[Taurus92]

http://wtnh.com/2016/05/03/governor-malloy-expected-to-sign-new-gun-law/

Hartford, Conn. (WTNH)- The state senate has passed a bill that prevents people with temporary restraining orders against them from having firearms.

The legislation passed by a 23 to 13 margin. Governor Malloy has promised to sign it into law. Under the legislation, a person with a restraining order would have to hand over any firearms to police or a firearms dealer within 24 hours of being served with the order.

Due process? Who cares!

Bill requiring restraining order subjects to surrender guns passes state Legislature

The state Senate voted in favor of the bill on Monday 23-13.
The bill, which passed the House of Representatives last Wednesday with a vote of 104-42, prevents people served with temporary restraining orders from keeping their guns. Alleged abusers now have 24 hours to sell their weapons to a licensed dealer or turn them over to police.

That's a lot of people to not care about due process.

CCDL members have pointed out since the governor introduced this bill, it is nothing but a back door method to force the surrender of firearms with no opportunity for a respondent of such an order to be heard prior to any surrender of legal property. The bill would eliminate the standard protection of ‘Due Process’ as affirmed under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

We feel it is important for the public to understand that individuals who may be served with an order of this type do not even have to be charged with any crime, let alone convicted of wrong-doing.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Bill requiring restraining order subjects to surrender guns passes state Legislature

The new legislation requires a hearing on a full restraining order within seven days. If a permanent order is not granted, gun owners get their firearms back.

Well, at least there is a method to get them back relatively quickly.

 

[moe mensale]

Well, at least there is a method to get them back relatively quickly.

"Relatively quickly" and "from police possession" are diametrically opposed.

 

[Taurus92]

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?

 

[Alabama Jones]

Can you say mass migration? :runaway:
opcorn:

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Can you say mass migration? :runaway:
opcorn:

If laws like this are left to stand, eventually there will be nowhere left to flee, so that strategy is pretty much worthless.

 

[Alabama Jones]

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.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

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 â€" 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.

 

[Taurus92]

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 â€" 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."

 

[45_Fan]

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.

 

[Taurus92]

Who needs an ideal like due process when women and children can be safer? Sounds like the marketing worked in Connecticut. Maybe Georgia too.

 

[moe mensale]

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.

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).

 

[Phil1979]

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?

Who needs an ideal like due process when women and children can be safer? Sounds like the marketing worked in Connecticut. Maybe Georgia too.

 

[Taurus92]

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.

 

[bubbageek]

...So exactly what deal is Hypocrite Deal expecting that made him do a 180?

He initially made his position pro-gun to get the BOR to offer him better money for the veto.

Just a theory.