Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/03/2008 8:43:28 AM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
To: Graybeard58

2 posted on 08/03/2008 8:48:12 AM PDT by april15Bendovr (Free Republic & Ron Paul Cult = oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
Lawlor said there have been no challenges on constitutional grounds because of the way the law was written. "The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said. Sherman said it is because the law is used sparingly, and because a test case would be too costly for average gun owners.

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!

3 posted on 08/03/2008 8:48:19 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

Slippery slope.


4 posted on 08/03/2008 8:48:55 AM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

Gun owners don’t have the money, but the NRA might.


5 posted on 08/03/2008 8:51:16 AM PDT by TheNewPundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

“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?


6 posted on 08/03/2008 8:53:16 AM PDT by Ben Reyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

Any guess we are at the finishing touches to a police state?


7 posted on 08/03/2008 8:53:31 AM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

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.


8 posted on 08/03/2008 8:59:58 AM PDT by TruthConquers (Delendae sunt publici scholae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
From CITES BY TOPIC: Bill of attainder Defining Bills of Attainder-Thomas M. Saunders

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.

9 posted on 08/03/2008 9:00:44 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
Maybe the citizens of Conn. can pass a law to seize the assets of politicians so they can't run for office to pass such asinine anti constitutional laws.

They can have their money back after they promise never to run for office again and prove the danger has passed

10 posted on 08/03/2008 9:01:31 AM PDT by Popman (McCain as POTUS is odious, Obama as POTUS is unthinkable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

Well this is just wonderful news to learn about my state.


16 posted on 08/03/2008 9:39:02 AM PDT by wastedyears (Show me your precious darlings, and I will crush them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

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.


23 posted on 08/03/2008 10:12:14 AM PDT by navyguy (Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

Pinciaro......another village idiot.


25 posted on 08/03/2008 10:36:54 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

Quick, let’s seize all the cars in case someone might have a accident!


26 posted on 08/03/2008 10:39:07 AM PDT by Islander7 ("Show me an honest politician and I will show you a case of mistaken identity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
turned over to someone else,

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,

29 posted on 08/03/2008 10:42:00 AM PDT by bikerman (_ _ . /_ _ _ /_ . . / / . . . . / . / . _ . . / . _ _ . / / . . _ / . . . //)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
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.

There are nearly 900,000 privately owned firearms in Connecticut today.

Then hypothetically ....
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

31 posted on 08/03/2008 10:56:16 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

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.


36 posted on 08/03/2008 11:21:16 AM PDT by BooksForTheRight.com (Fight liberal lies with knowledge. Read conservative books and articles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

Fascism when practiced by government is still fascism. Only it’s called “law”.


39 posted on 08/03/2008 11:28:02 AM PDT by BooksForTheRight.com (Fight liberal lies with knowledge. Read conservative books and articles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
Want to bet that some of the same people who think preemptive confiscation is a good idea opposed the use of a preemptive strike to take out Saddam Hussein.
41 posted on 08/03/2008 11:33:30 AM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58

Prior Restraint goes on steroids. How nice.


46 posted on 08/03/2008 11:52:31 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Thank you Dith Pran for showing us what Communism brings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58; All

ACLU where are you?? This is a legit case here..


50 posted on 08/03/2008 12:07:07 PM PDT by KevinDavis (Hey Barak... I'm a citizen of the US not the WORLD!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson