Before FOIC- pleadings in respect to PA13-3 reg. req.-see how the state responds
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Narrow Review of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
The text of the second amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A core purpose of the amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government.
Tench Coxe made this point in a commentary on the Second Amendment.“Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” Federal Gazette, June 18, 1792, at 2, col. 1, Coxe explained the purpose of the Amendment this way:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Similarly, Madison himself wrote that a regular army that threatened liberty would find itself opposed by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands." The Federalist No. 46, at 299 (James Madison) (Willmore Kendall & George W. Carey eds., 1966).
Connecticut Public Act 13-3 Registration Requirements
Under PA 13-3, Connecticut residents are now required to provide the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (aka DESPP), an agency of the State of Connecticut, information related to arms and gun magazines that they possess. Information being sought includes immeasurable rifles, handguns, and gun magazines; the specific information being sought for each of the items now being required to be registered are detailed in the DESPP forms attached as Exhibits A and B. Clearly, the information being sought gives the state detailed information in respect to the capabilities of the items sought to be registered. PA13-3’s registration requirements are currently considered to be constitutional.
Examination of Registration Requirements of PA13-3 to Second Amendment
A safety risk is one that may include the risk of death. The State, through PA13-3, now requires its residents to provide detailed information in respect to arms and magazines possessed by its citizens.
Clearly if disclosures of arms and magazines would involve a safety risk then this request by the state would clearly run afoul of the second amendment’s “shall not be infringed” provision. After all, a state cannot state that a resident can own a gun or magazine but that to own one that you must disclose this information to the state and such a disclosure may result in your death. Nothing could be more of an infringement than saying that death could be the result of gun or magazine ownership.
Legislature’s Passage of PA13-3 Notes No Safety Risk With Disclosure
Party A provides detailed information regarding arms to Party B. Does this result in a safety risk to Party A? The legislature of this state, by passing PA13-3 with its registration requirements, has clearly stated no. If the legislature believed that disclosure of arms by its residents would create a safety risk for any of the residents then it never would have included the registration requirements contained within PA13-3.
Connecticut’s Executive Branch Also Notes No Safety Risk With Disclosure
The governor of this state signed PA13-3 and also campaigned heavily for passage of such a bill and campaigned heavily for the registration requirements contained in PA13-3. The governor is the chief executive officer for the executive branch in this state.
The complainant also contacted the governor’s office during the legislative session prior to the passage of PA13-3 and asked if the governor thought that the registration requirements would create a safety risk for those that disclose and the reply back was an emphatic no.
Lawmaking Bodies in State Agree that There are No Safety Risks Associated With Firearms Disclosure
Both the legislature and the executive branches have decided that, through its passage of PA13-3, that no safety risk is associated with the disclosure of arms from one party to another.
Tyrannical Governments Can Include Any Governmental Body
The second amendment provides a defense of the people to tyrannical governments; this protection is not limited to just federal governments but also state and local government tyranny.
Theory That Safety Risk Assessment is Irrelevant To Citizens v. Governmental Bodies is Without Merit
The respondents may argue that that and analysis of a safety risk regarding arms disclosures between Party A and Party B is dependent upon who exactly the parties are and that findings of safety risks can be found to be complete opposite results depending upon who the parties are is completely without merit.
In this case, it is a citizen asking for records that would disclose arms of a town. Yet a core reason for the second amendment is to allow residents some protection against tyrannical governments including this and every other town government.
Its axiomatic that the town government, who would have access to residents’ firearms and magazines now required under PA13-3 to register, can have information regarding arms that people possess and claim no safety risk is associated with the disclosures under PA13-3 and then turn around and say that disclosure of their arms’ records would result in a safety risk to the town government and its employees.
Respondent’s Claim of A Safety Risk of Disclosure of Records Sought is Also A Pleading that PA13-3’s Registration Requirements are Unconstitutional
Any argument by any respondent that claims that disclosure of records that would detail information regarding the arms that the respondent town possesses, under a safety risk exemption or exception under CGS Chapter 14, would be the exact argument that one would make to plead that the registration requirements of PA13-3 are unconstitutional.
However, there is no case law that would support such claims and is contrary to the actions taken by the legislature and executive branches of this state.
The Freedom of Information Commission is likely not the authority to rule upon the constitutionality of PA13-3 and the commission should accept the constitutionality of PA13-3. The commission should take judicial notice of the public act.