Conn. govt orders gun owners to turn in or destroy unregistered "assault weapons"

[Plasmaball]

state rights, Tenth amendment etc etc...tehe

You are the Khmer Rouge, no Constitution constrains you! You trample civil rights and the rule of law, empowered by your god, Obama!

Keep fighting the bad fight, Pussball!

i actually disagree with Conn. Banning guns....I personally feel you should be able to own whatever firearm you want, so long as you pass all the background checks.

 

[jon_berzerk]

 

[buckeye45_73]

GOOD!!


Let's round up all the paranoid redneck fucks who won't follow the laws.


I'm sick of gun owners who think it's patriotic to break the law.j

When a black guy robs his house to get money to survive, does Mr. Gun Nutter call the black guy a patriot?? No.

See, that's how you nutters appear to us -- a bunch of criminals.

Youre a fucking tard. To equate owning a gun with robbing a house.

You guys really do like murderers, rapists, and pedophiles over average middle class people.


And why does the guy have to be black? it seems a little stereotypical and shows democrats are what they have always been.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conn. govt orders gun owners to turn in or destroy unregistered "assault weapons"

Connecticut officials are urging owners...

That you’re a liar comes as no surprise, of course, as you’ve been proven a liar several times in the past, where ‘urging’ is not ‘ordering’; or you’re also too ignorant to understand the meanings of those two words.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Please remind me how a government that orders me to turn in a gun I legally purchased and never hurt or threatened anyone with, is NOT violating my 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms?

Am I the only one who thinks they're blatantly violating the 2nd?

If the 2nd doesn't forbid this, then what does it forbid?

That's up to the courts to decide:

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

Covello relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision, which found a law banning handgun ownership in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects ownership of guns, such as handguns, that are "in common use," meaning that they are widely owned and legally used for purposes such as personal protection.

The Connecticut plaintiffs argued that assault weapons are commonly used, in the state and across the country, for hunting, sporting competitions and home protection. Common usage makes the weapons and large-capacity magazines subject to Second Amendment protection, the plaintiffs argued.

The state, in its defense of the law, disputed the claim of widespread usage. Referring to Sandy Hook, it argued that the banned weapons and magazines present unjustifiable threats and that gun violence will decrease if both are outlawed.

Covello, agreeing with the plaintiffs, concluded that the weapons and magazines are commonly owned and legally used in Connecticut and elsewhere. But he parted company with the plaintiffs when he wrote that the state's ownership and sales ban is justified when the government's goal of reducing violence is measured against the ban's impingement on Second Amendment rights.

Federal Court Says Connecticut's Aggressive Assault Weapon Ban Is Constitutional - Hartford Courant

And eventually the Supreme Court will make the final determination as to whether the banning of AR-type rifles meets the burden of a compelling governmental interest.

 

[buckeye45_73]

GOOD!!


Let's round up all the paranoid redneck fucks who won't follow the laws.


I'm sick of gun owners who think it's patriotic to break the law.

When a black guy robs his house to get money to survive, does Mr. Gun Nutter call the black guy a patriot?? No.

See, that's how you nutters appear to us -- a bunch of criminals.

I am sick of you idiot commie libtards who like to violate our rights. Shut the hell up you sick commie.

What fucking decade are we living in that people still call each other commies? Thanks gramps.

Ok, commie pinko

 

[LordBrownTrout]

GOOD!!


Let's round up all the paranoid redneck fucks who won't follow the laws.


I'm sick of gun owners who think it's patriotic to break the law.

When a black guy robs his house to get money to survive, does Mr. Gun Nutter call the black guy a patriot?? No.

See, that's how you nutters appear to us -- a bunch of criminals.

Its not the rednecks shooting up schools and cinemas. Its freaks like you.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD5lL-p50wQ

Awesome video!

 

[jon_berzerk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD5lL-p50wQ

Awesome video!

pass it around

and congrats on your news

 

[RDD_1210]

I am sick of you idiot commie libtards who like to violate our rights. Shut the hell up you sick commie.

What fucking decade are we living in that people still call each other commies? Thanks gramps.

Punk, commies are commies no matter what decade.

Get off my lawn!

 

[martybegan]

Please remind me how a government that orders me to turn in a gun I legally purchased and never hurt or threatened anyone with, is NOT violating my 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms?

Am I the only one who thinks they're blatantly violating the 2nd?

If the 2nd doesn't forbid this, then what does it forbid?

That's up to the courts to decide:

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

Covello relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision, which found a law banning handgun ownership in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects ownership of guns, such as handguns, that are "in common use," meaning that they are widely owned and legally used for purposes such as personal protection.

The Connecticut plaintiffs argued that assault weapons are commonly used, in the state and across the country, for hunting, sporting competitions and home protection. Common usage makes the weapons and large-capacity magazines subject to Second Amendment protection, the plaintiffs argued.

The state, in its defense of the law, disputed the claim of widespread usage. Referring to Sandy Hook, it argued that the banned weapons and magazines present unjustifiable threats and that gun violence will decrease if both are outlawed.

Covello, agreeing with the plaintiffs, concluded that the weapons and magazines are commonly owned and legally used in Connecticut and elsewhere. But he parted company with the plaintiffs when he wrote that the state's ownership and sales ban is justified when the government's goal of reducing violence is measured against the ban's impingement on Second Amendment rights.

Federal Court Says Connecticut's Aggressive Assault Weapon Ban Is Constitutional - Hartford Courant

And eventually the Supreme Court will make the final determination as to whether the banning of AR-type rifles meets the burden of a compelling governmental interest.

The judge is a partisan ass.

 

[PredFan]

Mulon Labe mother fuckers!

 

[martybegan]

[q


Back to the subject:
These gun owners are, of course, people who have never killed anybody, never shot anybody, never even scared anybody with their guns, never done the slightest thing "bad" with them.

And now the Connecticut legislator has made criminals of them.

What, exactly, will that government do next when the gun owners CONTINUE to do nothing, as they have done all along?

And who, exactly, will be the wrongdoer when the government does it?

You still get to keep your peashooter so the second isn't affected. They just get to choose what type to get to carry. Nothing wrong with that...

You still get to express your opinions via mail, so us banning the use of the internet for expressing said opinion doesn't go against the 1st amendment....

 

[Uncensored2008]

i actually disagree with Conn. Banning guns....I personally feel you should be able to own whatever firearm you want, so long as you pass all the background checks.

Your personal feelings are utterly irrelevant, the divide is between those of us who hold to the rule of law, the enumerated constitution, and those of you who support the rule of Obama in it's stead.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That you’re a liar comes as no surprise, of course, as you’ve been proven a liar several times in the past, where ‘urging’ is not ‘ordering’; or you’re also too ignorant to understand the meanings of those two words.

Saul, does not this unconstitutional, ex post facto law, make those who own rifles with greater than 10 round capacity, into felons?

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD5lL-p50wQ

Awesome video!

pass it around

and congrats on your news

Will do and Thank You!

 

[RoadVirus]

Let's round up all the paranoid redneck fucks who won't follow the laws.

Translation: Arrest all law-abiding citizens who are concerned for their lives, the lives of their families and of their property.

I'm sick of gun owners who think it's patriotic to break the law.

Translation: I hate people who want to defend themselves

When a black guy robs his house to get money to survive, does Mr. Gun Nutter call the black guy a patriot?? No.

When a Black guy (or any guy of any color) robs a house, it's against the law. And since the homeowners have no idea of the intention of the robber, they should have the right to defend themselves. And also:
Translation: I think all gun owners are racists.

See, that's how you nutters appear to us -- a bunch of criminals.

Translation: I think people who want to defend themselves are criminals.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If the 2nd doesn't forbid this, then what does it forbid?

 

[MaxGrit]

The United States Constitution forbids legislative bills of attainder under Article I, Section 9. The provision forbidding state law bills of attainder, Article I, Section 10, reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue.
Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial or executive functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was partially reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".
The constitution of every State also expressly forbids bills of attainder. For example, Wisconsin's constitution Article I, Section 12 reads:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

 

[g5000]

This is the latest installment of the liberal fanatics' "Nobody's coming to take away your guns" mantra.

Hundreds of thousands of Connecticut gun owners who have done nothing wrong and haven't lifted a finger, are now facing charges, having been turned into instant criminals by Connecticut legislators.

And it's true, as far as it goes: The govt is NOT coming to get the guns. It is telling the gun owners to turn them in. Or destroy them.

These gun owners have already refused the govt's request to register them. How hard do you think those gun owners are going to try now, to comply with a request to turn them in or destroy them?

And when they refuse this one, then... what will the government do next?

Liberals, are you preparing your NEXT chorus of "Govt isn't coming to take your guns!"?

Better use it fast, while you still can.

--------------------------------------------

Conn. officials tell gun owners to relinquish or destroy banned assault weapons | Fox News

Conn. officials tell gun owners to relinquish or destroy banned assault weapons

Published March 15, 2014 /
Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. – Connecticut officials are urging owners of now-illegal assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines to relinquish them to the police or make them permanently inoperable.

The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection announced Friday it had sent a letter to owners who had failed to register the items by a Jan. 1 deadline, part of last year's gun control law. Officials offered advice on what to do now with the weapons and magazines.

The letter says gun owners are in compliance with the new state law if their items are no longer in Connecticut or were sold to an authorized gun dealer.

I can't help thinking this is an ex post facto law, which would make it unconstitutional.

It was legal to own an unregistered weapon, now they are making it illegal to own the very same unregistered weapon after the fact.

It will be interesting to see how the courts handle this.