Posted: 4/14/2013 7:07:14 AM EDT
|
Anybody catching this? WFSB airing it now.
Lawyer (Peter Sachs) saying the Ecert bil is null and void based on incomplete procedure. . . Says the governor may as well have signed a blank piece of paper, and that the bill will need to be started over from scratch. ETA: I'm duping myself. 
|
|
tis true, the law is null and void because they broke the law, and the statute specifically states no bill shall be passed unless...
the question though is how lawmakers will handle it, and how law enforcement will handle it. though it might require someone being charged under the new law and having a court rule in favor of the law being null and void in order for it to be officially null and void. we shall see |
|
Could it be possible that Malloy knew what he was doing.....maybe he was just trying to keep the peace. If he signs something all of the antis would say hooray! All the pro's would be pissed off, but come to find out he was actually signing something that didnt matter. SO once all of this blows over the antis THINK they won, but in reality, everything stayed the same, and we'll all actually be fine.
Its not like the antis even comprehend what a gun is. Its not like they will be visiting the ranges and saying "Hey that has 2 evil features!!" If anything they will be saying "Hey I just saw him shoot 30 rounds out of the magazine...then he added 30 more to it?! I thought once you shot 30 rounds you threw them away!"
Hey, and if I'm wrong dont tell me, I want to BELIEVE 
|
|
Test case for what?
Fuck this shit, the law was garbage in the first place, and now they don't even have premise to claim Ecert. They know it because they didn't even try to follow procedure for Ecert. The law is garbage, everyone should act accordingly. They don't follow law, I don't follow law. Follow the leader. Do not comply? There's nothing even to comply with at this point. |
|
Quoted:
tis true, the law is null and void because they broke the law, and the statute specifically states no bill shall be passed unless... the question though is how lawmakers will handle it, and how law enforcement will handle it. though it might require someone being charged under the new law and having a court rule in favor of the law being null and void in order for it to be officially null and void. we shall see There's a question of if a court would even do that. Typically, courts do not examine legislative procedure, considering it to be a sort of political question, rather deferring to whether the legislature declared the bill passed. Of course, legislative procedure is usually guided by rules, not law, so maybe that could help... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
tis true, the law is null and void because they broke the law, and the statute specifically states no bill shall be passed unless... the question though is how lawmakers will handle it, and how law enforcement will handle it. though it might require someone being charged under the new law and having a court rule in favor of the law being null and void in order for it to be officially null and void. we shall see There's a question of if a court would even do that. Typically, courts do not examine legislative procedure, considering it to be a sort of political question, rather deferring to whether the legislature declared the bill passed. Of course, legislative procedure is usually guided by rules, not law, so maybe that could help... the court technically wouldn't have to. if a person gets arrested and charged with one of the new laws, they could just admit in court that they did whatever they did but plead not guilty to the charge[s], their lawyer would then state exactly what was stated in the show today regarding statute 2-26 and how it deems the new laws null and void and that you can not charge nor prosecute a person for a law that does not exist (or is null and void), and the court would have no choice but to admit that it's true about the new laws being null and void and dismiss the entire case based on that premise. |
|
Quoted:
I missed the show did he mention any case law that can support his arguement? no, because he doesn't need to. he read statute 2-26 word for word: no bill shall be passed or become a law unless the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives have certified, in writing, the facts which in their opinion necessitate an immediate vote on such bill. they did not do this; the new law is null and void. as he said on the show, the guvna basically just signed a blank piece of paper. they did file SOMETHING, but the show did not discuss or state what exactly was on that paper. but the attorney did state there were zero facts on that paper. so the question now is what exactly was on that paper |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I missed the show did he mention any case law that can support his arguement? no, because he doesn't need to. he read statute 2-26 word for word: no bill shall be passed or become a law unless the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives have certified, in writing, the facts which in their opinion necessitate an immediate vote on such bill. they did not do this; the new law is null and void. as he said on the show, the guvna basically just signed a blank piece of paper. they did file SOMETHING, but the show did not discuss or state what exactly was on that paper. but the attorney did state there were zero facts on that paper. so the question now is what exactly was on that paper Maybe this is why Cafero was pushing back so hard when constituents were saying it needed to be stopped, to let then go through with it knowing procedure had not been followed. I won't hold my breath, though. |
|
Quoted:
Anybody catching this? WFSB airing it now. Lawyer (Peter Sachs) saying the Ecert bil is null and void based on incomplete procedure. . . Says the governor may as well have signed a blank piece of paper, and that the bill will need to be started over from scratch. ETA: I'm duping myself. You must have missed my post yesterday about the airing of the show. Doesn't matter though, until the law is overturned. You want to be the example and test subject? We can speculate all day. Which is pretty much what's going on anyways. 
Wonder if CCDL is pursuing this route as part of their (our) fight. |
| I am not holding my breath simply because our pols have already shown that they are willing to ignore the constitution, so a statute is probably nothing to them. However, there is still hope-- CCDL is probably going to grab onto this in their lawsuit, and at the very least we may be able to extend the window of opportunity to procure arms before the ban goes into effect. Best case scenarios, they have to go through committees and public hearings, and the public hearings will be where we have a chance to show our strength. No public hearings for such an important issue is an outright crime against our rights. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
tis true, the law is null and void because they broke the law, and the statute specifically states no bill shall be passed unless... the question though is how lawmakers will handle it, and how law enforcement will handle it. though it might require someone being charged under the new law and having a court rule in favor of the law being null and void in order for it to be officially null and void. we shall see There's a question of if a court would even do that. Typically, courts do not examine legislative procedure, considering it to be a sort of political question, rather deferring to whether the legislature declared the bill passed. Of course, legislative procedure is usually guided by rules, not law, so maybe that could help... the court technically wouldn't have to. if a person gets arrested and charged with one of the new laws, they could just admit in court that they did whatever they did but plead not guilty to the charge[s], their lawyer would then state exactly what was stated in the show today regarding statute 2-26 and how it deems the new laws null and void and that you can not charge nor prosecute a person for a law that does not exist (or is null and void), and the court would have no choice but to admit that it's true about the new laws being null and void and dismiss the entire case based on that premise. To do what you are suggesting, they would need to examine the legislative procedure, because that is the premise of why the is non-enforceable....the heart of the defendant's claim would be proving that the legislature did not actually pass the bill it claimed to have passed and thusly sent to the governor to be signed into law....I guess that it is hypothetically possible that they could do it, but, it would fly in the face of what they typically do. (speaking in terms of historical practice, not legal advice) |
|
Thanks! They done goofed, or did it on purpose. |