Disturbing finer point from new CT law


PDA






19-3Ben
April 6, 2013, 09:44 AM
I was just reading this article (http://www.courant.com/business/hc-gun-control-stores-20130404,0,3525271.story) in the Hartford Courant, related to our new gun laws. It was specifically about the rush of people on Thursday who were trying to buy standard cap magazines, AR15s, etc... before the ban went into effect when the governor (hack, spit) signed it at noon that day. Leading up to noon, I can tell you from personal experience that the gun shops were a mess. Then we got to this part of the article:

Mike Lawlor, the Malloy administration's criminal justice chief, said that all the sales of assault rifles and large-capacity magazines on Thursday were in vain — the owners won't be able to keep them after Jan. 1.

"The person must prove that the weapon was possessed on the day before the effective date of the bill," Lawlor said in an email. "Today is the effective date."

Emphasis mine.

I would think it would be the government's obligation to prove that one owned the magazine/evil gun before the effective date. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. The burden should fall on the government to show that you have committed a crime. Besides, let's say that I bought a 30 round AR magazine two years ago. You think I still have the receipt? Gimme a break! There is no reasonable way to obligate people to prove that they have not committed a crime. This may be another example of a) Lawlor not actually knowing what's in the bill, or b) a great way to shoot down the bill for it's several violations of constitutional law, and for the manner in which it was passed.
To paraphrase one of my favorite cases from law school (International Shoe v. Washington "It offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

If you enjoyed reading about "Disturbing finer point from new CT law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Torian
April 6, 2013, 09:51 AM
Many aspects of the bill appear to be unenforceable. As usual, those individuals (let's just say who are are referring too...liberals) completely ignorant of the firearms they want to regulate, pass laws that are either unconstitutional, or unenforceable.

A serial # on a firearm will tell you the date of production, but not the date of sale. All the 30 round magazines I have are non serialized and have no DTG markings whatsoever.

Trent
April 6, 2013, 10:43 AM
We should all sacrifice a broken magazine and flood the Governor with them.

19-3Ben
April 6, 2013, 02:16 PM
We should all sacrifice a broken magazine and flood the Governor with them.

Yup. that way he can tell the news about how effective his law was.

This is how the press conference goes:

"I'm pleased to announce that shortly after passing bill 1160, we received 1,000 high capacity magazines from the responsible gun owners of CT in an act of conciliation and compromise. This bi-partisan bill has obviously struck a cord with all, and now these magazines which could only be used for killing, are off the streets forever."

jerryd
April 6, 2013, 04:01 PM
New Haven Had 2 murders in 2 days so dirtbag Malloys laws are really working!!!! What a POS he is along with Beth Eye Glaring Cyclops!

ChaoSS
April 6, 2013, 06:00 PM
I thought they weren't worried about it, after all, shortly all these people will be shooting these high capacity mags, and then we won't have to worry about them. Right?

danthearmyman
April 6, 2013, 06:19 PM
What says I don't "register" 10,000 mags, and just buy them later?

ccsniper
April 6, 2013, 06:19 PM
We should all sacrifice a broken magazine and flood the Governor with them.

We should flood CT residents with magazines instead. If everyone ignores the new law, it is practically not a real law. It is unconstitutional and as such is not law.

If you enjoyed reading about "Disturbing finer point from new CT law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!