Connecticut Governor to Ban Gun Sales to People on Government Watch Lists

[OutHouse]

so i guess the constitution is dead in Connecticut. isnt there suppose to be due process to deny a citizen a right? How many of the mass shooters were on a federal watch list?


http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...jor-Public-Safety-Announcement-361438091.html

 

[Jhhnn]

It's wrong, as are any restrictions on people on govt watch lists.

I get that the govt might be more concerned about some people than others but that's not reason to deny them our normal freedoms.

 

[Kwatt]

It also had ammo sales in it.

Background check for ammo?


.

 

[zinfamous]

I like the idea that universal background checks on every single sale of every single gun, with watchlists that do not restrict such rights, adds another level of tracking to people that might be evil.

This sounds like an ill-conceived law

 

[HomerJS]

Oh please. Let an American Muslim who shows sympathy towards ISIS and everyone would be on board.

 

[shady28]

I like the idea that universal background checks on every single sale of every single gun, with watchlists that do not restrict such rights, adds another level of tracking to people that might be evil.

This sounds like an ill-conceived law

I believe Connecticut already requires registration. The federal gov't cannot require it but it's a power the states have. The states have a lot of power over regulating firearms that the Federal Gov't does not, within some limits. For example, States cannot prevent you from carrying a firearm but they can stipulate what kind, how it's carried, and require licensing and certification.

What this governor has done is not a law.

If we put aside opinions on the topic of gun control, legislating from the executive branch is not a precedent that anyone should support. It's the behavior of tyrants and totalitarians who cannot get sufficient consensus to pass a legitimate law. If he wants to pass a law, then pass a fucking law.

 

[Genx87]

This will be a bigoted list. But the left will mostly support it. Let that sink in for a moment.
The right will most likely support it big time due to so many Muslims on it.

 

[shady28]

This will be a bigoted list. But the left will mostly support it. Let that sink in for a moment.
The right will most likely support it big time due to so many Muslims on it.

You'd be wrong on the Republicans supporting it.

The Republicans already shut down an attempt to pass such a law Federally.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/45909...to-bar-people-on-no-fly-list-from-buying-guns

Republicans in Congress have rejected proposals to bar Americans on the terror "no-fly" list from buying guns. They say Democrats are trying to score political points and have thrown their weight behind a GOP alternative that requires a judge to block such gun sales.
...
WELNA: Last week, every Republican in the Senate but one voted to block a Democratic measure that would have barred those on the no-fly list from buying guns. Kansas Republican Pat Roberts gives a simple explanation for his vote.

PAT ROBERTS: Second Amendment.

The Republican 'compromise' proposal is to require the DOJ to present evidence of conspiring to commit a terrorist act to a judge, and have the judge bar the sale if that evidence exists. This would be done during a (normal) 72 hour hold period during background checks for a firearm sale.

This still doesn't quite meet the litmus test of due process as the 'accused' has no opportunity to repudiate any allegations, but at least it requires someone to provide some kind of 'evidence' and a judge to be involved before suspending someone's Constitutional rights.

 

[Knowing]

California passed a bill that will allow law enforcement to seize legal guns if they think a potential for violence exists.

I don't think that law enforcement officers will be giving their duty weapons up, so there is clearly no potential for violence there.

With this bill, California is Shirley entering an unprecedented golden age.

 

[Jhhnn]

I believe Connecticut already requires registration. The federal gov't cannot require it but it's a power the states have. The states have a lot of power over regulating firearms that the Federal Gov't does not, within some limits. For example, States cannot prevent you from carrying a firearm but they can stipulate what kind, how it's carried, and require licensing and certification.

What this governor has done is not a law.

If we put aside opinions on the topic of gun control, legislating from the executive branch is not a precedent that anyone should support. It's the behavior of tyrants and totalitarians who cannot get sufficient consensus to pass a legitimate law. If he wants to pass a law, then pass a fucking law.

I think that last part is dependent on which way the executive moves. In this case, I think it's wrong because it inhibits freedom. In others it can be right, like the stance that the Obama Admin took wrt DOMA & state level cannabis legalization.

 

[shady28]

I think that last part is dependent on which way the executive moves. In this case, I think it's wrong because it inhibits freedom. In others it can be right, like the stance that the Obama Admin took wrt DOMA & state level cannabis legalization.

Well the portion of DOMA that was controversial was ruled unconstitutional, mute point.

The cannabis legislation memo merely states that the DOJ will pursue manufacturers and distributors, but will not go after critically ill users or their doctors. It leaves that up to the states stating that it is not an efficient use of federal resources.

While I personally don't have a problem with that and agree it is 'common sense', again we're talking about precedent.

It's a bit of a dangerous one if you think about different topics. It basically says that if a sitting POTUS thinks enforcing any particular law or portion of a law is a waste of resources, then they don't have to.

 

[shady28]

California passed a bill that will allow law enforcement to seize legal guns if they think a potential for violence exists.

I don't think that law enforcement officers will be giving their duty weapons up, so there is clearly no potential for violence there.

With this bill, California is Shirley entering an unprecedented golden age.

It requires a Judge to issue the order. The police cannot do this on their own.

This bill would authorize a court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order if a law enforcement officer asserts and a judicial officer finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. The bill would require a law enforcement officer to serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located, file a copy of the order with the court, and have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice.

 

[Genx87]

Well the portion of DOMA that was controversial was ruled unconstitutional, mute point.

The cannabis legislation memo merely states that the DOJ will pursue manufacturers and distributors, but will not go after critically ill users or their doctors. It leaves that up to the states stating that it is not an efficient use of federal resources.

While I personally don't have a problem with that and agree it is 'common sense', again we're talking about precedent.

It's a bit of a dangerous one if you think about different topics. It basically says that if a sitting POTUS thinks enforcing any particular law or portion of a law is a waste of resources, then they don't have to.

I think it is also worth noting that an executive order that opens up freedoms is much better and morally justifiable than one that curtails them.

 

[Exterous]

His planning on denying purchases and likely seizing firearms of individuals are on a list that have not been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing is antithetical to every value that this country was founded on. There are millions of people on these lists, many who are not criminals or terrorists, and do not belong on it,

Governor Malloy is taking a commonsense step to help keep Connecticut families safe from suspected terrorists and potential terrorist attacks,” Esty said in a statement.

Yes - lets use a list with secret requirements, court hearings held far from public eyes and rife with mistakes taking years to fix as a method to restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights for people who have been convicted of no crime.

All because Connecticut has experienced 0 terrorist attacks. I mean some of the lists have already been ruled unconstitutional
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/24/325216937/federal-judge-rules-no-fly-list-process-is-unconstitutional

People get put on the list on a hunch
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/08/the_u_s_government_is_putting_americans_on_its_no_fly_list_on_a_hunch_and.html

No evidence necessary to be added to the list

The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.

https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

This is some seriously fucked up shit