Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,024 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)

The governor attempted to equate driver's licenses, background checks to get on an airplane, and background checks to obtain a gun with the right to keep and bear arms, which is explicit in the Connecticut State Constitution (Article 1, Section 15). I appeal to that since I believe the Second Amendment is specific to the federal government.

However, there are no caveats here. The Connecticut constitution is clear that people have that right and that nothing has to be done, as far as government is concerned, to exercise that right. Would that not include mandatory gun registration?

He then spoke about the people acting in a republican form of government decided the matter. While the people most definitely determined their elected officials, those officials are not to go against what is clear in their own constitution, and they are not to create ex post facto laws, such as the gun registration legislation which is at the heart of the debate. The fact that Malloy claims, "the legislature decided you could keep it" ought to be just as disturbing in this matter. Since when does the government in the United States determine whether or not you can keep your property? Do you get the implications? Malloy thinks the state grants you your rights, not God.
- Tim Brown


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,745 Posts
Time to reinstate being burned at the stake I think.:ahhhhh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Isn't he up for re-election this year?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
This idiot has been smoking choom with Obumbler. Laws require the consent of the governed. IN CT they don't have that concent as it relates to gun registration. If I were the Governor of CT, I would be walking very lightly. Resistance of the people can make your governing the state a living hell.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,715 Posts
What a piece of work. He talks BS in circles and had practiced his answer well before the question was ask. Just hearing his voice is like fingernails on a chalk board. Hope he never moves down here anywhere close to me. We already have to many lawyers and Yankees. Sorry my Northern friends but we already have our share and many more. My wife is one and I tell her the same thing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,128 Posts
In the old west days he would be referred to as a Snake Oil Salesman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,667 Posts
What a piece of work. He talks BS in circles and had practiced his answer well before the question was ask. Just hearing his voice is like fingernails on a chalk board. Hope he never moves down here anywhere close to me. We already have to many lawyers and Yankees. Sorry my Northern friends but we already have our share and many more. My wife is one and I tell her the same thing.
Hey Golphin, the reason that us "Yanks" move down there in our later years is because we are told that "Florida is God's waiting room"!! :biggrin:

Jack
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
He obfuscated the answer. He claimed "victory" for reducing crime while previously using said crime as a justification for passing the gun law. The law has not been in effect long enough to have a significant impact on the crime rate yet it was passed during a timeframe when crime as actually "low". He is "having his cake and eating it too" while contradicting the reasons for the law. :flute:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackston, 1943
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT='Times New Roman', Times, serif]
[/FONT]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
He obfuscated the answer. He claimed "victory" for reducing crime while previously using said crime as a justification for passing the gun law. The law has not been in effect long enough to have a significant impact on the crime rate yet it was passed during a timeframe when crime as actually "low". He is "having his cake and eating it too" while contradicting the reasons for the law. :flute:
It was proven in Chicago that tough gun laws only lead to an increase in gun violence. The criminals know there's less of a chance of getting shot breaking into places when they know the gun laws are tough and there's a good chance nobody in the place they are breaking into has a gun to defend themselves. Just go to YouTube and search for Connecticut Gun Laws and see all the controversy this law is causing. CT is like a pot of water on the stove that you just turned the burner on, right now it's simmering and the first time a legal gun owner gets killed defending his Constitutional rights it's going to boil over, it's just a matter of time.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top