• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

S

Skinnedknuckles

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
108
Location
Connecticut
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?
 
motoxmann

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
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.
 
N

novanglus

New member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2
Location
West Hartford
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.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
novanglus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
motoxmann

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
novanglus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
N

novanglus

New member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
2
Location
West Hartford
motoxmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

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>:banghead:

And I will just move on regarding "get permission from the government" for a right that exists outside of that social compact.
 
bmmd321

bmmd321

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
25
Location
Hamden,CT
novanglus said:
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>:banghead:

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

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?
 
motoxmann

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
bmmd321 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
bmmd321 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top