Take care in how we make our points

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/crime/ct-lawmaker-threatened-over-ammo-bill

I find this article interesting and disturbing. I want more information about this before I really have an opinion on what happened.

What I see so far:

- He was charged with essentially disorderly conduct over the phone. (See below)
- The wording they attribute to the accused is not necessarily a threat.
- They don't use the wording 'allegedly' like they use on every other story.
- No reporter is listed for credit on the article.
- They say in one part that he threatened to kill her, but then say he simply said if the bill passes "the same thing would happen here". It is very possible that is meant as a threat, but it could also have been a warning out of concern for her safety.
- They confiscated all of his firearms and posted pictures of them to make him appear worse (I guess).
- They say he has 'assault rifles' but there are no AWB charges or weapons charges.
- He is charged with a misdemeanor, but they executed a search warrant?

This story smells funny to me, but I am hesitant to get on this guy's side until I know what was said. Either way, it sure doesn't help the cause much at the moment.

Be careful out there. Our opposition is not playing with mature mental faculties and they are looking for a reason to demonize us.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-183.htm said:

Sec. 53a-183. Harassment in the second degree: Class C misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when: (1) By telephone, he addresses another in or uses indecent or obscene language; or (2) with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he communicates with a person by telegraph or mail, by electronically transmitting a facsimile through connection with a telephone network, by computer network, as defined in section 53a-250, or by any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (3) with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.

(b) For purposes of this section such offense may be deemed to have been committed either at the place where the telephone call was made, or at the place where it was received.

(c) The court may order any person convicted under this section to be examined by one or more psychiatrists.

(d) Harassment in the second degree is a class C misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been talking about this one offline with friends.....

I wanna see how this works out as well. But when I heard the firearms were confiscated, it made me wonder.

Also, seeing some people testify at the capitol, makes me wonder.

Jonathan

Do we have any precedent for a search warrant and complete confiscation over a misdemeanor charge?

You didn't get the memo?

Representatives are special people and get more rights than the rest of us.

Jonathan

If you are arrested for a domestic disturbance, the police will take your guns on the spot. It doesn't take much.

In reality Connecticut holds the sad distinction of being the only State in the union that allows the State to seize private firearms without a crime having been committed, under guise of "law".

Governor John Rowland, a Republican, signed this blatant violation of our State and Federal constitution into law in 1999. It is scary that if you happen to piss off the wrong person, they can "drop a dime" on you. Perhaps fabricating a conversation with you, and delivering it into eager "law" enforcement hands. It is then put before a liberal judge who authorizes the seizure, and a squad shows up at your home, kicks your door in and takes your firearms.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E3DF113AF93BA15755C0A96F958260&pagewanted=all

If you research the topic online, you will find a staggering amount of seizures that have taken place because of this "law" since 1999. The potential for abuse is serious, and nobody has challenged this yet.

Here's another interesting link on the topic:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0280.htm

I'm in CT for only as long as it takes to get an offer of work in what I would consider a firearm friendly State.

- Open carry is legal without a permit, in vehicle or on foot, while fully loaded.
- Transport of pistol to/from a range is fine without permit
- No permit needed to purchase a pistol or any firearm (only your standard federal check)
- No "assault weapon" or magazine ban
- Full NFA legality without imposing any State level burdens
- No registration of any firearms

I have to give you guys a salute for trying to change things here in the face of overwhelming opposition. We are clearly in the minority, as left wing zealot politicians continue to get elected and produce treasonous bills like the latest one we are facing.

$1000 Bond

I saw the story on Channel 8 news at 11 pm the GUY HAD A $1000 bond, a 1 thousand dollar bond aint **** for a real crime.

Someone who is seriously taken to want to commit a political assassination is going to have way more than a $100 payment, to the bondsman if he doest have the Grand to put up himself.

That tells me the Police found no merit & or did not acess the 67 year old man as a REAL threat. Then Rep. Gentil gets cut in and is talking like she was almost assassinated, it was totally pathetic, then the CH 8 reporter was asking the man if he Mentioned Senator Gifford (AZ), like it was a sin, which he denied. Almost everyone testifying about the bill pointed out that this was a scare tactic based on the Arizona tragity, & mentioned it. I guess we know what way that Dumb Bitch who played this nonsense out to it's max Gentile is going to vote. She totally blew it out of proportion when you look at the whole scope of what she said, maybe he deserved to be arrested based on his verbiage, but i can tell you one conclusion i drew from the story, the Bitch played this out like she was JFK, and actually dodged the bullet, I hope that dumb Bitch dosent get reelected & if she votes against the ban i take back all the **** i said about her, LOL!:cuss:

I do have to say that sometimes, we are our own worst enemy.

You should hear some testimony at the capitol.

All it takes is one idiot to wipe out dozens of good testimony.

Jonathan

The more I look at the news reports today, combined with the low ball bail, I'm inclined to think this idiot played right into a representatives hand.

Even if it isn't so bad what he said, he gave them enough to not only call him on it, but also take his firearms. look at how often they are showing the Uzi....... only once did I hear all of them were legal.

I'm just saying, he may have openly threatened her, but with $1,000. bail, I have to wonder.

I'm getting more skeptical as the hours go by on this one.

Jonathan

I would seriously doubt that he actually directly threatened that Representative. This is a situation that hopefully becomes a test-case for the 1999 law that I discussed in my previous response.

I'm guessing that this law-abiding, tax-paying senior citizen was in contact with her office because she was a supporter of passing the magazine capacity ban in our State. He voiced his concerns, and things obviously got a little heated.

The Representative, knowing that he was obviously a firearm owner, decided to take advantage of State "law" and have his firearms seized. She alerted the police, fed them the necessary story, and set the confiscation into motion. He pissed her off, so she returned the favor. Politics-101.

That is my opinion on how things went down. Just speculation, but I'd bet that I'm correct.

They can keep his firearms for up to a year under this "law". They can also use the seizure as reason to deny a pistol permit in the future (this has been done previously, and is documented on the web elsewhere), or revocation of an existing permit.

It should also be noted that the wording of the 1999 law (if you look in the second link of my previous post in this thread) suggests that open-carry could potentially be interpreted as grounds for a seizure warrant being issued (under display).

All of this being done without any real crime being committed. No arrest or a conviction!

Very disturbing stuff.

How does this not conflict with the 14th Amendment?

I really don't see any signs of due process in the series of events (past and future) that have been laid out.

Regarding 2A issues and the 14th amendment.....

CT seriously has issues on this front. The BFPE is trying to do better (down from 18 months to approx. 9 months for a hearing).

It is a start, and they really are doing good work, even if we don't give them enough credit.

I had another thought today. I'm thinking of a FOIA request on his DPS license and such.

Seems they knew far too quickly what he had, displayed it to the media in an incredibly short amount of time. I'm curious if they really looked him up first, saw his inventory as having an Uzi and some black rifles and decided to make a media spectacle of him.

Jonathan

Before Connecticut earns the right to call itself the Constitution State, quite a bit needs to happen with the second amendment infrastructure. This is one of the big reasons why I want to leave this State again, so soon after having returned to it.

Here is a suggested priority list:

1) Repeal the 1999 firearm seizure law.
2) Pass a complete Castle Doctrine support system that includes putting any legal burdens on the intruders, removes any duty to retreat and provides complete civil liability protection for the defenders.
3) Repeal the "assault weapons" ban, and destroy any registration records about citizen inventories.
4) Eliminate the waiting periods for firearm purchases, and remove the need for a permit to purchase a pistol.
5) Eliminate the DPS and the BFPE, and ANY other State interference in the carrying of firearms. Fully embrace a "constitutional carry" system that allows citizens to carry pistols openly or concealed without requiring a permit, or permission from the State.
6) Eliminate State level nuisances to ownership of NFA items.
7) Solidify all of the above into the State constitution to prevent any possible erosions in the future.

And that's just off the top of my head. Given additional time I'm sure that I could come up with more.

Does the above scenario seem plausible here? That's why I'm trying to leave, because I don't think it will ever happen.

KIX said:

SNIP You should hear some testimony at the capitol.

All it takes is one idiot to wipe out dozens of good testimony.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

I might adjust that slightly.

All it takes is a dozen idiots listening to the testimony of one to wipe out...


It sounds slick, but I'm serious. If the testimony of one strong-opinioned person can wipe out the good testimony of dozens, then the problem is the listeners, not the one.

Citizen said:

If the testimony of one strong-opinioned person can wipe out the good testimony of dozens, then the problem is the listeners, not the one.

Click to expand...

+1

The only problem with your logic, it makes sense.

However, since the idiots on the other side are voting on the testimony, it's the results that count.

so, I stand on my original statement.

regarding what to get rid of, right now, I wouldn't get rid of the BFPE. They have been far more on citizens rights so far than against 'em. I go to the hearings, been to all of 'em this year. Trust me, they have been a benefit to us.

If we go shall issue, then maybe; but that doesn't totally stop them from being a benefit when we get get our permits temporarily (we hope) yanked from an over zealous LEO.

I'm just sayin', I've seen them give back more permits than not. And, if we didn't have that process, the legal process would take forever. We've already discussed due process issues.

As far as Constitution State goes........ there are so my other points wrong outside of 2A issues.

Kelo vs New London for starters.

New London is so freaking screwed up it isn't funny.

Jonathan

KIX said:

SNIP The only problem with your logic, it makes sense.

However, since the idiots on the other side are voting on the testimony, it's the results that count.

so, I stand on my original statement...

As far as Constitution State goes........ there are so my other points wrong outside of 2A issues.

Kelo vs New London for starters.

New London is so freaking screwed up it isn't funny.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't really disagree with you. There is a time to petition and a time to demand. I was merely injecting a thought to help you shift perspective a little bit. Not undermine you wholesale.

For other readers, KIX's reference to Kelo vs New London was the SCOTUS case where the local government wanted to take private property (homes and their land) and give it to a pharmaceutical company. The court ruled that where the constitution says property may be taken for public use, it really means public benefit--an entity that will pay more in taxes, for example. So, Mrs. Kelo, and a few others I think, had to move out and accept what the government was offering for their property.

But wait! There's more! As if that was not sufficiently outrageous, in the years since the SCOTUS decision, the pharmaceutical company has abandoned plans to build on the property. So, in effect Mrs. Kelo lost her place for nothing.

First let me say that I have sincere admiration and respect for every one of you here that is fighting the good fight. You ARE making a difference in a terribly difficult situation.

It takes commitment and iron balls to do what you do in this political climate. Enough said.

As things stand at this moment in time, the BFPE is necessary. It is a check and balance that so far has come down on the side of the citizen in the majority of instances.

Unfortunately what the State gives the State can also take away. With any permit system including "Shall issue", the state is still involved and this suggests privilege versus right. Keeping and bearing is a RIGHT that the State should have no say in, and one that the State should support completely. Supporting this gives the State legitimacy. It shows trust in its citizenry, and offers unconditional accountability.

Only by eliminating ANY permit process and going to Constitutional carry, can we as citizens be secure in the knowledge that the State cannot revoke our rights.

Once that is achieved (if ever in our State), at that point only will we not have a need for a group like the BFPE.

Right now we are trying to treat symptoms of the "disease" rather then attempting to cure the actual disease itself. The whole "may issue" debacle, with the local temp permits then the State permits should just be eliminated versus reformed.

Taking baby steps I suspect only makes our opposition stronger. I would suggest a go for the jugular, shock and awe campaign with the full force of our Federal and State Constitutions behind it. That is our advantage. All that they have are fear and lies, and unfortunately in this part of the country, votes that likely exceed our own tally.

It should start as a legislative bipartisan effort with full transparency. Bold legislators need to propose the new bills, repeals, the whole nine yards. Politicians who come out against the effort need to be exposed in the media, and be officially on record. That way their constituents will know how they stand on constitutional issues. Being against core, non-partisan American foundations deserves intense media exposure. Get as much national, and local media coverage as possible. Bring any organizations in to help out like the NRA or GOA. Take out all the stops.

If citizens here knew that these changes would be in their best interest, and would ultimately decrease crime, I would hope that they would support the proposals.

I hate to further derail this thread, but what exactly does anyone think that the BFPE will do if and when suitability is no longer part of the law?

What other states can be pointed to that have or need a BFPE that don't have suitability as a permit limitation/qualification?

BFPE would be a much more expedient process to getting your permit returned if revoked by law enforcement.

Hearings are much less formal and not like a court proceeding. No court costs, easier to comprehend for those that have to endure a process without legal experience or the money to hire representation.

Unless, you think permits in CT will not be confiscated just because we have suitability.......

Jonathan