I was just reading this article 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:
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."
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."