Skip to comments.Gun Control Suit Highlights Need To Keep Legislative Lights On
Posted on 07/14/2013 3:18:01 AM PDT by Daffynition
Whether you are for or against the National Shooting Sports Foundation's lawsuit to overturn Connecticut's new gun control law, you will probably approve the grounds on which the challenge is based. I am not hoping, or expecting, this lawsuit to invalidate the law, but it makes an important point that could and should lead to changes in Connecticut's legislative process.
The complaint, filed Monday in federal court, is unusual among gun control suits. It barely mentions gun control, Second Amendment rights or even guns. This action is directed not at the substance of the law which broadened the assault weapons ban and required background checks for firearms purchases but at the way the General Assembly adopted it. Instead of putting the bill through the usual public hearings and floor debate and having it available to legislators in printed form two days before the vote, the legislative leaders invoked a shortcut called Emergency Certification, or e-cert.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
I love the way the HC changes titles from the hard-copy to fit their agenda-driven publication on the 'net.
Well, well boyz 'n girls in the CT legislature...whatchagonnado? Looks as if this law suit has some teeth.
Spokesman for Governor Malloy: **We believe the bill improves public safety, and we will work with the attorney general's office to defend it," he said. "Let's not forget that this has happened before. In prior instances where Connecticut has passed common sense restrictions on firearms, there have been challenges. They have all been unsuccessful.**
Stay tuned. We all know these people in Hartford are fools. There's some poetic justice to be played out here.
Insert a suppository for e-cert.
No crisis will go unexploited by these effing fascists.
Then they organize and make everyt crisis happen , and we now have a flock of fascist politicians running our state and nation.
I am not a fan of their legislative efforts, in some cases at cross purposes. No one is perfect, but if you think fix nics is a good idea then you are in love with the idea of federal data bases that seek one think related to guns and that is to make as many people as possible, prohibited from owning guns.
“shall not be infringed” has no mention of mental health, mental capacity, or anything related to physical health that one should be asked by a physician seeking health history whether there are guns in your home. These are all generated at the Federal level as a back door effort to control access to firearms for the law abiding us citizen.
Law abiding is also not a factor in the “shall not be infringed” statement in the Bill of Rights, and I resent the inference that it is the law abiding that need to be controlled in order to be safe from the minority who care not for the rule of law in the first place.
Consent of the Governed.
Total breakdown of the Rule of Law.
Yes. When they are willing to disreguard the Constitution, why should we expect them to follow any lesser form of the law?
No rule of the law, just the rule of men. That is the way the legilators like it, as long as they are in charge.
See my post #2 dated 4 Jan 2009
It was clear then what Obozo actually was about.
They passed the gun law....and can’t even interpret it so manufacturers can be in compliance.
I was told to get a lawyer, figure it out and if Im wrong Im going to have to deal with it, said Mark Malkowski, the Stag Arms owner and president. Its my responsibility to interpret I was told we were no longer allowed to bring prototypes in.
That means Stag, and any other manufacturer seeking to design a rifle within the rules, and any retailer who offers that product in Connecticut, must take a risk when it comes to figuring out a regulation a high risk, since selling assault weapons could be viewed as a crime.
These people are despicable. Voting them out of office seems impossible of late.