Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/28/2006 1:52:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 7:51:44 AM EDT by PocketG]
I believe 99.9% of legit firearm owners would report lost or stolen firearms as soon as they find there stuff missing anyways. So how is this going to aid in illegal gun trafficking?

edited: the words I misspelled 5:30 in the morning.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 2:30:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2006 3:56:09 AM EDT by steveinct]
It won't.

That's the whole point. The State Police, the Governor and the Judiciary Committee WANT to arrest
gun dealers and gun owners. It's all about coming down on us. We are the easy scapegoats in a politically charged press time competition.

They have NO desire to fight crime; that's too dangerous and requires real work. They'd rather invent a whole list of technicalities hoping to snare unlce Ned trading his skeet gun at the fish and game club, or a dealer on interpreting a gun's features instead. Then they can go to the press and say what a great job they've done "stemming the flow of guns on our streets to protect our children".

Meanwhile, gang members continue to shoot up neighborhoods every night; police in New Haven are getting shot at almost every day; Wild car chases in Hartford, Waterbury, New Haven, etc continue; convenience stores still get robbed and elderly apartment tennants still get their doors kicked in and beaten to within inches of their lives.

They can't figure out where these guns are coming from the past few years?? Simple - even State Police has noted in the past few years problems due to illegal immigration have exploded across the country. When you have a half million illegals protesting legislation to make them felons for being here - - did it ever occur to these F-ing geniuses that maybe illegal guns are coming into the country along with the illegal people and drugs??
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 4:06:28 AM EDT
Their public reasoning is...

When they find a firearm on the "street", they trace it back to the original owner who they sometimes suspect may actually be a straw purchaser. Since there's no manditory reporting of stolen firearms, the potential straw purchaser can say "Oh, that gun I bought last year? It was stolen." In actuality, the firearm was traded for drugs or cash. Since there's no law to require them to report if it was stolen, then it's a closed case.

I don't so much disagree with the merits as I do with the fact that they left it so open ended. What if you don't look in your safe but once every month. What if something is stolen and you don't know?

The text of the bill...

not later than seventy-two hours after such person knew or should have known of such theft or loss.

...is so open ended that a lawyer could certainly make the case that you "should" have known your firearm was stolen and you "should" have checked on them. None of these timeperiods are defined aside the 72hrs.

Throw this law into the mix with some liberal judges and you've got a real problem. You might as well hang a clipboard on your gunsafe and do an inventory every morning.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 4:23:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2006 4:29:20 AM EDT by steveinct]
State Police bascially admitted to CCS that there is a problem with background checks and (alluding to without actualy saying the term:) illegal immigrants.

They used the term directly in an e-mail response to Bob Crook at CCS "due to the changes in society over the past four to five years" ... they will now require birth certificates and US PASSPORTS for
any pistol permit application OR RENEWAL.


Given that the State of CT Dept. of Motor Vehicles made NATIONAL NEWS last year over issuing thousands of fake drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants (and we still have about 750 of those UNACCOUNTED for)....It was a known fact among illegal immigrants, want a drivers license, come to CT and ask for so-and-so at DMV. $3,500 - you have a drivers license.

I would bet that a few gun permits slipped through the cracks as well and there might be a few straw purchasers out there, but the greater problem is illegal immigration and the flow of drugs, guns and gang activity it supports.

Fifteen years ago ONE THIRD of all convicted felons serving prison sentences were illegal immigrants. FIFTEEN YEARS ago! Imagine the numbers today?


This is where the problem is, and if it isn't addressed and corrected SOON we will all be in deep shit

This is a real problem and very serious. However, our molly coddle panzie ass state gov't won't address it because it's too much of a political hot potato and not only will they piss off the illegals who are here for the free ride WE pay for, but the "Lexus Liberals" will be out there calling for lynch mobbing any elected official who suggests going after illegal immigrants - as long as they don't build a section 8 house for that immigrant next door to their home on Fluffy Flower Terrace in West Hartford or Weston, CT.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 4:38:18 AM EDT
Letter from CT State Police (SLFU) to Bob Crook of CCS - Bob sent out to the CCS e-mail list:


Dear Mr. Crook,

Several sections within Chapter 529 of the Connecticut General Statutes place not only the issuance of temporary state permits with the local authority, but also place both issuance and revocation authority and responsibilities on the Commissioner of Public Safety regarding state permits to carry pistols and revolvers.

The Special Licensing & Firearms Unit is tasked by the Commissioner of Public Safety to carry out those responsibilities under his authority. With the many societal changes and public safety security concerns that have occurred nationwide during the past four to five years, the Special Licensing & Firearms Unit has been taking a closer look at past procedures involved in the issuance of such permits. This has resulted in the realization that some informational/security gaps needed to be closed. Thus, the requirement for holders to provide proof of citizenship or legal residency in the United States when renewing their permit was imposed. Since state permits must be renewed every five years, this is requirement is considered temporary, and should no longer be necessary in the future.

Statutory authority can be found in section 29-29, subsection (d) C.G.S., which states "The commissioner may investigate any applicant for a state permit and shall investigate each applicant for renewal of a state permit to ensure that such applicant is eligible under state law for such permit or for renewal of such permit."


Sincerely,


The Special Licensing & Firearms Unit
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 8:02:52 AM EDT
#1 I have a 800lb Liberty safe that houses all my firearms (Hopefully safe from thiefs).
#2 I don't plan on straw purchases. (I have some sense left)
#3 I quess I have to live with the new ruling. (Just Another day in CT.)
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 8:27:20 AM EDT
The reason that there is so much gang activity with all the attending crimes is simple. IT was even predicted. The bad guys, ring leaders of the gangs, have all served the bulk of their time in prison. It was about 10 years ago when these guys were all finally convicted after a huge crackdown by all of the services: LEOs, FBI, and ATF. They ATF had an actual office right in Hartford. I know because my Mom worked for them for a number of years. I visited there a number of times and got to know a lot of them on a first-name basis. They had their hands full but they did the job of stemming crime by gangs at that time. There were a lot of arrests and crime actually plummeted in the cities.

During all this it was discovered that, unlike other cities, the gang members lived quietly in the suburbs from Enfield, to Colchester. They bought nice houses and drove nice cars and literally commuted to "work " in Hartford just like anyone else. They had organized very well indeed and it took the efforts of all those law-enforcment times to corral those bad guys and put them in jail. Some went away for a long time but the seconds-in-command got shorter sentences. Now, they are back and with a vengance. And there is no ATF office in Hartford any longer. I believe there is one in the New Haven/Bridgeport area but I'm not sure anymore.

I agress with SteveinCT about this bill. It is simply a way to make us....the victims of crime, defendents in a crime. And I whole-heartedly agree that 99.99% of any of us who find something stolen would most certainly report it ASAP. My one, recurring nighmare is that my car is stolen on the way home from the range and that my weapons are taken and put on the street. I literally wake up with a knot in my gut. To assume that anyone one of us would treat this in any other way is ludicrous. There are bad guys out there, however, and that fact alone says that they could care less about straw purchase laws or filing the proper paperwork. Bad guys don't do paperwork or file claims. That's why they're bad guys. We are not the bad guys, however, and we jump through the endless chain of hoops just to stay that way.

Like Steve says, this new law is a bogus attempt at making it look like they've done something. If they really wanted to do something concrete, enact the law that demanded/required a minimum 1 or 2 year sentence, not to be served concurrently with any other sentence, if a crime is commited with a firearm, period. That would give the procecutors time to investigate crimes more throughly while these bad guys are cooling their heels because of the gun charge. Nope. That won't get done, however. Don't want to deny those bad guys their rights after all.

Rome
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:58:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 10:52:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By steveinct:
It won't.

That's the whole point. The State Police, the Governor and the Judiciary Committee WANT to arrest
gun dealers and gun owners. It's all about coming down on us. We are the easy scapegoats in a politically charged press time competition.

They have NO desire to fight crime; that's too dangerous and requires real work. They'd rather invent a whole list of technicalities hoping to snare unlce Ned trading his skeet gun at the fish and game club, or a dealer on interpreting a gun's features instead. Then they can go to the press and say what a great job they've done "stemming the flow of guns on our streets to protect our children".

Meanwhile, gang members continue to shoot up neighborhoods every night; police in New Haven are getting shot at almost every day; Wild car chases in Hartford, Waterbury, New Haven, etc continue; convenience stores still get robbed and elderly apartment tennants still get their doors kicked in and beaten to within inches of their lives.

They can't figure out where these guns are coming from the past few years?? Simple - even State Police has noted in the past few years problems due to illegal immigration have exploded across the country. When you have a half million illegals protesting legislation to make them felons for being here - - did it ever occur to these F-ing geniuses that maybe illegal guns are coming into the country along with the illegal people and drugs??



Very well put Steve.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 1:50:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cabinetman:
The reason that there is so much gang activity with all the attending crimes is simple. IT was even predicted. The bad guys, ring leaders of the gangs, have all served the bulk of their time in prison. It was about 10 years ago when these guys were all finally convicted after a huge crackdown by all of the services: LEOs, FBI, and ATF. They ATF had an actual office right in Hartford. I know because my Mom worked for them for a number of years. I visited there a number of times and got to know a lot of them on a first-name basis. They had their hands full but they did the job of stemming crime by gangs at that time. There were a lot of arrests and crime actually plummeted in the cities.

During all this it was discovered that, unlike other cities, the gang members lived quietly in the suburbs from Enfield, to Colchester. They bought nice houses and drove nice cars and literally commuted to "work " in Hartford just like anyone else. They had organized very well indeed and it took the efforts of all those law-enforcment times to corral those bad guys and put them in jail. Some went away for a long time but the seconds-in-command got shorter sentences. Now, they are back and with a vengance. And there is no ATF office in Hartford any longer. I believe there is one in the New Haven/Bridgeport area but I'm not sure anymore.

I agress with SteveinCT about this bill. It is simply a way to make us....the victims of crime, defendents in a crime. And I whole-heartedly agree that 99.99% of any of us who find something stolen would most certainly report it ASAP. My one, recurring nighmare is that my car is stolen on the way home from the range and that my weapons are taken and put on the street. I literally wake up with a knot in my gut. To assume that anyone one of us would treat this in any other way is ludicrous. There are bad guys out there, however, and that fact alone says that they could care less about straw purchase laws or filing the proper paperwork. Bad guys don't do paperwork or file claims. That's why they're bad guys. We are not the bad guys, however, and we jump through the endless chain of hoops just to stay that way.

Like Steve says, this new law is a bogus attempt at making it look like they've done something. If they really wanted to do something concrete, enact the law that demanded/required a minimum 1 or 2 year sentence, not to be served concurrently with any other sentence, if a crime is commited with a firearm, period. That would give the procecutors time to investigate crimes more throughly while these bad guys are cooling their heels because of the gun charge. Nope. That won't get done, however. Don't want to deny those bad guys their rights after all.

Rome



Very true it is, excellent viewpoint.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 3:22:39 PM EDT
PocketG your rationalization is too simplistic and makes sense.

That isn't the problem. Your rationalization is what 99% of people would assume.

The problem is, let's say you sold a second hand long gun to another person. Perfectly legal under existing state law. No reporting required.

a year later that person, in turn, sells it to someone else, who has the gun stolen from him. Let's say for argument's sake, you bought the gun from a store like Hoffman's, for instance where Sp-3s are done
on long gun sales voluntarily.

Someone else in the chain of transfer has the gun stolen from them and it ends up used in a crime.

The police recover the gun.

YOU become an automatic felon, EX POST FACTO (unconstitutional) because the police recovered the gun and assumed you still owned it because the state police illegally maintain registration files of SP-3s

Now handguns are another story. You are required to report them and get the NICS clearance number anyway, but not for long guns. And long guns are traded like baseball cards among acquaintences at gun clubs every day.

It is the guilty until proven innocent (no defense) clause in the bill that makes it a totally communist smelling piece of shit and is EXACTLY what is going to be used against people like us going forward

It's not the label on the bill that is bad, it's the WAY IT IS WRITTEN that no one paid attention to
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 3:43:06 PM EDT
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/TS/H/2006HB-05818-R00JUD-CV115-TS.htm

Here is the link to the 40 yea; 30 nay and one absent and not voting

This bill passed COMMITTEE

it has NOT passed the general floor vote yet.

We can still fight it.

We need to let our reps and the governor know, WHY we are opposed to this bill

Link Posted: 3/28/2006 7:27:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2006 7:28:52 PM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]
Here is my column on the matter, let me know what you guys think:

Criminalizing victims: The strange truth behind this fantasy


We’ve all heard bizarre stories before. Leave it to the Connecticut General Assembly (and other assorted officials of the elected and unelected variety) to try to top them all. What if I told you that the people who mold and shape public policy in Connecticut were banding together in a brand-new, “tough-as-nails” attempt to curb crime?

I’m sure many, if not most of you would say, “About time we got tough on criminals!”

You couldn’t be further from the truth.

You see, as we speak (or, as I write this column), our legislators are busy in Hartford trying to put the best face they can on a new “crime-fighting” bill that would actually make it a crime to be a victim of crime. Yes, you read that correctly. There’s actually a bill moving through the legislature (and it’s picking up speed) that will criminalize the act of being a victim. Wait, before you think I’m nuts, it gets even better. Not only does this bill make victims of crime criminals themselves, it specifies that those victims who fall under the provisions of this bill are, are you ready, guilty of a felony. That’s right. Becoming a felon in Connecticut is about to get a whole lot easier.

What could we possibly be talking about, you say? Well, I’d tell you right now, but it gets even more bizarre. Are you sitting down? If this bill is passed (as written) by the house and senate and is signed by Governor Rell (who has hinted that she will do just that), a victim of this particular crime will be, according to the law, presumed guilty of committing a felony. Yes, if this becomes law, the same evidence that proves you are a victim will also prove you are guilty of a felony. That’s a neat trick, don’t you think?

By now you must be wondering what this is all about. I don’t blame you. What if I told you this was all about the crime of rape? That, in order to curb rapings, officials decided to make being a victim of rape a felony and that the very evidence a rape took place made the rape victim guilty of being an accessory to rape before she even set foot into a courtroom?

“Preposterous,” you’d say? You’d be right. The idea is so far beyond bizarre, it’s positively scary.

No, this isn’t about some lame-brained idea on curbing rape. However, that doesn’t make it any less troublesome. It’s about a lame-brained idea on curbing gun crime.

The bill number is House Bill 5818. Of course, the legislators responsible for this pending legislation gave it a rather benign and neutral title: “AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS.” While true, the title hides the fact that the real purpose of the legislation is much more sinister, and you don’t have to look very far to see this. Here is the “statement of purpose” that immediately follows the title:

“To require that when a firearm is not in the actual physical possession of the owner it be stored or kept in a manner so as to reduce the risk that it will be stolen or otherwise come into the possession of another person, require the reporting of the loss or theft of a firearm to a law enforcement agency and provide that evidence that a pistol or revolver was found not in the possession of the owner thereof is prima facie evidence that the owner had transferred such pistol or revolver without proper application and authorization.”

Now, is there anything wrong with requiring firearms to be stored securely? On the surface, no. I guess it depends on who determines exactly what is defined as “secure.” If the end result is some agency (most likely it’d come down to the Department of Public Safety and the Connecticut State Police) deciding the only lawful manner of owning firearms is by keeping them in a concrete vault, that would be problematic for most Connecticut gun-owners, wouldn’t it?

Secondly, having to inform law enforcement that a firearm was lost or stolen seems like common-sense, and it is. This legislation provides for a 72 hour window to do so if you are unfortunate enough to be in this predicament.

Thirdly, the most alarming provision of this legislation is revealed. This is the part that actually criminalizes the act of being a victim of theft. Here it is again, for your convenience: “…and provide that evidence that a pistol or revolver was found not in the possession of the owner thereof is prima facie evidence that the owner had transferred such pistol or revolver without proper application and authorization.”

Anybody see the problem here? Let me break it down for you:

A. If a pistol that you legally own is stolen from you, you obviously no longer are in possession of that pistol.

B. “Prima facie” means there is a presumption that the evidence or case in question can stand on its own merits until or unless proven otherwise. In other words, prima facie means it’s assumed to be true right from the start.

C. Transferring pistols or revolvers (handguns) “without proper application and authorization” is a felony. This is sometimes referred to as a “straw purchase,” when a legal gun buyer purchases a firearm for someone other than himself, or a person who is legally barred from possessing a firearm.

Therefore, according to many high-profile officials in our state, if you fall victim to thieves and a pistol of yours is stolen, as soon as the pistol is recovered, you should be automatically considered to be guilty of illegally transferring your pistol to the thief. You will be an instant felon in the eyes of the law, and the only proof the state will need to present in court at your trial is the fact that someone other than you had your pistol, even if it was stolen from you. Now that’s what you call a “slam-dunk” case. The very evidence that you were a crime victim is the very evidence that sends you to prison! Imagine that!

To top it all off, this legislation puts the burden on the defendant to prove his innocence, through what is called “affirmative defenses.” Affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. Under this law, the state simply says you are guilty until you prove your innocence, and how can you prove you stored a firearm securely if it was stolen? The simple answer is you cannot. If your house or apartment is ever broken into and a pistol or revolver is stolen from you, you might as well get fitted for prison attire right away; because that’s the future people like Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez want for you. After all, it was Perez who said back in January, “The issue is not who fired the gun, but where it came from.”

True criminals must love that message.

Now, the officials who are peddling this legislation say these measures are needed to stem the flow of guns falling into the hands of criminals. They say that “straw purchasing” puts too many guns into the hands of the people who use guns to commit crime. Even if this is true (it’s interesting to note that at a splashy news conference, none of the officials standing behind the podium offered any empirical evidence that this is actually a widespread problem), straw purchasing is, get this, already illegal. Remember? It’s a felony to transfer a pistol without the proper application and authorization!

This begs the question: If straw purchasing is already illegal (a felony), and it is a widespread problem (although no hard evidence has been offered to prove this), how is this legislation going to stop criminals (straw purchasers) from doing what they know is already illegal?

Or is it something much more sinister?

Wobblin' Goblin
Former State Representative, 51st District
CT General Assembly

Link Posted: 3/28/2006 10:02:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Here is my column on the matter, let me know what you guys think:

Criminalizing victims: The strange truth behind this fantasy


We’ve all heard bizarre stories before. Leave it to the Connecticut General Assembly (and other assorted officials of the elected and unelected variety) to try to top them all. What if I told you that the people who mold and shape public policy in Connecticut were banding together in a brand-new, “tough-as-nails” attempt to curb crime?

I’m sure many, if not most of you would say, “About time we got tough on criminals!”

You couldn’t be further from the truth.

You see, as we speak (or, as I write this column), our legislators are busy in Hartford trying to put the best face they can on a new “crime-fighting” bill that would actually make it a crime to be a victim of crime. Yes, you read that correctly. There’s actually a bill moving through the legislature (and it’s picking up speed) that will criminalize the act of being a victim. Wait, before you think I’m nuts, it gets even better. Not only does this bill make victims of crime criminals themselves, it specifies that those victims who fall under the provisions of this bill are, are you ready, guilty of a felony. That’s right. Becoming a felon in Connecticut is about to get a whole lot easier.

What could we possibly be talking about, you say? Well, I’d tell you right now, but it gets even more bizarre. Are you sitting down? If this bill is passed (as written) by the house and senate and is signed by Governor Rell (who has hinted that she will do just that), a victim of this particular crime will be, according to the law, presumed guilty of committing a felony. Yes, if this becomes law, the same evidence that proves you are a victim will also prove you are guilty of a felony. That’s a neat trick, don’t you think?

By now you must be wondering what this is all about. I don’t blame you. What if I told you this was all about the crime of rape? That, in order to curb rapings, officials decided to make being a victim of rape a felony and that the very evidence a rape took place made the rape victim guilty of being an accessory to rape before she even set foot into a courtroom?

“Preposterous,” you’d say? You’d be right. The idea is so far beyond bizarre, it’s positively scary.

No, this isn’t about some lame-brained idea on curbing rape. However, that doesn’t make it any less troublesome. It’s about a lame-brained idea on curbing gun crime.

The bill number is House Bill 5818. Of course, the legislators responsible for this pending legislation gave it a rather benign and neutral title: “AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS.” While true, the title hides the fact that the real purpose of the legislation is much more sinister, and you don’t have to look very far to see this. Here is the “statement of purpose” that immediately follows the title:

“To require that when a firearm is not in the actual physical possession of the owner it be stored or kept in a manner so as to reduce the risk that it will be stolen or otherwise come into the possession of another person, require the reporting of the loss or theft of a firearm to a law enforcement agency and provide that evidence that a pistol or revolver was found not in the possession of the owner thereof is prima facie evidence that the owner had transferred such pistol or revolver without proper application and authorization.”

Now, is there anything wrong with requiring firearms to be stored securely? On the surface, no. I guess it depends on who determines exactly what is defined as “secure.” If the end result is some agency (most likely it’d come down to the Department of Public Safety and the Connecticut State Police) deciding the only lawful manner of owning firearms is by keeping them in a concrete vault, that would be problematic for most Connecticut gun-owners, wouldn’t it?

Secondly, having to inform law enforcement that a firearm was lost or stolen seems like common-sense, and it is. This legislation provides for a 72 hour window to do so if you are unfortunate enough to be in this predicament.

Thirdly, the most alarming provision of this legislation is revealed. This is the part that actually criminalizes the act of being a victim of theft. Here it is again, for your convenience: “…and provide that evidence that a pistol or revolver was found not in the possession of the owner thereof is prima facie evidence that the owner had transferred such pistol or revolver without proper application and authorization.”

Anybody see the problem here? Let me break it down for you:

A. If a pistol that you legally own is stolen from you, you obviously no longer are in possession of that pistol.

B. “Prima facie” means there is a presumption that the evidence or case in question can stand on its own merits until or unless proven otherwise. In other words, prima facie means it’s assumed to be true right from the start.

C. Transferring pistols or revolvers (handguns) “without proper application and authorization” is a felony. This is sometimes referred to as a “straw purchase,” when a legal gun buyer purchases a firearm for someone other than himself, or a person who is legally barred from possessing a firearm.

Therefore, according to many high-profile officials in our state, if you fall victim to thieves and a pistol of yours is stolen, as soon as the pistol is recovered, you should be automatically considered to be guilty of illegally transferring your pistol to the thief. You will be an instant felon in the eyes of the law, and the only proof the state will need to present in court at your trial is the fact that someone other than you had your pistol, even if it was stolen from you. Now that’s what you call a “slam-dunk” case. The very evidence that you were a crime victim is the very evidence that sends you to prison! Imagine that!

To top it all off, this legislation puts the burden on the defendant to prove his innocence, through what is called “affirmative defenses.” Affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. Under this law, the state simply says you are guilty until you prove your innocence, and how can you prove you stored a firearm securely if it was stolen? The simple answer is you cannot. If your house or apartment is ever broken into and a pistol or revolver is stolen from you, you might as well get fitted for prison attire right away; because that’s the future people like Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez want for you. After all, it was Perez who said back in January, “The issue is not who fired the gun, but where it came from.”

True criminals must love that message.

Now, the officials who are peddling this legislation say these measures are needed to stem the flow of guns falling into the hands of criminals. They say that “straw purchasing” puts too many guns into the hands of the people who use guns to commit crime. Even if this is true (it’s interesting to note that at a splashy news conference, none of the officials standing behind the podium offered any empirical evidence that this is actually a widespread problem), straw purchasing is, get this, already illegal. Remember? It’s a felony to transfer a pistol without the proper application and authorization!

This begs the question: If straw purchasing is already illegal (a felony), and it is a widespread problem (although no hard evidence has been offered to prove this), how is this legislation going to stop criminals (straw purchasers) from doing what they know is already illegal?

Or is it something much more sinister?

Wobblin' Goblin
Former State Representative, 51st District
CT General Assembly




Link Posted: 3/29/2006 1:49:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By steveinct:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/TS/H/2006HB-05818-R00JUD-CV115-TS.htm

Here is the link to the 40 yea; 30 nay and one absent and not voting

This bill passed COMMITTEE

it has NOT passed the general floor vote yet.

We can still fight it.

We need to let our reps and the governor know, WHY we are opposed to this bill




Time to make another call to Mother Governor.

keep the call rolling........................
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:22:38 AM EDT
Wobblin-Goblin, submit that ASAP! Looks like we need to open even more eyes to this crazy law. Your column just may do that.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:08:18 AM EDT
Hi all. If you'd like to see the testimony for and against this bill, go here. It's bill 5818.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmy.asp?comm_code=JUD&date=03/24/2006

Most interesting is the argument that Bruce Stern, our NRA director from CT provides. It's one that I had not considered.

Bruce develops the argument that a "straw purchaser" would buy and then illegally sell these firearms to the bad guys. He's paid well. Then, after a short period of time, all this guy would do is file a phony police report of a bogus theft that had happened "yesterday" and actually provide the police with the serial numbers and descriptions. Voila! He's off the hook. Eventually, if one of the firearms shows up during the commission of a crime, the straw man can wave the police report in everyone's face proving that he's done his job by reporting the "crime" way back when. He keeps his money and gets off scott free.

This is one scenario that I had certainly not considered. While this particular bad guy would be hard pressed to repeat the process, it does not stop other bad guys from repeating it time and time again. Since they would have purchased the firearms legally from the outset and would have reported the "theft" of their firearms, they would be free and clear of any prosecution.

Simply amazing.

Bruce goes on to describe the situation where a true victim of a crime does not know that the old 1911 his grandfather had put into the closet was stolen during a recent theft. When it turns up and very possibly traced back to him house, that would be considered "prima fascia" evidence and he would be an instant felon having to prove himself innocent.

Talk about feel good legislation!

Rome
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:49:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cabinetman:
Hi all. If you'd like to see the testimony for and against this bill, go here. It's bill 5818.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmy.asp?comm_code=JUD&date=03/24/2006

Most interesting is the argument that Bruce Stern, our NRA director from CT provides. It's one that I had not considered.

Bruce develops the argument that a "straw purchaser" would buy and then illegally sell these firearms to the bad guys. He's paid well. Then, after a short period of time, all this guy would do is file a phony police report of a bogus theft that had happened "yesterday" and actually provide the police with the serial numbers and descriptions. Voila! He's off the hook. Eventually, if one of the firearms shows up during the commission of a crime, the straw man can wave the police report in everyone's face proving that he's done his job by reporting the "crime" way back when. He keeps his money and gets off scott free.

This is one scenario that I had certainly not considered. While this particular bad guy would be hard pressed to repeat the process, it does not stop other bad guys from repeating it time and time again. Since they would have purchased the firearms legally from the outset and would have reported the "theft" of their firearms, they would be free and clear of any prosecution.

Simply amazing.

Bruce goes on to describe the situation where a true victim of a crime does not know that the old 1911 his grandfather had put into the closet was stolen during a recent theft. When it turns up and very possibly traced back to him house, that would be considered "prima fascia" evidence and he would be an instant felon having to prove himself innocent.

Talk about feel good legislation!

Rome



Well put...
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:48:19 AM EDT
just called.......we need this bill dead!!!
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 1:55:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 2005army:
just called.......we need this bill dead!!!



Thanks 2005army, It must be done.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 2:11:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PocketG:

Originally Posted By 2005army:
just called.......we need this bill dead!!!



Thanks 2005army, It must be done.




first time I ever called the governor's office....sure it's not the last!
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 2:13:51 PM EDT
Keep the pressure on. I doubt many of the police depts. and civic groups supporting the face value of this bill realize its true intent to incriminate gun owners and ignore the real problem.

If the liberal groups knew what language was in there and could be related to an example they could identify with (i.e., if their kid gets caught with drugs while driving daddy's or mommie's lexus SUV, send MOMMY AND DADDY to jail as felons because of "prima facia" evidence.

They'd change their tune really FAST

If the lexus SUV gets stolen or used by a friend of their
kid, then MOMMY and DADDY go to jail for failure to "secure" their vehicle in an "appropriate manner".
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 3:33:17 PM EDT
No more fishing accident excuses in Connecticut! Mass has had penalties for not reporting missing/stolen guns for a long time. Gives the police an avenue if they see in your records you have a gun, and you claim you lost it.

Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:19:05 PM EDT
Great letter Wobblin-Goblin!!!

I called the Govenor's office last week to let them know I'm opposed to this bill. I just asked my wife, and she agreed to call the Govenor tomorrow.


Originally Posted By steveinct:
... CALL the capitol 1-800-406-1527. Letters are ignored except when submitted to public hearings.

The Judiciary Committee has more anti gunners than Public Safety.

Tell Gov. Rell you OPPOSE this bill and SUPPORT additional funding to the stolen gun and gang TASK FORCE (which many anti gunners oppose funding for, because it provides resources and RESULTS in getting criminals off the streets and democrats don't like that!)



Also, you can call you Legislators. Not sure who they are or know how to contact them? Go here: www.cga.ct.gov/maps/townlist.asp
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:47:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 4:51:01 PM EDT by steveinct]
My letter to Gov. Rell


Dear Governor Rell:

I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the
"Lost & Stolen" firearms bill proposed by the
Judiciary Committee.

While at face value, one may easily conclude this
legislation appears "reasonable", it contains language
that is both vague and dangerously contrary to the
principle of law under the Constitution.

Specifically, the lack of definition of what
constitutes "secured" firearms and the alarming notion
that a citizen would be considered automatically
"guilty" of a felony if police recovered a firearm
once owned by that citizen conjures images of life in
police states of the former Eastern European Soviet
bloc.

No exaggeration is intended there. That is plainly how
glaringly contrary this bill is to both the State and
US Constitution. It's author should be ashamed and
removed from any legislative drafting responsibilties.

With the many tens of thousands of legally owned and
legally transferred firearms in the state, some with
de facto SP-3 registration and some not as permitted
under circumstances in existing state law, this bill
is also unenforceable to any practical extent.

I firmly believe this bill represents a deliberate
attempt by its author(s) to make criminals out of law
abiding gun owners, while simultaneously failing to
support measures to enforce existing laws and funding
for proven anti crime solutions such as the stolen gun
and gang task forces which have the support of all
citizens and those citizens who comprise our community
of law abiding gun owners.



Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:57:22 PM EDT
here are the links to the public hearing testimony held on Friday, March 24th

Please note the link takes you to a page with ALL bills heard that day. You must scroll down
to the HB 5818 entries which are about 2/3 way down the page

Link to Testimony presented to Judiciary Committee 03/24/2006 on H.B. No. 5818 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmy.asp?comm_code=JUD&date=03/24/2006


H.B. No. 5818 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS. http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5818&which_year=2006

This procedure pertains to any bill heard in public hearing and any committee. Click on appropriate Committee at top of pa
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 4:59:26 PM EDT
It should come as no surprise that all the public office figureheads are in favor of it.

The testimony from the CAGV, the local chapter of the Brady Bunch wannabes plainly state that this
bill is a "first step" toward a "solution". That should come as no surprise either
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:00:11 PM EDT
Interesting info from the DPS testimony on page two of this document: www.cga.ct.gov/2006/JUDdata/Tmy/2006HB-05818-R000324-DPS%20-%20Commissioner%20Leonard%20C.%20Boyle-TMY.PDF
The document is a PDF of a scanned document, otherwise I would cut-and-paste the text here.

The document acknowledges that there is problems with the bill because prior to October 1, 1994 paperwork was not required when selling a handgun. Further "investigation" would be needed in these cases.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 1:59:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 2:04:10 AM EDT by steveinct]
I just love how Commissioner Boyle refers to "owners" as "violators" being charged as felons.

It's time to RALLY
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 8:03:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By steveinct:
I just love how Commissioner Boyle refers to "owners" as "violators" being charged as felons.

It's time to RALLY



So, what's this? He considers us LAW ABBIDING gun/owner/citizens as "violators". What a crock of crap that is...........
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:57:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 9:58:59 AM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]
Final draft was sent out last night:


We’ve all heard bizarre stories before. Leave it to the Connecticut General Assembly (and other assorted officials of the elected and unelected variety) to try to top them all. What if I told you that the people who mold and shape public policy in Connecticut were banding together to push a new anti-crime initiative?

I’m sure many, if not most of you would say, “About time we got tough on criminals!”

You couldn’t be further from the truth.

You see, as this column goes to press, our legislators are busy in Hartford trying to put the best face they can on a new “crime-fighting” bill that would actually make it a crime to be a victim of crime.

Yes, you read that correctly.

There’s actually a bill moving through the legislature (and it’s picking up speed) that will criminalize the act of being a victim. I know it sounds nuts, but when Mark Twain observed that making legislation and making sausage are two processes one might best avoid trying to watch, he wasn’t kidding.

The pending legislation not only makes victims of crime criminals themselves, it specifies that victims who fall under the provisions of this bill are, are you ready, guilty of a felony. That’s right. Becoming a felon in Connecticut is about to get a whole lot easier.

What could we possibly be talking about, you say? Well, before I delve into the specifics of this bizarre bit of legislation, there is one more especially troubling aspect of the bill that is worthy of comment. Are you sitting down? You are? Good, because you will not believe this: If this bill is passed (as written) by the house and senate and is signed by Governor Rell (who has hinted that she will do just that), a victim of this particular crime will be, according to the law, presumed guilty of committing that felony. Astoundingly, the very same evidence that proves you are a victim will also prove you are guilty of a felony. That’s a neat trick, don’t you think?

By now you must be wondering what this is all about. I don’t blame you.

What if I told you that the legal framework of this new proposal could be applied to the crime of rape? That, in order to cut down on the number of rapes, our venerated officials decided to make it a felony offense for a woman to be “negligent” in the prevention of a rape, and to specify that in order to avoid such an outcome, any rape victim would have the burden of proving that she was not dressed provocatively and that she employed adequate measures to resist her attacker? Suppose the law said that the very evidence a rape took place would result in a statutory presumption that the victim was an accessory to her own to rape before she even set foot into a courtroom?
“Preposterous,” you’d say? You’d be right. The idea is so far beyond bizarre, it’s positively scary.

No, this isn’t about some lame-brained idea on curbing rape. However, that doesn’t make it any less troublesome. It’s about a lame-brained idea on curbing gun crime.

The legislation I am referring to is House Bill 5818. Of course, the legislators responsible for this nonsense gave it a rather benign and neutral title: “AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS.” While true, the title hides the fact that the real purpose of the legislation is much more sinister, and you don’t have to look very far to see this. Here is the “statement of purpose” that immediately follows the title:

“To require that when a firearm is not in the actual physical possession of the owner it be stored or kept in a manner so as to reduce the risk that it will be stolen or otherwise come into the possession of another person, require the reporting of the loss or theft of a firearm to a law enforcement agency and provide that evidence that a pistol or revolver was found not in the possession of the owner thereof is prima facie evidence that the owner had transferred such pistol or revolver without proper application and authorization.”

Now, is there anything wrong with requiring firearms to be stored securely? On the surface, no. I guess it depends on who determines exactly what is defined as “secure.” If the end result is some agency (most likely it’d come down to the Department of Public Safety and the Connecticut State Police) deciding the only lawful manner of owning firearms is by keeping them in a concrete vault, that would be problematic for most Connecticut gun-owners, wouldn’t it?

Likewise, requiring a citizen who has had his or her gun stolen to promptly inform law enforcement seems like common-sense, and it is. This legislation provides for a 72 hour window to do so if you are unfortunate enough to be in this predicament.

Had the new law stopped there, there might not be much to quarrel with. But the most alarming aspect of this legislation is revealed only by closer examination. This is the part that actually criminalizes the very fact of being a victim of theft. Here it is again, for your convenience:

“…and provide that evidence that a pistol or revolver was found not in the possession of the owner thereof is prima facie evidence that the owner had transferred such pistol or revolver without proper application and authorization.”

Anybody see the problem here? Let me break it down for you:

A. If a pistol that you legally own is stolen from you, obviously you are no longer are in possession of that pistol.


B. “Prima facie” is a fancy Latin phrase. It means "on its face," or at the outset. This means there is a presumption that the evidence or case in question can stand on its own merits until or unless proven otherwise. In other words, prima facie means it’s assumed to be true right from the start. In the context of criminal law, what this bill is saying is that the prosecutor does not have to actually prove that you failed to store the gun properly. You could have had it locked up in the vault at your local bank, but if it’s not found there, you will be presumed to have violated the law.

C. Transferring pistols or revolvers (handguns) “without proper application and authorization” is a felony. This is sometimes referred to as a “straw purchase,” when a legal gun buyer purchases a firearm for someone other than himself, or a person who is legally barred from possessing a firearm.

Therefore, according to many high-profile officials in our state, if you fall victim to thieves and a pistol of yours is stolen, as soon as the pistol is recovered, you will be presumptively guilty of illegally transferring your pistol to the thief. You will be an instant felon in the eyes of the law; you will be arrested, you will go to trial, and the only proof the state will need to present in court is the fact that someone other than you had your pistol, even if it was stolen from you. Now that’s what you call a “slam-dunk” case.

The very evidence that you were a crime victim is the very evidence that sends you to prison! Imagine that!

Additionally, this legislation attempts to nail the crime victim to the wall by putting the burden on the defendant to prove his innocence, through what is called “affirmative defenses.” Affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. Under the legislation I’m writing about today, for example, the statute says you are presumed at first blush to have violated the law if your gun is recovered somewhere other than your possession. The affirmative defense is that may prove you were not negligent in storing your gun and that it was secure. But how do you prove it was stored securely if it was stolen?

The simple answer is you probably can't and the leaders who are pushing this legislation know it. They want your guns, and if they can’t ban them outright, they want you.

If your house or apartment is ever broken into and a pistol or revolver is stolen from you, you might as well get fitted for prison attire right away; because that’s the future people like Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez want for you. After all, it was Perez who said back in January, “The issue is not who fired the gun, but where it came from.”

True criminals must love that message.

Now, the officials who are peddling this legislation say these measures are needed to stem the flow of guns falling into the hands of criminals. They say that “straw purchasing” puts too many guns into the hands of the people who use guns to commit crime. Even if this is true (it’s interesting to note that at a splashy news conference, none of the attending officials offered any empirical evidence that this is actually a widespread problem), straw purchasing is, get this, already illegal. Remember? It’s a felony to transfer a pistol without the proper application and authorization!

This begs the question: If straw purchasing is already illegal (a felony), and it is a widespread problem (although no hard evidence has been offered to prove this), how is this legislation going to stop criminals (straw purchasers) from doing what they know is already illegal?

Could it be that our leaders are up to something much more sinister?

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 10:28:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 10:50:18 AM EDT by Timmee]
I called today, to voice my opposition to the bill. The person at the governors office said that they've been recieving a lot of calls today about the bill, and asked if I supported or opposed it. After I said I opposed it because I thought it was unconstitutional, she said she'd let the governor know.

The only thing I'm wondering is, if she didn't take my name (my last name is difficult to spell correctly), is my call actually going to count?

ETA: I just spoke to Tom Reynolds office (House rep. for my district), and left a message with the person there. Then I called Edith Prague (state Senate for my district), and left a meesage on the voicemail there.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 1:44:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 1:46:11 PM EDT by steveinct]
Yes. It will count. Rell's office is being asked to track call volume. This is normal during "hot" issues.


The # again is: 1-800-406-1527


Pass it on OPPOSE HB 5818

Call your reps again on Monday during business hrs. Make sure they know you called
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 3:32:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 3:34:50 PM EDT by PocketG]

Originally Posted By steveinct:
Yes. It will count. Rell's office is being asked to track call volume. This is normal during "hot" issues.


The # again is: 1-800-406-1527


Pass it on OPPOSE HB 5818

Call your reps again on Monday during business hrs. Make sure they know you called



Thanks Steve..
Top Top