CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT RULES CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL

[mikelets456]

Chief Justice Ellen Peters wrote the following summary of the court’s viewpoint:

“As long as our citizens have available to them some types of weapons that are adequate reasonably to vindicate the right to bear arms in self-defense, the state may proscribe the possession of other weapons.”

The court has taken upon itself the dictatorial authority to determine when your constitutional rights have been sufficiently and suitably satisfied.

This is a stunningly arrogant display of contempt for the inalienable right of Connecticut residents to determine and GUN CONTROL 3provide for their own well-being.
http://www.coachisright.com/connecti...onstitutional/

[ideaman]

Since the mid 19th century, Americans have modeled the look of their hunting rifles from the military and their self-defense weapons from the police.
If the police now requires an assault.....(my bad) 'patrol rifle' to combat criminals, then it would be natural for citizens to copy the police, b/c they are the experts.

[internet troll]

Unfortunately no surprise, it is Connecticut. luckily it's not binding to any other states. But it does show how much power the courts have and why elections do have consequences. So how many people were too busy to vote in the last pa election with all the court seats up for grabs?

It's why we can never rest and stop writing/ contacting reps. Not everbody can do everything in the fight for our 2nd Amendment rights, but everybody can do something. And to those who are deeply involved, you have my thanks.

[Kramer]

Once again Connecticut is at odds with its title as "Constitution state".

[Bang]

I would think that dictating what guns are OK and what are not is infringement. But we lost that argument in 1934 and in 1986. The precedent has been set and is archival.

[ChamberedRound]

I'm still trying to understand how the ruling even applies to the issue of constitutionality at hand. It doesn't matter whether or not the citizens, "have available to them some types of weapons that are adequate reasonably to vindicate the right to bear arms in self-defense". What matter is that the act of confiscation is gross violation of the 4th Amendment, plain and simple.

I know that rulings in recent years in the name of fighting terrorism (most often by a conservative majority, mind you) have attempted to explain away the value and significance of the 4th Amendment. However, I still don't see how the CT courts can reconcile, against the 4th Amendment, the act of government agents entering someone's home and essentially robbing them of their possessions.

[streaker69]

I'm still trying to understand how the ruling even applies to the issue of constitutionality at hand. It doesn't matter whether or not the citizens, "have available to them some types of weapons that are adequate reasonably to vindicate the right to bear arms in self-defense". What matter is that the act of confiscation is gross violation of the 4th Amendment, plain and simple.

I know that rulings in recent years in the name of fighting terrorism (most often by a conservative majority, mind you) have attempted to explain away the value and significance of the 4th Amendment. However, I still don't see how the CT courts can reconcile, against the 4th Amendment, the act of government agents entering someone's home and essentially robbing them of their possessions.

Ya see, the 4th doesn't apply to the General Welfare clause. It's ok because taking someone's property is all for the general good of the nation. Just remember, this is the same state that decided to use eminent domain to seize private property and give it another private entity, all for the good of the overall tax base.

[Ricochet]

Can this ruling be taken to SCOTUS?

[PocketProtector]

When in the course......

[ChamberedRound]

Ya see, the 4th doesn't apply to the General Welfare clause. It's ok because taking someone's property is all for the general good of the nation. Just remember, this is the same state that decided to use eminent domain to seize private property and give it another private entity, all for the good of the overall tax base.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but: bullshit. I understand that's the current thinking, but something needs to be done about this "collective good" crap.

Can this ruling be taken to SCOTUS?

Given their record of laziness as of late in dealing with the tough issues, I doubt they'd agree to hear it.