These "law makers" are out of control

XXVoid MainXX
Posts
7733
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY US
Edited Date/Time 1/16/2013 3:29pm
Connecticut:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00122-R00-SB.htm

General Assembly


Proposed Bill No. 122


January Session, 2013


LCO No. 543


Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY


Introduced by:


SEN. MEYER, 12th Dist.


AN ACT CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS ON GUN USE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.

Statement of Purpose:

To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes
.
|
72kiteboarder
Posts
4647
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
1/15/2013 5:36pm
Pass it. It is written very poorly.

All guns fire a single round. They just do it over and over in rapid succession.

The Shop

XXVoid MainXX
Posts
7733
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY US
1/15/2013 8:33pm
FastEddy wrote:
Check this out.... [img]https://i.imgur.com/28y1Y.jpg[/img]
Check this out....


Nice!! I hope I don't find that shit on snopes! Smile
FastEddy
Posts
13609
Joined
8/3/2008
Location
., FL US
Fantasy
322nd
1/15/2013 8:35pm Edited Date/Time 1/15/2013 8:35pm
Nice!! I hope I don't find that shit on snopes! Smile
News site.
http://www.kval.com/politics/Sheriff-to-VP-I-wont-enforce-any-new-gun-l…

"Reached by phone on Monday afternoon, Mueller said he decided to write the letter after he and his deputies kept hearing questions from Linn County residents about their positions on the gun control debate."
1/15/2013 8:55pm
Why would you want a 1 round mag or clip? Less steps to just stick the cartridge in there....pretty funny.
jndmx
Posts
9672
Joined
1/20/2008
Location
South Kingston, RI US
1/16/2013 6:13am
Yeah I read about that proposed law here in CT the other day......it's ridiculous to even put that up for a vote.
That is just more grandstanding bullshit and doesn't accomplish anything.

I said it in the other thread about this topic.......extremes on either side make them both look foolish.
APLMAN99
Posts
10729
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
1/16/2013 8:31am
FastEddy wrote:
Check this out.... [img]https://i.imgur.com/28y1Y.jpg[/img]
Check this out....


Nice!! I hope I don't find that shit on snopes! Smile
For someone espousing to be upholding the Constitution, Sheriff Mueller seems to be willing to forget a major part of it......
FastEddy
Posts
13609
Joined
8/3/2008
Location
., FL US
Fantasy
322nd
1/16/2013 8:48am
APLMAN99 wrote:
For someone espousing to be upholding the Constitution, Sheriff Mueller seems to be willing to forget a major part of it......
What part is that,Kevin?
APLMAN99
Posts
10729
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
1/16/2013 9:01am
APLMAN99 wrote:
For someone espousing to be upholding the Constitution, Sheriff Mueller seems to be willing to forget a major part of it......
FastEddy wrote:
What part is that,Kevin?
The part about how we decide if our laws are Constitutional or not. It's dictated by that very document, and I'm absolutely certain it doesn't say that each person decides that matter for themselves.

I'm a Second Amendment supporter, but I truly believe that the way to fight the crap is to do it the proper, legal, Constitutional way. I'd much rather see this Sheriff fight for what he believes in through the courts rather than him ignoring the Constitution also.
FastEddy
Posts
13609
Joined
8/3/2008
Location
., FL US
Fantasy
322nd
1/16/2013 9:10am Edited Date/Time 1/16/2013 9:22am
APLMAN99 wrote:
The part about how we decide if our laws are Constitutional or not. It's dictated by that very document, and I'm absolutely certain it doesn't say...
The part about how we decide if our laws are Constitutional or not. It's dictated by that very document, and I'm absolutely certain it doesn't say that each person decides that matter for themselves.

I'm a Second Amendment supporter, but I truly believe that the way to fight the crap is to do it the proper, legal, Constitutional way. I'd much rather see this Sheriff fight for what he believes in through the courts rather than him ignoring the Constitution also.
His letter was in regards to Obama's 19 (now 23) executive orders and over stepping congress,if that is what he decides to do.
But in regards to congress making decisions also that may harmfully infringe on 2nd amendment rights.
Those decisions are and should be made by congress ONLY and the weight of the people should influence congress.
But what sucks is,campaign money is the only thing that really influences congress.

Sounds like to me he is going to take most of it to congress.
Sounds like he will handle some of the small stuff on his own,which isn't a big deal.
The other stuff will have to be passed through congress.
Which should be interesting.
APLMAN99
Posts
10729
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
1/16/2013 9:50am
APLMAN99 wrote:
The part about how we decide if our laws are Constitutional or not. It's dictated by that very document, and I'm absolutely certain it doesn't say...
The part about how we decide if our laws are Constitutional or not. It's dictated by that very document, and I'm absolutely certain it doesn't say that each person decides that matter for themselves.

I'm a Second Amendment supporter, but I truly believe that the way to fight the crap is to do it the proper, legal, Constitutional way. I'd much rather see this Sheriff fight for what he believes in through the courts rather than him ignoring the Constitution also.
FastEddy wrote:
His letter was in regards to Obama's 19 (now 23) executive orders and over stepping congress,if that is what he decides to do. But in regards...
His letter was in regards to Obama's 19 (now 23) executive orders and over stepping congress,if that is what he decides to do.
But in regards to congress making decisions also that may harmfully infringe on 2nd amendment rights.
Those decisions are and should be made by congress ONLY and the weight of the people should influence congress.
But what sucks is,campaign money is the only thing that really influences congress.

Sounds like to me he is going to take most of it to congress.
Sounds like he will handle some of the small stuff on his own,which isn't a big deal.
The other stuff will have to be passed through congress.
Which should be interesting.
Executive orders were listed after Congressional acts. Basically he's saying that he will make the decision whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's rule of man, not rule of law.
FastEddy
Posts
13609
Joined
8/3/2008
Location
., FL US
Fantasy
322nd
1/16/2013 9:55am Edited Date/Time 1/16/2013 10:25am
Here are his 23 orders.


1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."

That might help a little.

2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system."

That will help.

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."


Could help a little.

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."


This may help also....if they apply it to loonies.

5. "Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."


Good.

6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

Criminals & crazies will still get them on the black market and side step that one and steal them from friends,families & unsuspected victims.


7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

Great news!

8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."


Good deal!

9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."


They do this already....

10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."


Cool.

11. "Nominate an ATF director."


Preferably an agent that has spent at least 12 years in the field.

12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."


Great!

13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."


Good deal!

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Good deal!


15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."


Cool!


16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."


Most people wouldn't answer this honestly.

17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."


Cool.

18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

I support this....


19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."


Cool.


20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."


Good deal.

21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."


Ok

22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."


Ok
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."

Good for the crazies. Smile
____________________________________________

That is my take on them.
They did a a pretty good job IMO. Wink
Racer92
Posts
17966
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX US
1/16/2013 10:08am
I see nothing wrong with all that.
jndmx
Posts
9672
Joined
1/20/2008
Location
South Kingston, RI US
1/16/2013 10:12am
Racer92 wrote:
I see nothing wrong with all that.
That's what I was thinking too....those seem to be reasonable steps.
FastEddy
Posts
13609
Joined
8/3/2008
Location
., FL US
Fantasy
322nd
1/16/2013 10:19am
APLMAN99 wrote:
Executive orders were listed after Congressional acts. Basically he's saying that he will make the decision whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's rule of...
Executive orders were listed after Congressional acts. Basically he's saying that he will make the decision whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's rule of man, not rule of law.
Well if the courts rule on it - he will have no choice but to follow their rulings. Wink
72kiteboarder
Posts
4647
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
1/16/2013 10:25am
APLMAN99 wrote:
Executive orders were listed after Congressional acts. Basically he's saying that he will make the decision whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's rule of...
Executive orders were listed after Congressional acts. Basically he's saying that he will make the decision whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's rule of man, not rule of law.
FastEddy wrote:
Well if the courts rule on it - he will have no choice but to follow their rulings. Wink
Not necessarily. If a law is unconstitutional, it would be his duty not to enforce it.
FastEddy
Posts
13609
Joined
8/3/2008
Location
., FL US
Fantasy
322nd
1/16/2013 10:29am Edited Date/Time 1/16/2013 10:32am
Not necessarily. If a law is unconstitutional, it would be his duty not to enforce it.
I don't really see anything in those 23 orders that is unconstitutional unless they abuse #4.
That was what I was directing my reply on.Even though it sounded blunt...sorry.

Now the stuff that get's taken to congress and what passes should be interesting.
APLMAN99
Posts
10729
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
1/16/2013 10:33am
APLMAN99 wrote:
Executive orders were listed after Congressional acts. Basically he's saying that he will make the decision whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's rule of...
Executive orders were listed after Congressional acts. Basically he's saying that he will make the decision whether or not a law is Constitutional. That's rule of man, not rule of law.
FastEddy wrote:
Well if the courts rule on it - he will have no choice but to follow their rulings. Wink
Not necessarily. If a law is unconstitutional, it would be his duty not to enforce it.
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not.

That's the issue, this one man deciding which part of the Constitution he wants to uphold, and ignoring the basic framework.
72kiteboarder
Posts
4647
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
1/16/2013 10:38am
Not necessarily. If a law is unconstitutional, it would be his duty not to enforce it.
FastEddy wrote:
I don't really see anything in those 23 orders that is unconstitutional unless they abuse [i]#4[/i]. That was what I was directing my reply on.Even though...
I don't really see anything in those 23 orders that is unconstitutional unless they abuse #4.
That was what I was directing my reply on.Even though it sounded blunt...sorry.

Now the stuff that get's taken to congress and what passes should be interesting.
I agree with that. But I am pretty sure that the letter was refferring a potential ban on specific weapons or magazines and that was what I was talking about.
72kiteboarder
Posts
4647
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
1/16/2013 10:40am
FastEddy wrote:
Well if the courts rule on it - he will have no choice but to follow their rulings. Wink
Not necessarily. If a law is unconstitutional, it would be his duty not to enforce it.
APLMAN99 wrote:
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not. That's the issue, this one man deciding...
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not.

That's the issue, this one man deciding which part of the Constitution he wants to uphold, and ignoring the basic framework.
Shit, the courts once ruled that slaves were property. Just because they get it wrong, that doesn't make it right for everyone else to get it wrong.
FastEddy
Posts
13609
Joined
8/3/2008
Location
., FL US
Fantasy
322nd
1/16/2013 10:46am Edited Date/Time 1/16/2013 10:52am
I agree with that. But I am pretty sure that the letter was refferring a potential ban on specific weapons or magazines and that was what...
I agree with that. But I am pretty sure that the letter was refferring a potential ban on specific weapons or magazines and that was what I was talking about.
Well the original 94 assault weapons was just a manufacture & import ban on certain weapons & HC Mags.
We could still own them & sell them freely.
There was no surrendering weapons at federal level.
They did however classify the Cobray street sweeper as a destruction device.
And people who owned them in States that didn't allow destruction devices had to either surrender them with no comp. or transfer them to an out of state Class3 FFL dealer to sell them for them.

I don't believe he wants to take anything away we already own.
At least I hope not.
XXVoid MainXX
Posts
7733
Joined
5/25/2012
Location
Schenectady, NY US
1/16/2013 10:49am
FastEddy wrote:
Well if the courts rule on it - he will have no choice but to follow their rulings. Wink
Not necessarily. If a law is unconstitutional, it would be his duty not to enforce it.
APLMAN99 wrote:
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not. That's the issue, this one man deciding...
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not.

That's the issue, this one man deciding which part of the Constitution he wants to uphold, and ignoring the basic framework.
Cops decide which laws to enforce every day. They don't stop everyone traveling 5mph over the speed limit.
APLMAN99
Posts
10729
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
1/16/2013 11:02am
Not necessarily. If a law is unconstitutional, it would be his duty not to enforce it.
APLMAN99 wrote:
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not. That's the issue, this one man deciding...
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not.

That's the issue, this one man deciding which part of the Constitution he wants to uphold, and ignoring the basic framework.
Shit, the courts once ruled that slaves were property. Just because they get it wrong, that doesn't make it right for everyone else to get it...
Shit, the courts once ruled that slaves were property. Just because they get it wrong, that doesn't make it right for everyone else to get it wrong.
Exactly. So it comes down to, do we work to make the Constitution clear, and change the parts we want, or do we do what we bitch about and accuse others of doing. The way to combat those who we believe ignore parts of the Constitution isn't to do what we claim to abhor, it's to fight it using the methods laid out in the Constitution. Otherwise we're just agreeing with them that the Constitution doesn't matter, unless its convenient for us.
APLMAN99
Posts
10729
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Dallas, TX US
1/16/2013 11:04am
Not necessarily. If a law is unconstitutional, it would be his duty not to enforce it.
APLMAN99 wrote:
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not. That's the issue, this one man deciding...
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not.

That's the issue, this one man deciding which part of the Constitution he wants to uphold, and ignoring the basic framework.
Cops decide which laws to enforce every day. They don't stop everyone traveling 5mph over the speed limit.
The speed limit isn't set by the Constitution, nor do I know of any Constitutional challenge to a 35MPH zone not being 40MPH.....

Perhaps there has been one. I could be wrong.
jndmx
Posts
9672
Joined
1/20/2008
Location
South Kingston, RI US
1/16/2013 11:16am
APLMAN99 wrote:
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not. That's the issue, this one man deciding...
If the court rules it Constitutional, then it is, whether I or the Sheriff agree with it or not.

That's the issue, this one man deciding which part of the Constitution he wants to uphold, and ignoring the basic framework.
Cops decide which laws to enforce every day. They don't stop everyone traveling 5mph over the speed limit.
APLMAN99 wrote:
The speed limit isn't set by the Constitution, nor do I know of any Constitutional challenge to a 35MPH zone not being 40MPH..... Perhaps there has...
The speed limit isn't set by the Constitution, nor do I know of any Constitutional challenge to a 35MPH zone not being 40MPH.....

Perhaps there has been one. I could be wrong.
I tried it back in 1979......argued it was my right to pursue happiness a little faster if I found it neccesary.....they did not agree.
Cool

Post a reply to: These "law makers" are out of control

The Latest