Lawlor, Crook, and Sherman don't see the legislature repealing or revising the gun seizure law. Pinciaro said Connecticut Against Gun Violence doesn't see any reason why lawmakers should take either action.
"The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives," Pinciaro said.
Remember, the authors of the law see nothing wrong with it.
Gun owners don't have the resources to wage a decades-long legal battle, so it's Unconstitutionality won't be established.
And the intentions are good, so the mere speculation that it might have saved lives trumps the Constitution anyway.
After Heller, these people should be imprisoned for willful violation of Civil Rights under Colour of Law.
Cheers!
Slippery slope.
Gun owners don’t have the money, but the NRA might.
“The report to the legislature shows that state judges are inclined to issue gun seizure warrants and uphold seizures when challenged in court.”
‘Minority Report’ starring Tom Cruise?
Any guess we are at the finishing touches to a police state?
So do they apprehend illegals before they commit a crime with the same gusto?
If anyone has lost a family member to gang bangers and other assorted rotter’s, they should sue that state into the ground.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 165:
Bill of attainder. Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1715, 14 L.Ed. 484, 492; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 1079, 90 L.Ed. 1252. An act is a "bill of attainder" when the punishment is death and a "bill of pains and penalties" when the punishment is less severe; both kinds of punishment fall within the scope of the constitutional prohibition. U.S.Const. Art. I, Sect 9, Cl. 3 (as to Congress);' Art. I, Sec, 10 (as to state legislatures).
also (same site)
Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3:
"'No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.'" A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial.
I do not care whether the people who wrote the law like it or not. It seems pretty clear that they have overstepped their bounds.
They can have their money back after they promise never to run for office again and prove the danger has passed
Well this is just wonderful news to learn about my state.
Seems like an outright violation of the 2nd amendment to me.
By their own logic, these legislators should be arrested before they have the chance to write unconstitutional laws.
Pinciaro......another village idiot.
Quick, let’s seize all the cars in case someone might have a accident!
Like a policeman that took the gun in the first place or some politician who Fancy's a newer model. From my cold dead fingers,
The state's gun seizure law is considered the first and only law in the country that allows the confiscation of a gun before the owner commits an act of violence. Police and state prosecutors can obtain seizure warrants based on concerns about someone's intentions.Then hypothetically ....There are nearly 900,000 privately owned firearms in Connecticut today.
if the Legislature was about to pass a law, say an onerous Tax Increase, that they believed would 'outrage' the citizens, they could then first seize all 900,000 guns in the state under the guise that there'd be "concerns about gun owners intentions" if said law was passed.Yep, definitely constitutional.
/s
So if your dog pees on your neighbor’s flowers, and your neighbor calls the police on you and says he is afraid, the police will violate the Constitutional protection against privacy and seizure of private property, and unlawfully take what is yours.
This law is invalid, and therefore illegal.
Fascism when practiced by government is still fascism. Only it’s called “law”.
Prior Restraint goes on steroids. How nice.
ACLU where are you?? This is a legit case here..