A Commentary on Pending Legislation
Posted in the Niantic Forum
#1 Feb 20, 2013
The following Connecticut proposed legislation prohibits the possession of semi-automatic guns and/or magazines of greater than ten rounds. None of the legislation includes a grandfathering clause. In the basic form, the legislation mandates the state to seize and confiscate those guns and magazines. These bills violate the premise of the Fourth Amendment and undermine the Second Amendment not to mention the Connecticut Constitution.
H.B. 5647 An Act Concerning High Capacity Firearms', To Protect Public Safety By Reducing The Number Of High Capacity Firearms In Circulation
H.B. 5949 An Act Concerning Possession Of Certain Ammunition Feeding Devices
H.B. 5950 'An Act Reducing The Incidence Of Gun Violence', To Reduce Gun Violence And Limit The Availability Of Especially Dangerous Firearms
H.B. 5954 An Act Concerning The Possession Of Semiautomatic Firearms With Fixed Magazine Capacities Of Over Ten Rounds
H.B. 6215 An Act Limiting The Possession Of Assault Weapons And High Capacity Magazines
H.B. 6216 'An Act Concerning The Regulation Of Firearms, Assault Weapons And Ammunition
H.B. 6308 An Act Concerning Military Style Weapons'
S.B. 1 An Act Concerning the Protection of Children, Families and Other Individuals from Violence
S.B. 122 An Act Concerning Restrictions on Gun Use
S.B. 124 An Act Banning Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines
S.B. 161 'An Act Concerning The Reduction Of Gun Violence'
S.B. 608 An Act Prohibiting The Possession, Importation, Transfer Or Sale Of Certain Types Of Unreasonably Dangerous Ammunition
S.B. 613 An Act Concerning Gun Violence.
S.B. 676 An Act Concerning Large Capacity Firearm Magazines And Similar Devices.
These bills assume two actions on the part of Connecticut citizens and law enforcement personnel. The first assumption is that law enforcement personnel would willingly seize private property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Seizure of private property requires authorization by the courts for each action. That is unlikely, not to mention time consuming and expensive. Even with judicial authorization, I would think that most law enforcement personnel would be hesitant, at best, to act. Call out the National Guard for law enforcement actions? Illegal and immoral.
The second assumption is that the Connecticutís citizenry would meekly hand over the subject guns and magazines. I think that would not be the case in at least some instances. The result would be dead citizens and law enforcement personnel.
Also, one must consider Representative Darganís proposed legislation (H.B. 5112 An Act Concerning the Disclosure of the Names and Addresses of Persons Holding Handgun Permits). This bill almost demands criminal activity. You may rest assured that should this bill be enacted, law abiding citizens, both gun owners and non-gun owners would suffer grievous criminal harm up to, and including, death.
Add your comments below
|Waterford's former Poor Richard's restaurant razed||Dec '17||sklexicon||1|
|The Stenger Farm Pond Case (Jul '09)||Nov '17||Violet||17|
|Can I buy a gym (Jul '17)||Jul '17||45blake45||1|
|spending money on pidgeys, zubats and rattas (Jul '16)||Jun '17||Kitkat4076||2|
|Walking (Dec '16)||Jan '17||JakeJr||2|
|Changing team in pokemon go (Jul '16)||Aug '16||brickeahl7||9|
|Gym Spot Sniping (Aug '16)||Aug '16||Faulconner||1|
Find what you want!
Search Niantic Forum Now
Copyright © 2018 Topix LLC