Legal Challenges To Connecticut\’s Strict Gun Bill Already Discussed Before Bill Passed

by Categorized: 2014 Election Date:

Connecticut\’s strict new gun law hasn\’t even passed yet, but leaders are already talking about potential legal challenges.

The state would have arguably the nation\’s strictest gun laws if the bill is passed Wednesday by the House of Representatives and Senate, said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

Although New York\’s recent law has already been challenged following its quick passage in Albany, Malloy says Connecticut\’s law should stand up in court.

\”I don\’t think it will be successfully challenged,\’\’ Malloy told reporters Tuesday at the state Capitol.

But Bob Crook, one of the state\’s most outspoken proponents of gun rights, said he hopes that Connecticut will lose in court.

\”It will be challenged,\’\’ Crook said outside Malloy\’s office Tuesday.

On the other side of the debate, gun-control advocate Ron Pinciaro said there have been 300 legal challenges since the U.S. Supreme Court\’s landmark ruling in 2008 the Heller vs. District of Columbia case that said that Americans have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

\”I can\’t see anything that could be challenged here,\’\’ Pinciaro said.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

140 thoughts on “Legal Challenges To Connecticut\’s Strict Gun Bill Already Discussed Before Bill Passed

    1. Mike Manchester

      Wow…thanks for showing the rest of us that people like you shouldn’t have guns.

        1. Nathan

          Ironically it’s places like China, Iran and N. Korea that think like you. Instead of having political debate, they opt to kill execute first. Just like you suggest.

          1. GunsKillKids

            all the gun nuts offer is violence, threats and terrorism. CT’s message to them “GET OUT”

          2. Shootstrait

            @gunskillkids
            First thats a very ignorant name you have but going by your post you are ignorant.
            Why don’t you and the rest of you head in the sand liberals leave? You people have destroyed this state, every state you people get your mitts on you destroy. No you leave!

      1. deep44

        With all due respect Mike,

        While I dont approve of the bill, I will keep my tactical rifles, I will keep my large capacity magazines. I will carry extra 10 rd mags with me and I will buy ammo out of state if I need too.

        Advocates of this bill received no value and we have inched closer to ensuring our civil liberties continue to erode. So the question is what is the next move on your civil liberties, eliminate soda? How about the law from the Senator from Stonnington, all drivers must take CPR courses or the Sentor from Guilford, assisted suicide? Firearms are just the begining Mike and eventually they will touch an issue you deeply care about

    2. Jeb Jeboloski

      We celebrate today passage of good gun control law. Free green flowers at the state capital.

    3. Connecticut is Dying Too

      Every libertard mother of child bearing age should be sterilized. That is the way I feel about liberals.

      1. Connecticut is Dying Too

        It’s libtard billy. Were you one of the few liberals not aborted in the name of choice? How did you escape?

  1. scott

    how you store a weapon in your own locked home went get overturned….ok danny e boy

    this bill makes law abiding citizens felons

  2. Scooter

    We are going to have to start saying “hail Malloy and hail Obama” or we will be torchered soon!!!!!

  3. BlackGreyWhite

    So Malloy and Obama are “bad guys?” Wayne LaPierre is a “good guy.” How complex is our world and how simplistic is our thinking? The more I look at it, the more it’s apparent that guns aren’t really the problem. But this debate certainly exposes some other more serious social issues…

    1. Norm Scott

      I think it a safe bet that most politicians do the expedient thing without concern for the long term effects.

    2. Nick099

      Yes it does…why an endeavor such as the protection of our children from mass murderers winds up as movement to strip legal firearm ownership from the law-abiding citizen and yet does nothing to prevent mass murder. Yeah that is a problem isn’t it? One would say the proponents are using the mass murder of little children to further their politcal goals and ambitions eh? That WOULD make Obozo and Malloy the bad guys now wouldn’t it???

      1. ellen traystman

        absolutely Nick, you are so right. I am an attorney and have practiced domestic law, and every attorney knows that restraining orders do not stop spouses who want to hurt their mates. Gun control laws do not stop criminals who usually obtain guns illegally, the law-abiding citizens become sitting ducks. But there is an underlying reason for gun control, because those in power such as obummer know that an armed citizenry presents strong opposition to a tyrannical government, and this is why they want to take guns from us.

        1. The Conn-servative

          I wonder how the CT Judicial Dept. will handle all of these perceived breaks in the new law?

  4. Norm Scott

    Why is the ultimate goal to disarm the law abiding public?

    Because most gun owners are conservatives. And if liberals can turn all gun owners into felons simply by overturning the 2nd Amendment legislatively, they can strip gun owners of their Constitutional right to vote.

    Thus guaranteeing one party rule via legislation. Who needs the Constitution when you control legislatures?

    1. The Conn-servative

      The answer to your question is simple: To disarm the public means to have ultimate and forceful control of the population,without any resistance.If they were so concerned about gun control in addition to other epidemics on our border,they would be running C-130 Hercules flights up and down the southwest border all day long,and Spooky would solve all of these problems right quick. Thanks for playing.

  5. Julie

    I strongly hope that this proposed gun legislation does not pass. I think it will pass. And so I also strongly hope that it is successfully challenged.

    Here’s why:
    1) a. The registration for higher-capacity magazines amounts to a “de facto” registration of many rifles, because many magazines are proprietary to specific rifles. So, the state government will have(at least)a partial list of which rifles are actually owned by whom.
    b. Some rifles actually have permanently-mounted magazines, in which case the owner might have to register the entire weapon.

    This is an infringement on gun owners’ rights.

    2) It is no one’s business as to what I legally own in my own house, as I am a law-abiding citizen.

    This is an infringement on my constitutional rights.

    3) a. If made public, this registration list of higher-capacity magazines will become a “shopping list” for criminals, if their (criminal) intent is to obtain illegal magazines and/or rifles for crimes.
    Why? Because criminals won’t follow the laws — that’s why we often refer to them collectively as “criminals.”
    b. This would make me “a sitting duck” in my own house, because I will follow the laws and register the magazines in my house.

    1. Randy

      Well put. This list WILL leak out, and those intent on either selling guns, or simply denying others their 2nd amendment rights will go out of their way to steal them.

      As for the magazine ban, it’s not like a criminal would drive the Rhode Island to buy them at Walmart or anything. Talk about useless.

    2. Bill

      Julie, I understand what you say. And no one wants to take away your home protection – as long as it isn’t one of those monster guns. keep your weapon at the ready. What we don’t want to happen is for legitimatly purchased guns to seep into criminal hands. and I am afraid to inform you that you have little control over this. Even your home could be broken in while you are away.

      This is the rub that becomes hard for yo guys to understand.

      1. Jason

        Bill, your response and reference to ‘monster guns’ shows your complete lack of understanding of guns and your hypocrisy in selectively applying the bill of rights. Since you are okay with selectively applying the bill or rights I vote that we make it legal for a liberal or anti gun zealot such as yourself to exercise free speech unless they are talking about guns, politics or baseball teams.

        Don’t worry, no one wants to take away your rights to freedom of speech – as long is it isn’t one of those ignorant rants. What we don’t want is an erosion of our rights and a lose of control over them. Ignorant politicians try to make policies that will lead to that. Even a fourth grader could see the inherent danger.

        That is the rub that you guys refuse to understand.

  6. Not_the_Fringe

    Embarrassed to be a citizen of CT today. We MUST get Malloy, Murphy, and Blumenthal out of office. They are a repugnant blemish on our state. Their attacks on the US and CT constitution can only be interpreted as “UN-AMERICAN”.

    I understand the reaction of the parents and families of the Newton victims. They are dealing with unthinkable loss and are clearly driven by emotion and personal circumstance.

    But our politicians have no excuse. You don’t make laws that turn thousands of law abiding citizens into criminals, while doing nothing to go after the criminals.

    GET THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!

    1. GunsKillKids

      they have the support of the vast majority of CT residents.

      RE-ELECT THEM ALL.

      DRIVE THE GUN NUTS OUT.

      1. Peter Gill

        Why would you even have a title GunsKillKids? More kids die in pools than by Firearms. You truly are sick.

        1. GunsKillKids

          pools are not manufactured and marketed for the sole purpose of killing people. Only guns are.

          AR15′s and the variants serve no purpose in civilized society. Ban them, confiscate them and destroy them all.

          1. Shootstrait

            You need help, really. You call own gun owners nuts but I read your post…no your nuts. Thats a fact.

      2. William Wilson

        No people kill people. Why not outlaw cars since they kill more people yearly than guns do. Why not outlaw hammers since they kill people as well. Why stop there and why not outlaw knives since they also kill people.

    1. GunsKillKids

      enjoy it while it lasts, gun nuts. Your days of terrorizing our communities are quickly coming to an end.

      1. j v

        Guns are made for sport and also when you gov trys to fuck you in your ass you can fight them off so start lubing up to be for any change on the constitution is to be unamerican mr guns kill kids go party in africa or eygypt youll be for sale on the black market as a bitch slave

      2. William Wilson

        Does the Second Amendment mean anything to you. I would say no. Nice to hide behind an acronym instead of using your name.

      3. Jason

        @GunsKillKids based on your posts I think it’s well past time you took your meds….then go get an actual history book and educate yourself.

  7. James

    It is time to start impeachment process for Malloy and key legislators who pushed this bill on grounds they violated their sworn oat to protect the United States Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution. All rally at the capital tomorrow.

    1. The Conn-servative

      Unfortunately,we do not have recall in CT. I’m not sure if impeachment is the same word or not.
      We had a chance at recall 5 years ago or so and it didn’t pass. The sad part is,unless we get a Republican majority,and that isn’t going to happen,we have to wait another 15 years for recall to come up for a vote again.

      1. GunsKillKids

        CT supports Malloy 100%. Impeach the gun nuts and the terror they have brought to our communities.

        1. The Conn-servative

          Fortunately for us, the pipes won’t be calling for Danny-boy next election. He’ll have done his damage and will either not seek re-election or simply wont get re-elected.His administration has been a complete failure on all accounts.

        2. Quinte West

          If there was any prior doubt as to the credibility of GunsKillKids postings this comment certainly clarified that he is delusional.

          1. The Conn-servative

            Yeah, I think he is exhibit “A” for the state Dept. of Mental Health to do house calls.
            Check that: He is exhibit ‘B’. Danny boy is exhibit ‘A’.
            Sorry,GKK, you gotta try harder for 1st place.

  8. Nick099

    In the Heller decision, SCOTUS stated that commonly used firearms cannot be banned. What is proposed here is nothing less than a ban by another name. Ron Pinciaro, like most leftist gun-grabbers lives in a Utopian fantasy…and is misinformed at the very least.

    But to the people of Connecticut who voted for Malloy and the Democrats in general. You think politics is local. You think that these chuckleheads are “independent” and do not take orders from higher ups. Well this should be proof enough that they in fact do. There is no such thing as an independent Democrat…not anymore. They are all foot soldiers and they march with two feet in one shoe…and they vote the way they are told regardless of their constituents and the Constitution. There are a few limp Repubicans that can be thrown in there as collaborators….you hearing me McKinney and Carfero???? Freakin traitorous imbeciles.

  9. Brian C. Duffy

    The Heller case struck down the D.C. total ban on handguns. The common use in this case referred to handguns for self defense, nothing else.

    All of these new CT laws –as well as NY and CO– are currently in force, per se, in D.C. (Most semi auto rifles, including, the AR platform, and many semi-auto pistols are banned in D.C. post Heller)

    The laws withstand Constitutional scrutiny per Heller. The NRA knows this and that is why you never hear LaPierre mention Heller.

    We can debate the effectiveness of these new gun laws but not their constitutionality.

  10. Matthew Titley

    The citizenry deserves the government it elects. The 2014 elections are only a little over a year and half away. If the outrage over these new provisions motivates the voters sufficiently, all of these draconian and misguided statutes will be rescinded by a new legislature and governor. It will be the obligation of every freedom-loving citizen to oppose the officials who foisted these laws upon the state. To render a law-abiding citizen a felon purely by inaction upon the part of that citizen “ex post facto” by making possession of a previously legal belonging illegal, is an insult to liberty. Anyone who supports such provisions and yet also proclaims their love of liberty is an odious hypocrite.

  11. Randy

    In point of fact, filings have already been made to the court requesting an injunction. You see, by law all the task force hearings are required to be open to the public, for review and comment. For the past month, they instead, met in absolutel secrecy, in direct violation of the law.

  12. pro 2nd A

    Goodbye to cabelas, bass pro, colt, stag arms, moosberg, ruger and countless other jobs. Great job by Malloy and his commie cronnies. does this really make anyone feel safer? what a joke, this state is a joke!

    1. Connecticut is Circling the Drain

      Not to worry: we have the Busway, Jackson Labs, public union employees, illegal sanctuary cities, and the insatiable entitlement state which will all remain and thrive. Those things will cure all our ills.

    2. GunsKillKids

      good bye and good riddance! The sooner all you gun nuts leave, the better the rest of us will be.

      Gov. Malloy is the best Governor we have ever had and he will be reelected.

      1. Quinte West

        Unless GunsKillsKids is really Dan Malloy operating incognito,this comment certifies that he is not credible by reason of idiocy.

  13. Paul Edward Zukowski

    As a voter, tax payer, and citizen in this state for the last 49 years, I am truly upset that the Emergency Certification process is being used for something other an actual emergency. There is no reason we should not have public hearing on the actual bill.  The public has a right to see what is in this  and give input into any gun control bill. Back room deals should not be used to pass laws involving individual fundamental civil rights. The public needs see the actual bill in the light of day. Considering the Gun Violence working group was effectively hijacked, a public hearing is a must.  It never completed its actual work. Democrats on committee never saw their report until it was issued, thus why it was not signed off on.  There is no rational reason not to have public hearings. 

  14. Howard Riehl

    Attention Connecticut Citizens! Your elected officials don’t give a damn about the US Constitution or about your money. They will pass an unconstitutional bill not caring whether it will survive a court challenge or not; the wasted money spent in court is not their money, it’s yours.
    This bill is completely unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds; it will be challenged and it will not stand. It’s an outrage that our lawmakers just care about the number of votes they get, not the Constitution they swore to defend and uphold or the effectiveness of their laws.
    These new laws will do nothing to prevent future tragedies such as Newtown. The background check system is broken and needs money to fix it and CT does not have the money and Congress isn’t asking for it. Mental health data that would prevent someone like the Newtown murderer from getting a gun is voluntary not mandatory and will not be provided unless Congress mandates it in law. Law Enforcement is also cash-strapped and needs help just to enforce existing laws! They will now be even more over-burdened until Congress votes to support them!
    Our Legislators are feeding us a thinly-veiled pack of lies, their new gun laws have no teeth and will do nothing but punish the innocent. Criminals don’t obey the law, that’s why they’re criminals! These new laws will only punish the law-abiding. What part of the word “Infringe” is unclear? We need Legislators that “walk the walk”, we’ve heard enough talk.

  15. kuma138

    i work for a firearms manufacturer in bristol, ct. today, i am abosolutely ashamed to be a ct resident. i truly hope we can just pack up and leave this dreadful state before they can have the pleasure of forcing us out. these piles of scum need to stop having their way with us. when will we all wake up and stand up for ourselves. people of newtown, i don’t think they is a single person in this state who doesn’t feel sympathy towards you, but can you seriously tell me how any of these laws would have saved these childrens’ lives or how they can prevent something from happening in the future. you’re fools if you agree with this, i’m sorry to say, but you are fools.

    1. GunsKillKids

      then get out! the sooner you gun nuts and manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction leave, the better for those of us that remain.

      Go to Texas, where all you gun nuts can get together and have the mother of all shootouts.

    2. Jim

      Kuma138 Thank you for your contribution to making this once great state what it was. So quickly Dannel Malloy, Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy forget your company’s contribution to the proud history of Connecticut. The fools who trumpet your company’s demise are so short sighted that they miss the fact that the constitution is being stomped on and it opens the door to more freedoms being lost. Plus we’ll all have to shoulder the burden of a lost $1.7 Billion tax revenue and unemployment benefits of 5000-7000 people now out of work.

      1. GunsKillKids

        CT can never be the great state it once was while being ruled and terrorized by gun nuts killing our children and threatening our communities.

        1. Jim

          @Guns – What a bigoted response. One person, who is mentally unstable, commits a horrendous crime and you blame every gun owner in the state? What’s wrong with you? Were you dropped on your head as a child? Just look at your responses in this article. Taunting, bullying and displaying a completely crazy attitude.

          1. GunsKillKids

            the exact same attitude displayed by the gun nuts to any attempt at responsible legislation.

          2. The Conn-servative

            He is a troll. The less we all respond to his comments, the more he’ll get agitated. Just sit back and watch.

        2. Jeb

          Yeah as soon as you gun lovers leave all the gang bangers in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport will realize its safe to put their guns away. c’mon guys get with Dannels plan

  16. GunsKillKids

    CT to the gun nuts: Get out of CT. You are not wanted, you are not needed. Take your guns, your threats and your violence to Texas, where it is welcome as the “price of freedom”

    Responsible legislation will pass. CT residents have won, gun nuts have lost. Bye Bye you violent crazies! SEEEEE Ya!

      1. GunsKillKids

        gimmee an assault rifle, man. Gotta do some killin before the law kicks in!! Constitution, bro. Cold dead hands.

        I NEED GUNS TO LIVE, MAN! THIS IS A TRAVESTY!!!!

  17. Mary Santarcangelo

    Sheeesh! What a bunch of paranoid whiners! After the gun bill passes, hunters will still hunt in Connecticut and gun owners who can qualify for a permit will still be able to keep a gun in their home for personal protection if they feel the need. The US Constitution will not crumble in the Constitution State and black helicopters will not fill the skies.
    Pro-gun posters seem to have their personal identity tied to their ability to have the deadliest guns and the biggest magazines. Pathetic.

    1. Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

      Keep passing your liberal agenda items, one after one, and watch the exodus of companies and people of means accelerate. Hope you enjoy your liberal utopia of state workers, entitlement zones, illegals, and limousine liberals. You deserve each other.

      1. GunsKillKids

        see ya, gun nuts. We will be very happy with our liberal utopia, thank you.

        The NRA utopia, where every man, woman and child is strapped and shootouts take the place of fistfights can make its way south to Texas.

        Good riddance.

        1. Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

          Take your meds Billy. You’re on the verge of another IOL tuneup.

          1. GunsKillKids

            You’re right. NYC and Chicago should just give up and pass out M-16′s with each welfare check and crime will drop to zero.

            Brilliant!

        2. Peter Gill

          I am sooooooo glad your type was not the majority back in the 1770′s, oh I’m sorry you were, your type were called the Torries.

        3. ellen traystman

          seriously, guns kill kids??? no, sorry, crazy people kill kids. Criminals don’t follow the law, thus will not abide by any gun control law, and the shootings will continue. The ignorance you show is really saddening.

      2. jeb

        In other countries such as England, it wasn’t a labor verses conservative issue. It wasn’t and isn’t partisan. In Australia, the conservatives led by a conservative prime minister actually pushed for gun bans. The reverse regressive attitude happens to take the lead in conservative circles in this country.

  18. kuma138

    you know what’s weird. of all the firearms we’ve manufactured. not a single one of them has ever jumped out of its case on its own and started shooting without someone pulling its trigger. here’s the facts people, these fools can pass all the laws they want. not one of these laws would have stopped sandy hook from happening. not smaller magazines, not magazine registration, not special ammo certification, and unfortunately not even mental health background check. you wanna know why you idiots. because this kid STOLE his mother’s guns and went on a shooting rampage that’s why. In case you didn’t know stealing a firearm is already ILLEGAL and that didn’t prevent this from happening. all this is going to do is turn law abiding citizens into criminals and leave only the criminals with guns. good luck to all of us living in that type of enviroment.

    1. GunsKillKids

      there is no question that if the AR15 and its variants were illegal, more children would be alive today.

      The laws will work. The laws will save lives.

      1. sam

        No they wont these laws wont save any lives. These guns will just be purchased in other states and brought back to connecticut by the criminals and wack jobs that commit these hideous crimes. Get your head out of your a** Billy boy. You need to lay off the Kool Aid dude.

        1. GunsKillKids

          the criminals are not the problem. It’s the heavily armed gun nuts and their family members that have done far more damage to communities in CT and across the nation.

          If gun nuts decide to traffic in weapons then they are criminals worse than any inner city drug dealer and should be put in prison for life.

          1. Jim

            News flash. Criminals are ALWAYS the problem. You are so focused on your own agenda you are making completely nonsensical statements. The federal government doesn’t agree with you. They are focusing on the actual cause versus the tools used. No federal assault rifle ban and no federal magazine limit.

          2. Dynks

            The criminals are not the problem??? That has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever read. Congrats kiddo.

      2. Jason Robertson

        I know you’re not a very bright little boy – I can tell by your posts… so feel free to read this a few times over and try to keep up… guns are SIMPLE tools. They are simple to build. Criminals can and will make them even if they are illegal in all 50 states. Create a vacuum and something will fill that vacuum… think of it kinda like your head and your *** (at least that is how I assume it got jammed that far up there). Banning them is not only trampling basic rights but it is also pointless and worse.

        Sick people do sick things using inanimate objects. You can argue all day that those objects make it easier but the funny thing about sick people is they tend to be very inventive and very good at finding a way to carry out their sick ideas. You wouldn’t save lives, you will just change how they die.

        If you think more children would be alive you need a history lesson… there have been plenty of tragedies without an AR15 or any other variant that claimed just as many lives. He had minutes – why? because there was no one there to stop him…. he could have loaded each round by hand into a double barreled shotgun and the outcome would still have been as horrible and heartbreaking.

        Talking to liberals I swear I feel like I am talking to little kids that think you can’t see them or are no longer there when they cover their eyes. Newsflash, banning guns, much like covering your eyes won’t make the criminals go away. Nor will it make their inner unicorn come out. All it will make is an opportunity for the criminals. Read that a few times okay? I know you guys all struggle with the concept. You could try a neat experiment, find a nice solid wall, cover your eyes then with your eyes covered bring your head forward and see if the wall disappeared… I know you’re all a bit slow so just to help you out – don’t really do that… the wall won’t have disappeared… it will still hurt… in fact with your eyes closed you may misjudge the angle and break your nose… weird how handicapping yourself doesn’t tend to work in your favor huh? Unless maybe we are talking golf now…

        You all claim to care about the lives lost – well so do we; but to be frank it makes it really hard to believe you when you only give a **** about a life lost if it was lost due to a bullet. Any other method you seem fine and dandy with you sick messed up, obnoxious son of a *****. Careful, your real agenda is showing…

        I think unlike you trying to speak for the whole state of CT I CAN safely speak for most (perhaps not all) gun owners when I say that had one of us been nearby and armed we would have put that sick little freak in the ground if we had to give our lives to do it. Why? Because we aren’t afraid to protect our kids, our neighbors kids and even your kids with more than ignorant words and pointless laws and we aren’t naive enough to think that’s all it takes or coward enough to not put ourselves on the line.

        Did you catch all that?

        1. Kim

          Well said, Jason.

          You have captured the essence of wildbill/gunskillkids/jeb/billythesnitch as well

  19. kuma138

    right, because a psychopath with an ar-15 is going to totally just turn his ar-15 in to the police on thursday right? If the AR 15 was banned Adam Lanza wouldn’t have used one? is that what you’re telling me? please tell me that’s not what you’re telling me.

    1. GunsKillKids

      let me lay it out for you:

      1) Nancy Lanza bought the weapon used in the Newtown shooting.
      2) Nancy Lanza was a law abiding gun nut
      3) If AR15′s and its variants were illegal, Nancy Lanza, as a law abiding gun nut, wouldn’t have bought one.
      4) If Nancy Lanza didn’t buy that AR15 varient, her son wouldn’t have been able to take from her and murder all those children.
      5) Ergo, if the AR15 and its variants were illegal, some, if not all of those children would be alive today.

      Got it?

        1. The Conn-servative

          All of the mainstream media is conveniently forgetting this.I know many are justifiably mad at her for her actions(or inactions),but she was also murdered. Just saying.

      1. Shootstrait

        Nancy also had unsecured weapons in a house with a known mentally unstable person.
        You are a whack job ..

  20. kuma138

    Hey gunskillkids, this liberal utopia that you speak of is only in your mind buddy. the truth is, we live in a world where we lose more and more freedoms every single day. is that liberating enough for you? hell is coming to all of us my friend and it won’t feel like utopia trust me.

    1. GunsKillKids

      the freedoms we have lost is the freedom to attend school, go to the movies, or walk the streets without being terrorized and murdered by heavily armed gun nuts.

      I was a lifelong Republican until Dec. 14, 2012. I will never vote Republican again until it removes itself from the extremist agenda pushed by heavily armed domestic terrorists and their supporters.

      Liberate me from heavily armed domestic terrorists and I will support you on any other liberties you seek to protect.

      1. The Conn-servative

        Your statement,”Liberate me from heavily armed domestic terrorists..” I equate to liberating all of us from the modern day,here it comes…democratic party.I am more concerned about these infidels than I am Al Qaeda,Hamass,etc.

  21. sam

    No they won’t, these laws wont save any lives. These guns will just be purchased in other states and brought back to connecticut by the criminals and wack jobs that commit these hideous crimes. Get your head out of your a** Billy boy. You need to lay off the Kool Aid dude.

  22. kuma138

    sounds like you live in fear my friend. i’m sorry to hear that. well at least the government’s agenda is working on some of you fools. divide and conquer through fear. fear of guns, fear of each other, and fear of our government. with people like you in this world, we truly are doomed my friend. i pray for you.

    1. sam

      @Kuma or billy boy or who ever you are at this moment. I am not living in fear, it is you liberal sheep that are buying all this if we out law guns we will all live in a peaceful utopia that are buying into the fear. Your head is so far up your a**es. If you think for one minute this is the answer than you are a bigger fool than these people who are about to chip away at our constitution. The worst thing here is you fools are are allowing it.

      1. bill

        sam: No, bill was out doing something useful with his time like lobbying for gun control.My off time is enjoyed battling with you guys for entertainment.

  23. Charlie

    You are not safer with the passage of this legislation and only a naive ignorant fool would think they were safer. This legislation accomplishes zero in crime prevention. I think is is time to remove “The Constitution State” off the license plate. Maybe “The Nanny State” or “The Obamanation State” would be more appropriate?

  24. GunsKillKids

    good night gun nuts.

    Please be sure to kiss your AR15s, hug your Glocks, and put your 30 round magazines in their pajamas. While laws are being passed against your precious killing machines, you could always take yourself and your “family” to Texas, where killing, violence and weapons are loved just as much as you love them.

    1. kuma138

      actually i’ll hug and kiss my children and my wife goodnight. then i’ll have a couple of cold beers. don’t have to kiss my guns goodnight because i don’t own guns. i work for a gun manufacturer and i’m around 308 semi automatic assault rifles all day long, i build them, i handle them, i assemble them, and i fix them. but i do not own them. actually, 2/3 of the people who work at our factory are not even gun owners. most of us have wives and kids and we are not “gun nuts” you “idiot” but you can keep thinking what you wanna think about us but just know that this state will soon lose a big part of its heritage and history when we all take our business to a better state. as far as texas goes my friend, there is less violence and armed robbery in texas. know why? because if you try to rob a bank in texas theres a good chance that the place is filled with law abiding, gun carrying citizens willing to protect and defend its rights to safety before law enforcement ever shows up to the scene of the crime. and the police actually welcome the idea.

      1. GunsKillKids

        you build weapons of mass destruction. No doubt there have been hundreds of innocents killed by the lethal weapons you build every day.

        As far as Texas goes, District Attorney Mark McLelland and his wife thought their guns would protect them. They didn’t.

        Nancy Lanza thought her guns would protect her. They did not.

        Your products do absolutely no good for society.

        1. Peter

          Back when I was working for Uncle Sugar, Weapons of Mass Destruction were measured in the Kiloton range. My how times have changed.Now a WMD is a rifle.

        2. mr mc

          you sound very ignorant. Did you know that the most destructive thing created by man is government. In the last century alone it is responsible for killing a couple of hundred million people because they would not conform . What they did is murder people for not going along with the collective. Not war. The only thing thats killed more people is natural death. pull your head out of it. 99% of governments throughout history have been oppressive. Without the safeguards in place to defend our freedom we will lose it. Thats why the framers of the constitution put safeguards like the second amendment in place they knew our chance of losing our freedom was about 99% without them.

        3. LookOut

          We are CT gun owners, we own thousands of assault rifles, and we aren’t going anywhere. We don’t need a reason to own any weapon we choose. It is our constitutional right. If you don’t understand that, then it’s your problem.

        4. wildbill

          GunsKillKids – tell that to the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who are saved from crime and physical injury every year, because of responsible gun ownership.

          When ‘mr me’ says you sound ignorant, it’s only because you are

  25. G.J. Woody

    Guess CT. will have to change the license plate logo. No more “Constitution State”!

  26. kuma138

    yes you dummy but the number of innocent lives saved by firearms will always outnumber the amount of innocent lives taken away so do the math. i have no problem admiting that we have a violent gun culture in this country but that was brought on by a tyrannical government that tried to turn our original colonies into a monarchy and guess what we didn’t want it then and we don’t want it now. i hope for your sake that no one kicks in your door in the middle of the night and attempts to do harm to you and your family because only then will you grasp the seriousness of the world we live in. hitler passed registration and that led to consfiscation, stalin passed registration and that led to confiscation. mao also too the guns from his nation. if you don’t think it could ever happen here than you are completely ingnorant to the world around you and to world history because tyranny is happening in your own backyard and you don’t even realize it you DAMNED MORON!!!!!!

  27. Ct_lover

    I am sorry to say this but I am ashamed our state today and our politicians. @guns, you like the politicians make no distinction between criminals and law abiding citizens. That is just wrong. To say that less children would have died is impossible to know. The weapons he used were a factor but what made it possible was opportunity. This ill young man had opportunity. There was no one there to stop him. Had there been then your statement might be correct. Maybe less children would have died. But because there was no one who could stop him he could likely have used just a handgun and might have killed the same number of kids. I think most people here would agree that we don’t need 30 round clips, but it might look like we do simply because we do not agree with the legislation being passed in the hope that it looks like they doing something. Over 100,000 people died from gun violence in a 3 year period and the majority of them were killed by criminals and many were innocent children in the wrong place during a drive by shooting. These were not people who registered their weapons. They were criminals who illegally bought them or stole them. My problem with this legislation is they just want to look like they are doing something. This will hamstring the law Biding citizens and embolden criminals. Think of dr. Petit who lost his family. If a firearm could have helped him to save his wife and two daughters and if he actually used would you call hima gun nut? We just want to exercise our rights just as you do we do not advocate Killing and such things. Don’t lump all of us in with the true nuts. You’d find most of us pretty reasonable but the news will selectively show you the nuts and prey upon your insecurities – which both sodes of the debate are wont to do. Don’t succumb to that. There are effective ways to deal with gun violence, but villfying law abiding gun owners is not one of them. But it is easier than rooting out illegal guns and so they do this. They create laws in secret behinds closed doors. Legislation that has merit should be able to be aired in a public forum. Regardless of how you feel about this issue or any for that matter, there is no excuse for not giving this subject a proper forum.

  28. Paul Edward Zukowski

    Do not break your oath of office….

    I still can not believe the state Connecticut is about remove and constitutionally protected fundamental civil rights from its people. Do not brake your oath of office.

    In American Constitutional Law, fundamental rights have special significance under the US Constitution.

    Those rights enumerated in the US Constitution are recognized as “fundamental” by the US Supreme Court. The Court further describes fundamental rights to be those rights that pre-exist the Foundation of the United States. Such fundamental rights exist philosophically and legally at the individual level and are not dependent upon the existence of government. They are – in essence – an element of humanity, rather than a construct of government. These fundamental rights are frequently also termed “God-given rights”, “human rights” or “natural rights”. All such terms refer to the fundamental nature of certain rights under the US Constitution.

    According to the Supreme Court, enumerated rights that are incorporated are so fundamental that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.

    The original interpretation of the United States Bill of Rights was that is was binding exclusively to the Federal Government. In 1835, the US Supreme Court in Barron v Baltimore unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. During post Civil War Reconstruction, the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 to rectify this condition, and to specifically apply the whole of the Constitution against all US States. In 1873, a Supreme Court essentially nullified the key language of the 14th Amendment that guaranteed all “privileges and immunities” to all US persons, in a series of cases called the Slaughterhouse cases. In so doing, they set up a system that allowed post-emancipation racial discrimination to continue largely unabated.

    Later Supreme Court justices found a way around these limitations without overturning the Slaughterhouse precedent: they created a concept called Selective Incorporation. Under this legal theory, the court used the remaining 14th Amendment protections for equal protection and due process to “incorporate” individual elements of the Bill of Rights against the states. “The test usually articulated for determining fundamentality under the Due Process Clause is that the putative right must be ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’, or ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Compare page 267 Lutz v. City of York, Pa., 899 F. 2d 255 – United States Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 1990.

    This set up a continuous process under which each individual right under the Bill of Rights had to be incorporated, one by one. That process has extended more than half a century, with the free speech clause of the First Amendment first being incorporated in 1925 in Gitlow v New York. The most recent amendment to be completely incorporated as fundamental was the Second Amendment right to possess and bear arms for personal self defense, in McDonald v Chicago, handed down in 2010.

    Not all clauses of all amendments have been incorporated. For example, states are not required to obey the Fifth Amendment requirement of indictment by grand jury. Many states choose to have preliminary hearings instead of grand juries. It is possible that future cases may incorporate additional clauses of the Bill of Rights against the states.

    The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:

    The right to interstate travel

    The right to intrastate travel

    The right to privacy[10] (which includes within it a set of rights) including:

    a. The right to marriage[11][12]

    b. The right to procreation [13]

    c. The right for a woman to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability [14][15]

    d. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices) [16]

    e. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

    Any restrictions on these rights are evaluated with strict scrutiny. If a right is denied to everyone, it is an issue of substantive due process. If a right is denied to some individuals but not others, it is also an issue of equal protection. However, any action abridging a right deemed to be fundamental, when also violating equal protection, will still be held to the overriding standard of strict scrutiny, instead of just simply a rational basis test.

    During the Lochner era, the right to freedom of contract was considered to be fundamental, and thus restrictions on that right were subject to strict scrutiny. Following the 1937 Supreme Court decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, though, the right to contract became considerably less important in the context of substantive due process and restrictions on it were evaluated under the rational basis standand.

    Paul Edward Zukowski

    1. mm2bart

      Paul, thank you for taking the time to spell all that out for us. Sure hope this new law gets overturned.

  29. Micky

    This is a stupid, feel-good bill that will do absolutely nothing beyond burdening and punishing law-abiding gun owners. Malloy just lost my vote. And if my state rep and senator vote for this, they lose my vote, and their challenger in the next election gets my money, support and campaign help. We’ll make them pay at the ballot box for stomping on our rights and freedoms.

    1. Alexander Hamilton

      Micky, I’ll try to break the loss of your vote to him gently. Do you have a last name so he will know who’s vote he lost?

          1. jeb joboloski

            I love Kim when I’m Jeb.
            I love Kim when I’m wildbill.
            I love Kim when I’m ‘gunskillkids’
            Loving him gives me a thrill.

            I tease him because it’s like pulling a girls’ ponytail in the schoolyard – it’s a way to get her attention and show I have a crush on her. Except I don’t like girls – I love Kim

  30. Law-abiding gun owner

    To all those anti-gun proponents who want all of us pro-gun supporters and gun owners to leave CT. First of all, we would love too. This state has compromised itself today. In the end, we’re all going to lose becuase of this draconian, knee-jerk legislation that is not going to do one thing to prevent a Newtown or any other town mass event from ever happening again. but the reason I am posting is this: To all those that are so hell-bent on gun-control, I pray that you are never on the other end of something that goes bump in the night. I pray that you don’t wake up to here the sound of someone on your first floor, coming up your stairs, or in your kid’s bedroom. I pray you don’t, while at work, get a phone call from your frantic wife, or neighbor, regarding a home intrusion. If you have ever come face to face with an intruder, and many of us have, you will wish you had a gun in your hand. Think it can’t happen to you? Well it can, and it does, all the time. We don’t here about alot of these incidents because they go unpublished, on not broadcasted, because the stories go against the grain of the media. But they happened, becuase it happened to me. And at the time, I didn’t have a gun, only may hands and a baseball bat. I was fortunate. There are many that are not. As for eliminating large capacity magazines, we, the law-abiding, will comply and I am certain that all criminals will too. Yeah, right. Good luck my gun-hating neighbors, but when all hell breaks loose in your home, good luck. You’re going to need it.

    1. Fed Up

      That’s right law-abiding. I for one will NOT rescue my neighbor for fear of being jailed for having a non-complient magazine. You’re on your own, freedom haters!

  31. Callen

    Everyone who is for or voted for these violations of our right put a Gun Free Zonesign in front of where you live. If you are unwilling to do so you either have armed security, own a firearm or a hypocrit. Most likely a HYPOCRIT.
    I to pray these hypocrit’s never need to protect themselves. I too have faced a home invasion. You never feel safe in your own home again.

  32. Ct_lover

    Why is it that the Antigun folks are not responding to the rational arguments being made here? It seems, like the media,that you only respond to the extreme fringe because that is an easier group to refute. Some people made some very good points here especially those who faced a home intruder. They say they hope you don’t have to, but I hope you do because then you’ll understand why some people feel as they do. I really hope it never comes to that, but you should try to imagine it and think of helpless you wil actually be to defend your loved ones. That is a scary feeling, believe me. Don’t lump all gun owners together and definitely don’t lump is in with the gangs and criminals who will ignore this legislation(and likely welcomes it) who will use their illegally gotten guns – which these laws will not have an effect on – against you, your family or friends. We are not one and the same. Please do not vilify law abiding gun owners. One of us just might save your life one day.

  33. Fed Up

    Pinnocchio can’t see anything here that can be challenged because his nose is in the way

  34. Marcy McClaren

    Hello, i believe that i noticed you visited my web site thus i came to “go back the desire”.I’m trying to to find issues to improve my web site!I suppose its adequate to make use of some of your concepts!!

Comments are closed.