You'll get my Model-25 when you pry it from my.....| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Government | |
| CT Legislature May Consider Gun Registration Amnesty | |
| 2014-01-28 | |
Amid concerns about gun owners who failed in their last-minute attempts to register now-illegal assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, lawmakers are considering granting an amnesty period for people who missed the registration deadline.
The governor's office responded Tuesday with a letter to legislative leaders in which they maintained the law prevents them from processing the late applications. "We said, well, it's too late," said Michael Lawlor, Under Secretary for Criminal Justice and Policy Planning for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. Lawlor's letter to legislators included guidelines for individuals whose late registrations were not processed: they can render the firearm or magazine inoperable, sell it to a licensed gun dealer, remove it from the state, or turn it over to law enforcement. Lawlor said the General Assembly must pass new legislation if the late applications are to be processed. | |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #5 I agree TX ed. In order to do a junk mail turn them in or else they need to: Register Freeze in place Accountable location of "Fell off the truck" would be like a traffic camera violation, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. See, its a tax, and if you can't prove yourself innocent you will open to fines, property confiscation, unannounced inspection, and possible jail time. You will receive a permanent note on your record, and your children will be required to wear a raspberry beret when in public. Funny how democrats can come up with a ten year plan to disarm the citizenry, but a ten year energy independence, impossible. Ten year balanced budget, absurd. Hey, if guns were banned, and they were in the country illegally for a few years, would they have earned the right to be legal? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2014-01-28 11:27 |
| #4 OK, they passed a regulation at odds with what people plainly want. The people ignored it. Next, they'll offer amnesty with veiled threats of possible repercussions. Then comes refusing to let individuals do business with the state unless they visibly comply. Think drivers licenses, etc. They're a privilege, not a prerogative. (Unless you're an illegal alien.) Then comes lockdown and search. BTW, the effort to require background checks on private sales, e.g. the the gun show loophole, I to prevent you from saying "I sold it." |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2014-01-28 08:18 |
| #3 A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted personÂ’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder were used in England between about 1300 and 1800 and resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures. However, the use of these bills eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly separation of powers, the right to due process, and the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group. For these reasons, bills of attainder are expressly banned by the United States Constitution as well as the constitutions of all 50 US states. - wiki That which was legal, now declared illegal. Meets the bill. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-01-28 08:01 |
| #2 "These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166. "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-01-28 07:59 |
| #1 You'll get my Model-25 when you pry it from my..... |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-01-28 05:26 |