Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: CT Becoming a 14th Amendment-Free Zone

Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 1.32.53 PM

“Individuals that are served with one of these orders will not have their opportunity to have a hearing prior to their firearms being seized. Keep in mind that these individuals are persons that have not been charged with any crime. There’s no proof or preponderance of evidence that they’ve assaulted anybody or threatened anybody.” – Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League in Hearing on bill to remove guns from people served with temporary restraining orders [at fox61.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    CA is a constitution free zone. But that’s the way the constitution was set up. You know, state rights. They can violate the constitution and enslave their citizens without any fears. The fed.gov is powerless to stop them.

    1. avatar WedelJ says:

      This article is about CT, the constitution state. Unfortunately, your comment still applies.

      1. avatar mike butler says:

        CT is rapidly becoming CA, a smaller less glitzy CA, but CA in spirit. Sad.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Through the 14th amendment and SC rulings, most of the federal bill of rights has been incorporated in the states. If state executive branches are violating that, then citizens may seek remedy from the courts.

      Connecticut’s own state constitution, in Section 7, provides that “the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizure.” If the state is violating that, and it appears obvious that it is, then the people can seek remedy at the ballot box.

      CT only had about 55% voter turnout in the 2014 governor’s race, though. Governments will do whatever they want, if the people allow it. In CT and much of America, the people can’t be bothered to do even the simplest, near effortless thing about it.

      I’m certainly not excusing bad actors and constitutional traitors in government, but if we’re to examine this issue, then let’s get to the root cause.

      1. avatar Don from CT (Escaped to MA where at least there are lots of good jobs) says:

        Article 1 Sec 15 of the CT Constitution also says “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself [or herself] and the state”

        And look how well that worked out.

        Don

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      States rights… Ha!

      Yeah, yeah, sure, sure.

      The will of the people. Consent of the governored All that jazz.

    4. My observation of some our “liberty” minded individuals who post here is that they support the Constitution only when it works in their favor.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Not me. Ever. I consider the “constitution” to be the greatest fraud of all time. I do not consent, but the penalty for resistance is death. If you don’t believe that, try not paying your income taxes openly. At some point, if you do not submit, they WILL kill you.

        1. I respect your views they are honest. You still won’t survive a week of anarchy without being raped at least once.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          And you know this because??? You can decide that for yourself, but not for anyone else. I survived a rape. I survived a deadly attack and shot my attacker. I’ve survived a great many things. I hope you can too, but I wouldn’t count on any government to assist you… They are far more apt to BE the danger.

          And I’m not talking about what you seem to perceive of as “anarchy.” I am talking about freedom, individual self government, in voluntary association of like minded people. Leaving everyone else alone to do the same. Not no rules… no rulers and no slaves.

        3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Yeah, according to some, if we have more government dominating our society, this will lead to liberty. Worked so well for most Statist regimes. If the government is backing our liberties and safety so much, then why are they so immune to any prosecution and not held responsible for any public safety?

    5. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      I say we invade the unfree states and restore Liberty, we will be greeted as Liberators.

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        They are unfree for a reason because they choose to be enslaved. Other nonsensical things are more important than liberty. To them having the right to feel safe, to shop, sports, watching TV, etc. is all the freedom they care about. Anything more than those mentioned they will throw you under the bus.

        No, except for the few denisons who are a vast minority in those states, the majority would see us as invaders. The majority must want it. The liberty-loving minority should leave. I did and my life is better because of it.

  2. avatar mike says:

    And I bet they dont give the guns back the day after the restraining order is lifted and any ammo will have been destroyed and not reimbursed for. Likely the guns will be returned damaged and missing parts so they are useless. My guess is there will be a lot of lost guns out there.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      And your permit is supposedly suspended with the restraining order with an approximate 2 year wait to go before the board of firearms permit examiners and have your suspension reviewed.

      To clarify what that means is no purchases of any firearm, no carry, and no ammo purchases until it the suspension is overturned.

  3. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    Time to use the 2nd.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Move to CT, show us how its done.

      1. avatar Stoopid1 says:

        When the civil war breaks out, I will do my part… As limited as that may be, my goal will be to get at least one of the tyrants before I go down.

    2. avatar Don from CT (Escaped to MA where at least there are lots of good jobs) says:

      The problem is that they know not to attempt a massive confiscation. Then there would be civil war. Instead, they will nibble at the edges until the whole enchilada is gone. Today in CT they are redefining mental illness. They are expanding restraining orders as well as attempting to apply the due process-free terrorist watch list against gun owners.

      Maybe next year, it will be those convicted of DUI, and the next year those who took DUI deals to get their license back faster. The following year it will be all those on anti-depressants.

      You get my point. The mass confiscations will never happen because its not the best way for the anti’s to accomplish their goal.

  4. avatar Pascal says:

    While this is not PC, I will argue that much like campus rape and assault (which does happen) is overblown and over done thanks to the Rolling Stones article. Once people started looking at the facts and the bogus study it was not as bad as it was made out to be. It was solely to push a social agenda.

    I suspect that the whole domestic violence thing and guns is also overblown and this is just an election year item to scare the people and BS generated by politicians pushing an agenda. While domestic violence is real, I bet that men are just as much the victim and that guns have less to do with the problem then it is made out to be.

    My company likes to put up domestic violence posters plastering walls and hallways to the point where there is no wall or hallway you can go down that does not have a poster. Each and every poster portrays women only and as someone observed the other day, not a single poster had a white women. All 100% minority. Many of the posters are in 100% foreign languages.

    The promoters of the agenda even at my company are 100% white. There is not a single minority in the group we men are forced to sit in a room and listen to BS speaches. Which, to me, smells like another well organized, well funded “grievance group” who wants something and has conjured up a series of problems that do not exist as bad as maybe they are promoted to be to force a bunch of laws that will do nothing to solve the real problem which in many cases is purely cultural.

    Once again, gun owners are the target and more likely than not, it is taking resources away from looking at the real socio-economic issues.

    In the case of CT, it is making headlines IMHO, so that the real news that the state is $1B in the red can be swept out of the news cycle.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “it was not as bad as it was made out to be.”

      Depends on your attitude, I guess. Personally, I feel that any legislation which *deliberately* authorizes govt’s interfering in any way with a person’s free exercise of his/her rights, without even a hint of due process, is precisely “as bad as it was made out to be”, if not more so.

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        Either my phone tapping made it unclear or you did not read my statement clearly. What I saying is the whole campus rape and the 1 in 5 women being assaulted statistic was over blown and the recent articles have shown that while rape on campus does happen, not to the degree as was originally stated.

        The new rules on many campuses are BS. Even in my home state, a Yale student was thrown out of school merely for being accused. That there is BS.

        1. avatar TravisP says:

          Yeah if it was 1 in 5, we’d have the rape rate of the Congo, where rape is a weapon used in war.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          The Eli was accused of “unspecified sexual misconduct.” There was nor report of any criminal investigation. He was also the captain of the rowing team. When his teammates wore tee shirts in his support, they were administratively punished and forced to apologize (for what was not clear in the report here).

    2. avatar TStew says:

      Sounds like a wonderful place to work…or not.

      If what you say is true, in that “we men are forced to sit in a room and listen to BS speaches (sic)” then I have to ask why do you listen? If it is really that bad and only MEN are required to attend, walk out. Walk out and scream discrimination when you do. We go to work to earn our next sandwich, not to be politically educated (or reeducated as the case may be).

      I realize that depending on the size of the company, the industry you may be in, your own standing within the company and the like that you could well be taking a risk to your job in doing so, but I’m willing to bet you’d stand a chance at winning a lawsuit should it come to that. (I am not a lawyer and these opinions are those of an amateur; statements herein are not to be taken as legal advice, blah-blah…).

      Point being that at a certain point, we have to stand up to this garbage. If we don’t, it will continue and get worse as it does.

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        My situation will be resolved once I find a new job. Currently family situation requires that I cherry pick a bit more.

        However, this is no different than the situation where everyone is forced to attend meetings to donate to the corporate sponsored charity. You are required to attend.

        1. avatar TStew says:

          More than understand the family angle as it’s tough to put yourself in a position where the pay might stop coming in without another gig. That said, if you have to attend men-only anti violence sessions, I would disagree that it is the same as the example you give above. When the annual donation season comes around, everyone attends. What you initially suggested is a targeted and (IMHO) discriminatory practice that singles out men as a problem and gives the wiggle room for challenge to that practice.
          Though based on what you’ve written I wonder if you’re working for my former employer, with the exception being I wouldn’t think a company of 300,000 people would be so stupid as to force men to attend those sorts of seminiars.

    3. avatar Matt says:

      And the immense budget cuts proposed by the governor and the people and businesses leaving the state (GE and Bristol Myers to name two big ones) that further lower our revenue. And more reduced services and higher taxes! Personally I’m looking forward to CT turning into a ghost town, that would be quite interesting, but I doubt that will happen to the welfare heavy population centers.

      Why do I fear the shit state employees are the ones who won’t be laid off either…

  5. avatar Alex Peterson says:

    From the article…

    ““The minute a woman comes forward and asks for a temporary restraining order, is the most dangerous moment of her life,” said state Sen. Mae Flexer, of Killingly.”

    So you’re telling me that restraining orders don’t work? Who knew? /sarcasm

    Sounds more like a restraining order problem rather than a gun problem.

    I wonder how long it will take before people start filing temporary restraining orders against Malloy’s security team.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      So in the ‘most dangerous moment’ of a woman’s life, they think that giving her ex-boyfriend 24 hours to hand over his firearms instead of waiting 2 weeks for a hearing is somehow going to mitigate her danger. In the most dangerous moment of her life. Brilliant!

      This is just something the gun grabbers view as low hanging fruit. Nobody is going to argue against women being safe. Compromise our constitutional rights here now, come back later to compromise them more. That’s why they call themselves ‘progressives’. They’re progressively destroying the Constitution.

    2. avatar knightofbob says:

      So, a woman approaching a government official to express fear for her safety is a more dangerous moment than whatever event drove her to fear for her safety to begin with. Got it.

    3. avatar Dev says:

      A woman was killed in Las Vegas last week a few hours after her restraining order was granted but before it could be served. The ability for police to take away firearms before a person is charged and tried is immaterial. If ANY of these groups really wanted to protect women they would come up with funding and systems for the police to protect the abused and have a safe, secure place provided for them (not necessarily by the police) until that restraining order is served and the accused is verified to have his or her own safe, secure place to go until the situation is resolved.

  6. avatar M3M9 says:

    Why the hell does CT wait until the full hearing two weeks later? That really seems kind of silly given the risks involved, TBH. The compromise would be to allow firearms to be removed upon the issuance of a TRO if there have been certain triggering events, such as abuse involving a firearm, threats of death or suicide, or stalking. My state (Pennsylvania) does this, and has a listing of triggering events where the judge may — MAY, not shall — order the alleged abuser to relinquish his firearms. Yet, the statute allows the alleged abuser to decide where his firearms go. In other words, he doesn’t have to turn them over to a government agency, such as the Sheriff’s Department. He can leave them with a family member or friend providing that person signs an affidavit that they won’t give him the guns back until the matter is resolved.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      And how does the judge issuing the TRO know that the “triggering events” have occurred? Because one person, with no exposure to cross-examination and countervailing evidence, and typically risking only a misdemeanor charge for lying, says so. That’s the problem.

      1. avatar M3M9 says:

        I saw your posts. Both of them. How are they not subject to cross examination? There is a full hearing where they are subject to cross examination. I mean I can agree with you that RO statutes can be abused, but can you say that the state doesn’t have a compelling state interest in reducing domestic violence? Can we agree that while you may not like PA’s statute, it is better than what CT is proposing? I agree a blanket prohibition of owning firearms after a TRO is granted is as bad — well, almost as bad — as prohibiting firearms ownership after being put on a “terror watch list.”

        What’s your alternative method, less restrictive than, say, PA’s statute, for dealing with domestic abusers who own firearms? It can’t be arming every abused spouse (let’s face it, abused woman) who rolls through the door of the RO office. It also can’t be provide a police escort until the hearing. Neither of those is realistic or feasible as what is currently done.

        Even presuming we analyze a 2A violation for taking guns after a TRO is ordered under strict scrutiny, I think you have a compelling state interest in reducing domestic violence, and I think something like PA’s statute is about as least restrictive as we can make it. If there is another alternative I’m missing, tell me and I’ll concede I’m wrong.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          I’ll be glad to tell you, M3M9. There is NO “compelling state interest” here. (Or anywhere, but that’s another subject.) Each human being is responsible for his/her own life and safety – and that of their legitimate dependents. They are also responsible for whom they choose to associate.

          The whole idea of government keeping people safe is ludicrous. The “state” has been very clear that neither they nor their minions, the police especially, are responsible for the safety or life of an individual. They cannot be sued for not saving your life. This “safety” thing is only used to constantly attack the rights and responsibility of everyone, increasing their dependence on the very “rulers” who work so hard to destroy their lives and property.

          Confiscation of guns from anyone not CONVICTED of a violent crime merely enables the criminals. It certainly doesn’t do anything to protect the innocent. The laws against rape, assault, and murder are useful after the fact, if the perpetrator is actually caught, of course, and doesn’t get a “plea bargain” or other get out of jail card. What’s the actual clearance rate on those crimes again?

          The best outcome to an attempted rape or murder is the death of the aggressor at the hands of the intended victim or their guardian. Since that is fraught with danger, it would seem wise to take very good care to avoid such a possibility. Hence the old rule: Don’t go stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid things (like get drunk and naked with strangers).

          But heck, it’s his/her life. If they really want to live with an aggressive jerk, go for it. They just shouldn’t expect much sympathy when he knocks them around. Especially after the first time.

        2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Gee, Mama Liberty, you hit the nail on the head with that one!

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      M3M9, do you think that would all be fine if *I* filed such a restraining order against *YOU*? Would it be fine when a bunch of local LEO were tearing your home apart looking for your guns (even if you have none) while you attempted to figure out who the HELL I even was? The problem is that there is no due process, no opportunity for you to so much as state that you don’t even know me, have never met me, and are not infatuated with OFWGs anyway. When that sinks in, you may have a different attitude in the future concerning seemingly “common sense” legislation being pushed at you without explanation. Imagine yourself as the target.

      1. avatar M3M9 says:

        Your example doesn’t fit since you don’t know me, nor can you prove how you know me. At least in PA, ROs (called Protection from Abuse Orders) are limited to family members, spouses, and domestic partners. But you could try it. Just be prepared to sign a document filed with the Court where you are subject to criminal charges for lying if you allege you and I are in a relationship, when we are not. And I would happily ask for charges to be pressed against you if you did that. So I expect that’s a fairly good incentive to dissuade false relationship claims. False accusations of violence are, of course, another story entirely.

        You would further be mistaken that there is no due process. You get process at the full hearing 10 days later. There are plenty of examples of constitutional due process where the government takes action and the person gets due process later. I can think specifically of situations where a government employees gets fired for egregious conduct, then gets his termination hearing later. Seems reasonably analogous to this situation, IMO. Unless you are OK with a government employee staying at work when he has committed crimes or other such reprehensible conduct.

        Now, I suppose there is an argument that taking your guns first based on allegations made in an ex parte hearing violates your Second Amendment rights. Of course, “shall not be infringed” for most gun owners simply means “just that,” like it is so simple that the government can’t do anything to restrict your access to a gun. Yet, all we have to do is look at the First Amendment to know that “make no law” obviously does not mean “make NO law” abridging freedom of speech. Just laws that actually “abridge it.” Since Scalia specifically said in Heller that the Second Amendment is not infringed by prohibiting certain classes of people from possessing weapons, I think you are going to have a difficult time, even under a strict scrutiny standard, convincing a court that your rights were violated if there was an allegation you threatened your spouse with a gun or other weapon and had your guns taken away for 10 days. And if it all ends up being a crock of crap made up by your spouse to get back at you, then I’m not seeing a court saying the government was wrong depending on the exact allegations under the circumstances, because you got your due process at the full hearing.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          You must have missed my post. To get an ex-parte TRO, you don’t have to “prove” anything–all you have to do is say it (granted, usually under oath, but again, usually only under a possible misdemeanor penalty for lying). There is nobody else there to say otherwise, and no judge in his right mind is going to say, “No, I’m not going to issue the TRO, because I don’t believe you are telling the truth” unless the representations made to him are patently absurd, like “my intimate partner is a space alien who is going to abduct me to Alpha Centauri”.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Well, you are certainly correct on the due process issue. A better example is when the police arrest you for a crime, which arrest is based on an affidavit–often a hearsay affidavit based on no more than circumstantial evidence–by a police officer that states, in so many words, that there is “probable cause to believe” you are the perpetrator. With a warrant for your arrest, you may be incarcerated, and if the charge is sufficiently severe, or you are sufficiently poor, you may be incarcerated all the way up to trial, which could be (and often is in serious cases) many months later. Domestic abuse is a crime, sometimes a misdemeanor, sometimes a felony. One spouse may be in jail (at least temporarily) for the beating that led the other spouse to obtain a TRO. The arrest is more than sufficient “probable cause,” as are photos (or the appearance of the spouse at the hearing on the issuance of the TRO) of the injuries inflicted on him/her are actual evidence of injury which, combined with an affidavit accusing the other of causing them, that is sufficient to satisfy the due process concerns.

  7. avatar Bob says:

    So are they consequences to falsely applying for a temp restraining order? Can I just call up the CT cops and start naming names of the CT legislature?

  8. avatar gs650g says:

    TRO is now the parchment of totalitarianism.

  9. avatar Cliff H says:

    It seems as though everybody is getting this backwards. Instead of a TRO and taking HIS guns they should be issuing a temporary concealed weapons permission slip to the aggrieved party and giving all the weapons to her/him until the matter is sorted out.

    Or maybe just split the guns evenly between the two, like community property.

    (/sarc)

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Plenty of cops around, assign one to train and equip such a person, and perhaps another to advise the accused, face-to-face, that such training is being done, with a warning that if the accused is close enough to be shot, the shooter will not be prosecuted, since the accused is in violation of that order. That violates no one’s rights so far as I can see, and suddenly restraining orders have some real teeth. Might even use the opportunity to put a bug on the complainant’s phone, for proof if the accused pursues phone threats, etc.

  10. avatar Another Robert says:

    Ya know, it just occurred to me, you can probably determine whether stuff like this is actually about “women’s safety” (I suppose men are never shot by so-called intimate partners?) or just glorified gun-grabbing by looking at how difficult it is or isn’t to get your guns back once the TRO or RO expires. If the damn state was as diligent about returning the guns when appropriate as they are about grabbing them, this kind of thing might seem a bit less draconian.

  11. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    This is all so dumb. In the first place, it is impossible to predict who might actually harm someone else. Second, if they really want to, they can find a weapon, whether a gun or the hands at the end of their arms. Confiscating guns does exactly nothing except deprive honest people of their self defense tools.

    And third, yes indeed… about half of the actual “domestic violence” incidents that occur are perpetrated by women. Men don’t tend to report such things, so the stats are not at all accurate. And anyone can make a false report. Domestic “swatting” is probably more common than most folks even suspect.

    A real “burden of proof” on the accuser, and serious consequences for a false report should be the norm. Don’t look for that to happen in the immediate future.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      And it can be abused.

      Do you live in Connecticut??
      Do you want to disarm a homeowner before robbing them??
      Is there a lady in your robbing party willing to file a restraining order??

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Anything to do with the “law” or courts can be abused. I don’t happen to think “laws” are the answer to the problem.

        I carry a gun everywhere I go, every day. I take full responsibility for my own life and safety. I have no quarrel with anybody if I can possibly avoid it, and I don’t associate with people of either (any?) sex who are aggressive, violent or stupid… again, if I can possibly avoid it. I teach both men and women how to defend themselves, and also teach gun handling and safety. What they do with it is their own business.

        I was married to an abusive man for a while. I left, and the divorce was uncomplicated even if not friendly. But that was 40 years ago. I suspect it would be a brawl now. There is absolutely nothing that involving government can’t screw up – destroying any peace or prosperity that might have happened otherwise.

      2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Oh, and by the way, I live in Wyoming. Wouldn’t set foot anywhere east of the South Dakota line if you paid me. 🙂

  12. avatar Anonymous says:

    This new bill would force abusers to turn over their guns within 24 hours of when they are served the restraining order.

    Officer: This is a restraining order – You have 24 hours to turn over all firearms in your possession.
    Homeowner: Well, wait one second and i’ll just go get them for you now.
    (homeowner searches for firearms – none found)
    Homeowner: The guns are gone!? Where did they go?? I must have been robbed!
    Officer: If the guns were previously stolen by law (SB938) you are required to report them stolen within 72 hours after discovery.
    Homeowner: Well. I just discovered them stolen. I’m glad your’re here. I’d like to report some firearms stolen. I had them locked in this little safe, but now they are gone?? I can’t believe it officer!

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Anything you say to a police officer can and will be used against you, and in some states (and federal officers) it is a felony. Better to keep your trap shut than have your lie shoved you know where in a court of law. Once your credibility is gone, you lose. Even if you really do have a good case, you lose, because no one will believe a word out of your mouth. There is not an attorney anywhere that will advise you otherwise.

      I have been at this game for many years as a civil attorney. I can tell you that many people lie, thinking that they can get away with it. Heck, they’ll even lie to their own attorneys when they get “lotto fever,” believing that their case will lead to a huge pay day. A plaintiff’s attorney’s worst nightmare is when the lies are proved with the client on the witness stand. And I know more than a couple of attorneys in my little town that it has happened to, because plaintiff’s attorneys do not vette their clients like the defense attorneys do.

  13. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Both sides know restraining orders are horsesh*t. And both side ms know taking someone’s guns who is intent on violence is, also, horsesh*t.

    It’s backdoor gun control, and once more, everyone knows it.

  14. avatar Mark N. says:

    By the way, California has been in this domestic violence TRO business for many years. The orders are entered into a system called CLETS, which is available to every police agency in the state and the DOJ. Yet there are still millions of guns and gun owners here. And the simple solution, obviously, is don’t abuse your spouse. If you don’t, the lies the other spouse tells will sooner or later come to light. My tech guy had this happen to him–none of the charges were true, but were just leverage for his (soon to be ex) wife to get custody of the children. Fortunately for him, he didn’t own any guns (but his trust did), so he was able to put them in safe keeping with friends while the legal case ran its course. By the way, the judge eventually caught on to the fact that she was lying through her teeth.

  15. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    This all sounds reasonable and sensible to me! I just love gun sense! While we are at it, we can just all go Communist.

  16. avatar Demo Man says:

    “There’s no proof or preponderance of evidence that they’ve assaulted anybody or threatened anybody.”

    Sounds like Illinois after the “NRA backed” carry bill from 2013. Contrary to NRA lies, Illinois does not have “shall issue.” ANY cop from ANY jurisdiction in Illinois can forward a bullshit objection to the unelected Star Chamber Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, where the standard to deny a carry license is “preponderance of the evidence.” That’s the same “standard” as Chicago red light camera violations. Go team NRA!

    Here’s who’s on the Star Chamber. I am not making this up:
    “The Board shall consist of: one commissioner with at least 5 years of service as a federal judge; 2 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience serving as an attorney with the United States Department of Justice; 3 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience as a federal agent or employee with investigative experience or duties related to criminal justice under the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, or Federal Bureau of Investigation; and one member with at least 5 years of experience as a licensed physician or clinical psychologist with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”

    Don’t think NRA is going to lift a finger to help Connecticut gun owners. If Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA pay scum like lobbyist Todd Vandermyde to put Duty to Inform and a Star Chamber review board in Illinois’ carry bill, they will sell out Connecticut gun owners to advance the criminal police state.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: CT Becoming a 14th Amendment-Free Zone http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/daniel-zimmerman/quote-day-71-2/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email