It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Connecticut Governor To Block People On Watch Lists From Buying Guns:

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy: "This is a moment to seize here in America"

How can you lose your legal rights without conviction? Seriously?

Without justification, proof, or a conviction anyone can lose their rights because some anonymous goon working somewhere in the government says so.


I could only support this if the "Policy To Appeal" for those placed on these watch lists works. Free appeal, a specific time period of no more than 7 days, etc. (Lawsuit ability if wrongfully accused on the person who entered you into it)

I can easily see this working like asset forfeiture. You magically appear on a list. They come and take your stuff. Your "Appeal" is some legal fiasco costing you lots of money and time, and it takes months to years to get removed from these magic secret lists.

No way.

Publish a simple and easy review process with a 3-7 day response or this is just Bogus Stealth Gun Control with anyone they want to "put on the list". Place accountability and especially TRANSPARENCY on Government Employees or LE so someone just can't add you back over and over again, etc.

This is ripe for harassment and corruption.

www.huffingtonpost.com...






Mollie Reilly
Deputy Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
12/10/2015 12:49 pm ET

Connecticut Governor To Block People On Watch Lists From Buying Guns

Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) announced Thursday he intends to sign a "common sense" executive order prohibiting individuals on government watch lists from buying guns.

"This is a moment to seize here in America," Malloy said during a press conference. "It is incumbent upon leaders at all levels of government to protect its citizenry."

Pending approval from the federal government to access their databases, including the "no-fly" roster, Malloy said he will sign an order requiring those who apply for gun permits to be screened against government watch lists. Those who are on such lists would be banned from purchasing handguns, shotguns, rifles and ammunition.

He added there would be an appeals process for people who say they have been unfairly placed on government watch lists.






edit on 10-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Well, I guess we're not moving to CT anytime soon.

We don't own a gun, but we've discussed it. This would put us out of the running thanks to the husband's line of work and habit of signing a shortened version of his given name. Two rather arbitrary things if I ever heard them because it sounds like he's going to all the watch lists, not just the no-fly.


edit on 10-12-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Thats a tough stand for a politician to take, now lets see when he has to run for office again and see what the people think a out this move.

Do they need to pass it as law or they can just instate the new rules?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I agree. People on watchlists should not be able to buy a gun immediately. But most of those lists are rife with mistakes, misspellings, duplicates and in a lot of cases no real reason for someone to be on a list. It should be a reasonable time period to appeal.

It might also clue one into the fact that they are on a list if they didn't know before...so they can start the process of being removed.
edit on 10-12-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Thats a tough stand for a politician to take, now lets see when he has to run for office again and see what the people think a out this move.

Do they need to pass it as law or they can just instate the new rules?


Executive Order of course.... LOL

www.mediaite.com...



CT Governor To Introduce More Gun Control (Too Bad It’s Blatantly Unconstitutional)
by Alex Griswold | 3:12 pm, December 10th, 2015

Democratic Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy announced Thursday that he would waste millions of taxpayer dollars defending an action that would almost certainly be overruled at every level of the U.S. judicial system.

Of course, he didn’t exactly phrase it that way. Instead, he announced that he would issue an executive action banning the purchase of guns or ammo by anyone on a federal government terrorism watch list, including the “no-fly list.” But the end result is the same; Malloy’s new executive action is going to be laughed out of court.

To begin with, Malloy almost certainly lacks the ability to introduce drastic gun control measure by fiat. Executive actions in Connecticut, as at the federal level, can clarify interpretations of existing law. But the governor cannot create new law; that power lies with the legislature and the legislature alone.

In this case, Connecticut law is clear; Sec. 29-28(b) lists ten reasons why a Connecticut resident can be denied a gun permit, including mental illness, criminal history, being in the country illegally, having a restraining order against them, etc., but nothing about government watch lists. Those ten reasons, and those ten reasons alone, are the only reasons someone can be denied a gun in Connecticut. Every time the legislature deemed that additional disqualifications were necessary, they passed a law.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

We all knew where this was going to lead.

But like the gun gun grabbers always say, nobody is going to take your guns.

No, they will just put you on a list where you cant know why you are on it or get taken off and lose your guns.

Not the same thing technically, so they didnt lie, they arent taking your guns........




posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The governor "intends" to do this.

Let's just see what happens if he does. I'm guessing there will be an intervention of the courts PDQ.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I'll be over here with my popcorn waiting for the new's of Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy future assassination. If there was only 1 rule in America that you don't want to break, It's taking away peoples rights to bare arms.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I support the governor and I think it's a bit pathetic that the pro-gun crowd can't even agree to stop people on our nation's "No-Fly List" from buying guns just because the list isn't "perfect" and/or error free.

I was once the victim of identity theft and I had 13 warrants out for my arrest in 4 different counties. TOTAL MISTAKE!!

Did I have to get it straightened out? Yes!

Would I pass a background check to buy a gun with all those pending warrants? No!

Should people with outstanding warrants be allowed to buy guns because mistakes sometimes happen? Absolutely Not!

There is no such thing as mistake proof terrorist lists. There is no such thing as mistake proof no-fly list. There is no such thing as a 100% secure border.

With that being said, it's high time that we quit letting our quest for unacheivable perfection be the largest obstacle blocking the path to good.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker





I could only support this if the "Policy To Appeal" for those placed on these watch lists works.


I could only support this if they actually convicted them of a crime FIRST.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: infolurker





I could only support this if the "Policy To Appeal" for those placed on these watch lists works.


I could only support this if they actually convicted them of a crime FIRST.


So someone with mental disorders who hasn't broken any laws, yet is determined to be a risk to themselves and/or others, should be allowed to buy guns?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

I think it's more than "a bit pathetic" that you are willing to violate someone's Rights and convict them of a crime, with no evidence. That their name is on a list, possibly mistakenly by your own admission, should not automatically make them guilty. Show why they are on that list and why they are considered a danger, then they may have a reason. "Guilty till proven innocent" is the anti gun battle cry.

By your own reasoning, you should have been in jail till you proved you were innocent, mistaken identity or not. YOU were guilty because they said so, right?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I wonder how many here at ATS or similar sites are on watch lists?

I wonder if I am?

How do I know?

According to this Govt. GOON I'm already guilty, don't even know it, can't even contest it.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
When we have bureaucrats in government agencies such as the IRS tagging and marking people based on their political affiliation, we have a problem. If you ever have occasion to be in an IRS office in a metropolitan city, look around. These are the people that have access to your personal info.

Clean up the corruption and blatant political games first. The OP has it right.

Somebody in Homeland Security dropped the ball and allowed Tashfeen the Terror Lady into our country. That same inept bureaucrat could put YOUR name on some no-fly list either out of ineptness, mistake, or maliciousness.

The checks and balances and recourse process the OP suggests is common sense.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

How do you know they have a disorder? I said "convicted" which means prove you have a reason. If they are talking to invisible people or plainly insane, fine, but not by their name on some govt list. You are plainly anti gun and willing to convict someone for any reason, as long as it keeps them from getting a firearm.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64

I think it's more than "a bit pathetic" that you are willing to violate someone's Rights and convict them of a crime, with no evidence. That their name is on a list, possibly mistakenly by your own admission, should not automatically make them guilty.
Show why they are on that list and why they are considered a danger, then they may have a reason. "Guilty till proven innocent" is the anti gun battle cry.


Show it to who, you?

Or do you think our intelligence agencies should get the approval of the entire American population before adding a name to the list?

Or maybe you think there shouldn't even be such a thing as a no-fly list?


originally posted by:
David64

By your own reasoning, you should have been in jail till you proved you were innocent, mistaken identity or not. YOU were guilty because they said so, right?


Actually, they did arrest me during a traffic stop on Christmas Eve with my whole family in the car and that's how I found out I had the warrants.

Later, I found out that the Harris county Sheriffs dept. thought they previously arrested me as well on my wedding anniversary. I had to drive to Houston and submit my fingerprints to prove them wrong, which I did.

While it may have been a bit of an inconvenience, (including the part where I couldn't buy guns until it was straightened out) I don't feel like my rights were infringed by anyone other the guy who assumed my identity.

Law enforcement was just doing their job and following up on the evidence they had on hand.

Furthermore, had I not been named on the warrants, law enforcement wouldn't know to this day who the identity thief was.

I sat down with the Harris county attorney when I went to submit my prints and it was my input that led them to the thief.

I'm not the least bit concerned with those few misidentified persons on the list. It's not something that can't be corrected and no one gets killed because of it.

And I'll repeat, there are plenty of mentally unstable people who have been determined to be a risk to themselves or others who haven't been convicted of any crime but are not allowed to buy guns.

I still support the governor, IMO it's a good effort.



edit on 10-12-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Flatfish

How do you know they have a disorder? I said "convicted" which means prove you have a reason. If they are talking to invisible people or plainly insane, fine, but not by their name on some govt list. You are plainly anti gun and willing to convict someone for any reason, as long as it keeps them from getting a firearm.


Uh, maybe because they've been in and out of mental institutions where evaluations, (not convictions) were made and documented by professionals in the field. Or maybe they attempted suicide.

Here in Texas, they'll take away your concealed carry permit if you get behind on your taxes too.

And just for the record, I am a lifelong gun owner and somewhat of a collector as well. I'd wager that I own more guns than you and the last thing I am, is anti-gun.

But then I'm not anti-common sense either.
edit on 10-12-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Kafka right again!

This governor should be arrested for treason immediately. He is a domestic enemy of the constitution.

This is a blatant violation of constitutional rights to due process and bear arms.

This is a violation of his oath of office where he swore to uphold and defend the constitution.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Section 15, Connecticut Constitution,

"Every citizen has right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state"

Golly, that's very clear - thinking the gov has overstepped his bounds, there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the wording.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Not trying to be argumentative but the seeming disconnect between your experience and your subsequent opinion is astonishing. Really. I am amazed.

I agree the no-fly lists are imperfect to say the least. Heck the ACLU has argued for years they are arbitrary and unjust with no due process. The intent of the legislation may be sound but the bureaucratic execution is pathetic.

Most folks do not want guns (or almost anything) in the hands of dangerous people but why, oh why do we want to use the no-fly list as the determinant? It's ripe for fraud, abuse, and overstretch. Not the right tool for the job.




top topics



 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join