork lifts to get as many sold as possible right up to noon on the 4th. Are those sales illegal, is the law illegal (for ex post facto provisions), or did the final language change the dates?

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    the bill and the final language of the law both state the date as "effective upon passage", meaning anything before April 4th is legal. and according to DESPP, also anything up til 5pm ON April 4th was also legal.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    West Hartford
    Posts
    2
    What I want to know is whether the law as written attempts to compel a citizen to yield not only his Second Amendment rights, but also his Fifth Amendment rights in order to undermine the Second Amendment rights.

    We all know that under the fifth, we are not compelled to testify against ourselves. Yet, by registering any LCM, is a person not providing information that can be used against them in a court proceeding? Is there no Miranda consideration that allows us to "remain silent" and refuse to provide information that can and will be used against us in a court of law? Clearly, any subsequent warrant (or warrantless search) based on the registration would be based on some degree of self incrimination, it seems rational for an individual to refuse to answer the question, "What firearms and LCMs do you own?". Would that then make the subsequent search a violation of the Fourth? If even this post is used against me, when this is clearly "Political Speech", would not my First Amendment rights also be trampled?

    I am NOT a lawyer, so I defer to the experts here. I am just an engineer/businessman who has spent three decades parsing technical requirements and contracts for work. I am appalled that I even have to entertain the idea that I have to do that when it comes to what I always understood were my Natural Rights that pre-exist the social compact that is the State of Connecticut and the United States of America.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by novanglus View Post
    What I want to know is whether the law as written attempts to compel a citizen to yield not only his Second Amendment rights, but also his Fifth Amendment rights in order to undermine the Second Amendment rights.

    We all know that under the fifth, we are not compelled to testify against ourselves. Yet, by registering any LCM, is a person not providing information that can be used against them in a court proceeding? Is there no Miranda consideration that allows us to "remain silent" and refuse to provide information that can and will be used against us in a court of law? Clearly, any subsequent warrant (or warrantless search) based on the registration would be based on some degree of self incrimination, it seems rational for an individual to refuse to answer the question, "What firearms and LCMs do you own?". Would that then make the subsequent search a violation of the Fourth? If even this post is used against me, when this is clearly "Political Speech", would not my First Amendment rights also be trampled?

    I am NOT a lawyer, so I defer to the experts here. I am just an engineer/businessman who has spent three decades parsing technical requirements and contracts for work. I am appalled that I even have to entertain the idea that I have to do that when it comes to what I always understood were my Natural Rights that pre-exist the social compact that is the State of Connecticut and the United States of America.
    The law requires you to declare the AW owned....a declaration is made under penalties of perjury. You are free to complete the form with objections if you wish .. at your own risk .... I doubt that despp will accept such a completed form then you can appeal I guess .. to who? I don't know.

  5. #5
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by novanglus View Post
    What I want to know is whether the law as written attempts to compel a citizen to yield not only his Second Amendment rights, but also his Fifth Amendment rights in order to undermine the Second Amendment rights.

    We all know that under the fifth, we are not compelled to testify against ourselves. Yet, by registering any LCM, is a person not providing information that can be used against them in a court proceeding? Is there no Miranda consideration that allows us to "remain silent" and refuse to provide information that can and will be used against us in a court of law? Clearly, any subsequent warrant (or warrantless search) based on the registration would be based on some degree of self incrimination, it seems rational for an individual to refuse to answer the question, "What firearms and LCMs do you own?". Would that then make the subsequent search a violation of the Fourth? If even this post is used against me, when this is clearly "Political Speech", would not my First Amendment rights also be trampled?

    I am NOT a lawyer, so I defer to the experts here. I am just an engineer/businessman who has spent three decades parsing technical requirements and contracts for work. I am appalled that I even have to entertain the idea that I have to do that when it comes to what I always understood were my Natural Rights that pre-exist the social compact that is the State of Connecticut and the United States of America.
    testifying against yourself (self incrimination) would require admitting to breaking the law when you have not been charged with a crime. I doubt anyone would try to claim possession of anything they own illegally. so by registering (claiming possession), you would be admitting that you own something that is legal within previous and current laws and are attempting to get permission from the government to keep them.
    as long as you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the form, you would not be testifying against yourself. if you lie on the form, well that's a whole different can of worms. or simply not filling the form out at all, you are fine until December 31st 2013. but come January 1st 2014, if you own any lcm's or aw's and have not claimed them, you will be a felon if you possess them anywhere in CT. I say that last part, because you can still own lcm's and aw's without a certificate, you just won't be able to possess them in CT after Jan 1st. meaning you can have them in a another state if you wish and still be the owner. a storage bay in another state could be a good idea, so long as it's legal to own/possess such items in that state. and out of state is out of CT's jurisdiction, so there is absolutely nothing they can do about it, not that they would try anyway because you aren't breaking any laws if you don't possess them in CT.
    keep an eye on national laws coming up though to be sure those don't change any of these things
    Last edited by motoxmann; 04-13-2013 at 12:39 AM.
    “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
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    West Hartford
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    testifying against yourself (self incrimination) would require admitting to breaking the law when you have not been charged with a crime. I doubt anyone would try to claim possession of anything they own illegally. so by registering (claiming possession), you would be admitting that you own something that is legal within previous and current laws and are attempting to get permission from the government to keep them.
    Ha! So that creates an interesting situation in which the following is true:

    • someone who owns something illegally cannot be compelled to claim it on the new form, since they are protected by the Fifth Amendment right agains self incrimination.
    • Someone who owns something legally is compelled to declare ownership, because they do not have something illegal to hide.
    • The criminal is exempt from this law, but the law abiding citizen is burdened with the new law.

    <sarcasm>Yeah, seems just! </sarcasm>

    And I will just move on regarding "get permission from the government" for a right that exists outside of that social compact.

  7. #7
    Regular Member bmmd321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hamden,CT
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by novanglus View Post
    Ha! So that creates an interesting situation in which the following is true:

    • someone who owns something illegally cannot be compelled to claim it on the new form, since they are protected by the Fifth Amendment right agains self incrimination.
    • Someone who owns something legally is compelled to declare ownership, because they do not have something illegal to hide.
    • The criminal is exempt from this law, but the law abiding citizen is burdened with the new law.

    <sarcasm>Yeah, seems just! </sarcasm>

    And I will just move on regarding "get permission from the government" for a right that exists outside of that social compact.
    I got rid of my AR privately before this law was passed. Since the law stated a long gun sale didn't require paperwork, am I ok with the sale? Or will I get harassed next year for a rifle I no longer own?

  8. #8
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by bmmd321 View Post
    I got rid of my AR privately before this law was passed. Since the law stated a long gun sale didn't require paperwork, am I ok with the sale? Or will I get harassed next year for a rifle I no longer own?
    yes, you're ok. you may get a phone call at some point, but shouldn't be anything more than that. and even if they do attempt anything further, as long as they can't find it in your possession then you're fine. shouldn't come to that though, you'll probably never hear a thing from anyone about it unless it is used in a crime at some point, in which case they'll just interrogate you about who you sold it to.

    this is assuming you sold it to a CT resident. if you sold it to a resident of another state, federal laws would apply.
    Last edited by motoxmann; 04-13-2013 at 11:22 AM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by bmmd321 View Post
    I got rid of my AR privately before this law was passed. Since the law stated a long gun sale didn't require paperwork, am I ok with the sale? Or will I get harassed next year for a rifle I no longer own?
    I would not speak to police/gov't officials about the gun .. ain't none of their business. Just hang up the phone, rude?? No, its smart. CLICK for a phone, SLAM for a door ... use both.

Posting Permissions

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