Posted: 5/16/2007 4:28:43 PM EDT
|
www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_5901779 Lost guns could mean lawsuits Article Last Updated: 05/15/2007 03:57:23 PM EDT HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Hartford officials have given city lawyers the authority to sue state residents who fail to report their guns have been lost or stolen. The city council Monday approved an ordinance that gives the city the power to sue any Connecticut resident who fails to report a missing gun which is then used in a crime in Hartford. The ordinance requires gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to the police within 72 hours, or face civil penalties. Mayor Eddie Perez first announced the proposal during his state of the city address in March when he spoke about gun violence on city streets. Perez and members of the council decided they could not wait for legislation pending at the General Assembly to help control the problem. "It is a problem we wanted to address, and this is one step in the right direction," Perez said Monday. "We hope it will be strengthened at the state level, so we can continue to deal with illegal guns in our city." The ordinance gives the city the power to sue any Connecticut resident whose stolen or lost gun is not reported and is then used in a crime in Hartford. Hartford recorded 164 shooting incidents in 2006. Police say many of the shooting incidents involve illegal guns, including confiscated firearms whose owners later claim were stolen. City officials also hope the new local law will help the city's lawyers pursue "straw buyers," who buy weapons legally and then turn them over to people who cannot legally own a gun. The city's ordinance will also empower the city's lawyers to attempt to recover some of the costs incurred by the police in connection with many shooting cases, city officials said. — — — Information from: The Hartford Courant, http:///www.courant.com Unbelievable.  This guy has no control over his city, so instead of blaming the felons and fuckheads that actually commit crimes it is now the law abiding citizens fault. this piece of shit exbanger of a mayor needs to go. steveinct, any more developements on the lost gun = criminal, laws that are trying to be implemented? |
|
How many outstanding warrants are there in Hartford? How many ex-cons are there in Hartford that are in violation of their parole? How many firearms violations are plea bargained away each year by Hartford prosecuters? And why is this type of grandstanding permitted by the citizens of Hartford? Why are the people who elected Mayor Perez not holding him responsible for doing something that will actually reduce crime, assaults and murder in the town? ETA - You can add comments at the bottom of the news article. 
|
Because they seem to run right along with his Kool Aid. After one of the shootings last Summer, one of North End Dwellers was BEGGING the city to throw out the Fourth, and have HPD indiscriminately search pretty much everything that moves for guns- gotta round 'em up. That's why they begged for Nanny Perez to decide how to cloth their kids (a decision that in the real world should be up to the parents), were thankful that he pulled a Bloomberg to usurp the position that allowed him to take that position and pretty much kiss his feet. The problem is, these people can't think for themselves- they rely on a Nanny because they basically have, well, forever. The media doesn't help either. Last week when Perez's nephew and his Hommies pummeled that driver, and got his due- to perp was played more victim than anything else. I'm not necesarily condoning what the officer did (read between the lines), but there's a reason that boy was in the lock up, getting himself beat... |
|
I had the number of outstanding warrants in Hartford. If you check archives here back to January of 2006 - I and two other people were the ONLY pro gunners attending a panel forum amidst 100 or so antigunners at Hartford's Lyceum center where this question was raised. The answer was in the THOUSANDS for CT and something like 75% of those warrants for Hartford..........ALONE Ask the libtards what it is they have against enforcing existing laws; funding law enforcement task forces and sentening real felons to lengthy prison terms? The truth is the libtards are against it for three reasons 1. They are concerned with CONTROL of the public and exerting power and judgment over how we choose to live our lives; seeking to create, maintain and expand a dependent class to keep them in power (this is the same reason they want amnesty for illegal aliens) 2. Much of their constituent base in the cities is comprised of criminals and their immediate family members who fall into category # 1 above. 3. The libtard legal system that feeds off of OUR tax dollars needs to ensure the courts are revolving doors to keep the system flowing, their lawyers employed and the people subjugated under its reign. To this extent we see the legal system and the legislature comprised mainly of the same, parasitic beings. |
|
2nd Amendment [T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Federalist No. 46 James Madison And for those faggots Perez, Destefano, Blumenthol and Looney Limitations on the State Governments I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions of equal if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, &c." were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controuled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know in some of the state constitutions the power of the government is controuled by such a declaration, but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the state governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the general government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against. James Madsion Proposing Bill of Rights to House, June 8, 1789 |