It's worth noting that many states already do this, and many states have stricter standards, for example disqualification of those who voluntarily seek treatment for drug or alcohol problems.
Further, setting up a government office to review lifting the restrictions would end up in the same office as registering new Class III firearms. Bet on it...
So if I lived in that state and attended AA, I couldn't get a gun. If I then move to another state and attend AA, I could.
Under the proposed system, the state where I used to live would report my name to the federal database, meaning I could never get a gun no matter where I go. Well, there's an improvement, huh? Thank God my state doesn't consider ADD a disqualifier.
Perhaps you'll say that I can appeal, based on differing state laws. Fine. Then why even adopt the new system?
Another NRA frog boiling sell out.
Who is this crap going to prevent from getting a gun?. Is it going to stop a criminal?. This so called law has nothing to do with anything but control of the honest law abiding citizen. Stupidity reigns supreme.
Not only is this article in the Connecticut Law Tribune,..... you can expect LARGE ARTICLE in Monday morning's Hartford Courant about the DYSFUNCTIONAL State Police Firearms Unit..... here is the Law Tribune Article [CCS Comment- Prior to Bruce Stern's death, we had made the preliminary moves to get an appointment with the Governor's office to discuss this issue and the current law pertaining to the Sale of Confiscated Firearms. Stern and Attny Ralph Sherman had agreed to attend the meeting. Bob Crook would not attend because of the Gov's policy to not meet with lobbyists. Based on this article and others that will follow, the Firearms Board and CSP procedures should expect some immediate corrections, particularly with some similarities to the parole fiasco. We'll keep you informed.]
Commentary: Gun Permit Delays Intolerable
Connecticut Law Tribune Monday, October 08, 2007 Copyright 2007, ALM Properties, Inc.
Gun Permit Delays Intolerable
By KAREN LEE TORRE
There has been a spike in state residents enrolling in gun safety classes, a prerequisite for a permit. (Can you blame them - they live in a state which unleashes convicts.) According to a recent federal action, they can expect to have their constitutional rights trammeled by the state. Assigned to U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant, the complaint alleges a pattern of abuses by Connecticut State Police (CSP) officials bent on frustrating citizens' rights. It seeks class action status and injunctive relief for all those ensnared in CSP's purported hostility to private gun ownership.
The allegations are serious enough without considering they're coming from the inside. The plaintiff is M. Peter Kuck, a member of the Board of Firearms Examiners (BFE), the very body that decides appeals from citizens denied a permit. Kuck offers a unique glimpse inside a rebellious law enforcement bureaucracy that won't respect the law.
The CSP role is to process applications, oversee criminal record checks and timely advise applicants of a decision. (State law disqualifies all convicted of felonies and other serious offenses as well as those who were committed to a mental institution.) Those denied a permit have a right to a de novo hearing before the BFE. Remarkably, the CSP won't disclose to applicants the basis for denial, and worse yet, plays games with the duty to disclose the reasons to the BFE.
Kuck cites a huge backlog of appeals caused by the CSP's deliberate withholding from the BFE of required documentation needed to decide them. State auditors found that over a period of six years, the average wait time for a hearing went from three months to an unconscionable 17-20 months. According to Kuck, CSP officials, aware that many denials are lawless and likely to be overturned, obstruct the Board's functioning by stall tactics calculated to delay the granting of permits for as long as possible. In the interim, law-abiding citizens are denied the right to protect their families against criminals whose own rights always manage to dominate liberals' warped priorities.
Kuck asserts this state of affairs violates citizens' rights to a meaningful and prompt hearing. He joined the victims. Himself a permit-holder up for renewal, Kuck challenged a CSP demand for a birth certificate or passport. Denied renewal, Kuck's hearing was scheduled 17 months later.
While Kuck flags a good due process issue, I believe this entire regulatory scheme flies in the face of the state constitution which contains one of the clearest guarantees in the nation: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." For decades, legislators and bureaucrats have gotten away with regulating this freedom out of existence.
A college text which greatly influenced my views about government addressed "the politics of bureaucracy." Among its premises was the inevitability of the dynamics of self-interest overtaking the bureaucrat. Agency process is molded and manipulated over time such that laws and constitutions are effectively amended by the unelected operating in the shadows of cubicles. Accomplished by accretion, the public is largely unaware that its prerogative of self-government has been hijacked by munchkins. Kuck's complaint illustrates the dynamic.
Despite the "Brady Bunch" rhetoric, gun control is really about the state insuring against an effective revolt against tyranny. Hitler understood this - gun control was one of his first measures. He preferred that when the time came, Jews would be constrained to throw rocks at the Gestapo.
The drafters of Connecticut's constitution, the product of brave men who bore arms against their own government, would be aghast at this subversion of an unambiguous text. If the public wants all these restrictions, they can amend the document. Until then, courts must intercede against constitutional amendment by bureaucratic stealth. Judge Bryant is new to the federal bench but she has hit the ground running, productively punching out rulings despite probably not having all her furniture yet. She is not wasting time. She should waste no time giving serious attention to this matter.
Karen Lee Torre, a New Haven trial lawyer, litigates civil rights issues in the federal courts. Her e-mail address is ktorre@choiceonemail.com.
The problem I have with this bill is that it removes due process of law from the issue. Now, people can have their rights taken away without being able to plead their case in court. It’s assuming people are guilty and making those people prove they are innocent. This is bad juju!
The other part that I have issues with is the “rights restoration” segment. This very requirement has passed in bills before and the BATFE has in every instance re-allocated the money to other areas such as enforcement.
third thing is that this bill was introduced by McCarthy. This alone should send up red flags. The fact that the NRA is backing it makes me VERY concerned.
If GOA is right, the NRA will be finished. I hope they realize just how dangerous this gamble is.
Mike
Does that mean if someone checks into AA with a drinking problem, they can never legally purchase a new firearm?