http://wtnh.com/2016/05/03/governor-malloy-expected-to-sign-new-gun-law/ Due process? Who cares! Bill requiring restraining order subjects to surrender guns passes state Legislature That's a lot of people to not care about due process.
A state that is so quick to confiscate your guns without due process, isn't very likely to promptly return them. It's seven days for a full hearing, what's the time limit for returning the confiscated property and the penalty for not doing so within that time limit?
If laws like this are left to stand, eventually there will be nowhere left to flee, so that strategy is pretty much worthless.
I wasn't commenting on it as a strategy, rather I was making an observation that gun owners that hadn't already left the gun hating state of Connecticut may feel the urge to now.
Ah okay, got it. I was discussing this and college carry with my wife last night and came to the conclusion, freedom doesn't sell – safety does. Even if legal campus carry and expanded gun ownership could be indisputably proven that it decreases public safety, I would still support the freedom to carry and own guns. But freedom doesn't sell, safety does. Luckily, we don't have to rely on the freedom argument and can market safety with supporting data instead.
Freedom isn't free, it has to be fought for. Safety, is a unicorn. It's a marketing concept that never truly exists. A set of trade-offs. I mentioned the other day these anti-gun arguments have to be narrowly focused because as soon as one expands the narrow scope, the argument for that particular gun control fails. The 2A doesn't include the word "home" for a reason. There is no sacred ground (college, church, etc.) where the need for defense never exists. I'm not disputing your point as it makes sense, just that debating "safety" is a gotcha. Preaching to the choir, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It's just the marketing that sells it this year. It'll always be something, tax cuts, rebates, the children, the future, etc. that sells. Your ideals won't always sell, but if you can wrap your ideals in something that does sell, then you get to keep your ideals. Yay freedom.
Who needs an ideal like due process when women and children can be safer? Sounds like the marketing worked in Connecticut. Maybe Georgia too.
That's not so simple a thing to do as you may think. Lots of us are tied to a general geographic area by family, jobs, etc. The entirety of my extended family has lived and died within 50 miles of my birthplace in MA forever. With the exception of me, my son (FL) and my daughter (TN temporarily).
Well, the GA Board of Regents apparently marketed a deal to Deal, and he then in turn marketed the idea of women and children not being safe around licensed carriers of concealed pistols on college campuses, right after stating that such fears lacked validity: "We heard all the hype that we’re now hearing about campus carry, all the predictions of tragedies. All the predictions that we were going to open our state up to a Wild West scenario. Those earlier fears don’t appear to have come true. So, therefore, to use those kind of arguments with the campus carry discussion, I think lacks validity." - Governor Nathan Deal, AJC, February 29, 2016 (underline mine) So exactly what deal is Hypocrite Deal expecting that made him do a 180? It should be clear that his veto was bought and paid for. Who will hold him accountable? Or Gov. Malloy?
With any amount of fairness, Malloy's veto on due process will not pass judicial muster. Short of some evidence of Deal's ethics issues gets uncovered in selling a veto, we again rely on the courts in HB826. But then, with Hillary, Lerner, Rangel, Corzine, et al, I won't be holding my breath.
He initially made his position pro-gun to get the BOR to offer him better money for the veto. Just a theory.