Federal judge rules CT gun control law "Constitutional"

  • Thread starter Thread starter ezkl2230
  • Start date Start date
E

ezkl2230

Guest
Even though there is a mountain of evidence that neither so-called "assault weapons" nor "large capacity" magazines have been used in the majority of shooting sprees, the federal judge ruled,

"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control,"

And while the law is vague on several points, it is

not impermissibly vague in all of their applications and, therefore, the challenged portions of the legislation are not unconstitutionally vague."

Statpleton [attorney for the gun rights groups] said [Judge] Covello's acknowledgment that firearms magazines are "in common use" and have a lawful purpose are important facts that bolster the argument of opponents to gun restrictions. He also cited Covello's statement that the Connecticut law "levies a substantial burden" on the plaintiff's Second Amendment rights.

So it is evidently vague enough so as to give CT authorities some room for interpretation, but not so vague as to be unconstitutional, and the ruling is valid even though there is ample evidence to prove that neither of the items in question have been used often in the commission of any crime.

The ruling is being appealed.

Federal judge upholds Connecticut gun control law | Fox News
 
Glad to know that an appeal will at least go forward. Otherwise, a very dismal ruling by a federal judge, which could have far-reaching consequences.
 
Are some judges just incredibly ignorant, or do they have their agendas laid-out for them by higher judicial authority, in their bowl of alphabets cereal every morning?
 
Obama has been quietly been filling vacancies. Even if a repub somehow takes the next election, we will be facing a stacked judicial deck for decades to come.
 
Ah. I see. His goal to fundamentally change America should have been stated as fundamentally ruin America for the low-information voters to comprehend. They would have still voted for him, because of all the freebies.

It just gets deeper and deeper.
 
In fairness, it should be noted that the judge in this case was appointed by George HW Bush, not Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama has been quietly stacking the lower courts with his appointees.
 
In fairness, it should be noted that the judge in this case was appointed by George HW Bush, not Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama has been quietly stacking the lower courts with his appointees.

The problem is though, that the judge being a Bush appointee will do little to nothing to change the perception by so-called conservatives that Bush and the overwhelming majority of Republicans are no better than Dems and progressives at protecting our rights. In fact, they have been as actively involved in destroying them as the Dems have (Patriot Act, NDAA, HR 347, bailouts, TARP, QE to infinity and on and on and on). And this is hardly the only Bush appointee to stab conservatives and constitutional originalists in the back. Lest we forget.....













Traitor-1.jpg


supreme_court_obamacares_first_deat.jpg
 
The problem is though, that the judge being a Bush appointee will do little to nothing to change the perception by so-called conservatives that Bush and the overwhelming majority of Republicans are no better than Dems and progressives at protecting our rights. In fact, they have been as actively involved in destroying them as the Dems have (Patriot Act, NDAA, HR 347, bailouts, TARP, QE to infinity and on and on and on). And this is hardly the only Bush appointee to stab conservatives and constitutional originalists in the back. Lest we forget.....













Traitor-1.jpg


supreme_court_obamacares_first_deat.jpg

No argument from me. I have been saying for several years that it was the Bush/republican attacks on our civil rights in the name of "the war on terror" (the very things to which you pointed) that laid the foundation for everything we see Obama doing today. And I voted for Bush both times...
 
In fairness, it should be noted that the judge in this case was appointed by George HW Bush, not Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama has been quietly stacking the lower courts with his appointees.

In fairness, it should be pointed out that the judge is a BUFFOON!
 
In fairness, it should be noted that the judge in this case was appointed by George HW Bush, not Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama has been quietly stacking the lower courts with his appointees.

You are right that the judge was a Bush appointee. But Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by W and we see how THAT has worked out. Thanks to Chief Justice Robot (I did not misspell) we have obummercare! Judges have shown they want nice things said about them in the lib MSM so they rule the way libs want!
 
I could make a separate thread for this post since it isn't directly related to the judge's ruling on constitutionality of the CT gun tyranny, but it is related to the tyranny itself, and commentary about the judge's ruling is also linked within it, so here goes. If it seems too out of place, let me know and I'll edit this post with a link to a new thread. Anyway....

Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars has written an Open Letter to Michael Lawlor, Under Secretary, State of Connecticut, and Governor Malloy's chosen hatchet man on the forthcoming gun confiscations and prosecutions under the New Tyranny. Mike's coverage of the judge's ruling is linked within the letter, as well as a bunch of other links, all of which should be followed both to get to know Mike Vanderboegh and Michael Lawlor, the latter of which has skeletons in (and out) of his closet that may well surprise and shock even the most jaded of political observers like many of us here. Since it's an "Open Letter" I'm republishing it in its entirety. I'll double-check with Mike to make sure that's OK, but open letters are always encouraged to be republished in my experience. Soooo.........


Monday, February 3, 2014
An Open Letter to Michael Lawlor, the CT Governor's Hatchet Man on Firearms Confiscation. "How's your KGB file hangin', Mike?"
NOTE: The following letter was sent via email this morning to Michael Lawlor (Some biographical details here and here. Mr. Lawlor is Connecticut Governor Dannell Malloy's hatchet man on the current tyrannical enforcement of that state's Intolerable Act. I will send him an official hard copy via snail mail today.




“You can either surrender the weapon to us, destroy the weapon, or sell it to a federal firearms licensee. After that date (January 1) that hasn’t been declared or register is banned and if you get caught, you’re going to get arrested." -- Michael Lawlor.


[email protected]
Mike Lawlor
Under Secretary, State of Connecticut
Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division
450 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Mike,

As Governor Malloy's volunteer hatchet man on the forcible disarmament of the Connecticut citizenry, it is appropriate that I write you directly on some issues raised by your personal collectivist appetites for control of your fellow citizens' liberty, property and lives, if for no other reason than to politely explain some ramifications of that dictatorial compulsion under the Law of Unintended Consequences and the principles of 4th Generation Warfare, under which the civil war that you seem eager to solicit will likely be fought. This is only good manners, I feel, and since the subject is rather vast will certainly take more than one letter. However, I trust that as a tyrannical collectivist in good standing you recall Ho Chi Minh's dictum:


"Cherish your enemies for they teach you the best lessons."

We do have a few things in common, you and I. I am a former collectivist while you remain one, and a rather nasty one at that, if you don't mind my saying. But as an ex-communist I am familiar with all of the known collectivist lies and more than a few of the unknown, personal, secret ones as well -- the kind that you tell to yourself when you're acting out the True Believer, as you are now.

We also each prefer to be called "Mike" rather than "Michael." It is little enough, perhaps, but it tells us something about each other. My good friend Bob Wright, the New Mexico militia leader, once told a federal policeman who was contemplating a raid upon him, "You know, in the 60s the left-wing in this country said that if the young men who fought the wars (as opposed to the old ones who started them) could sit down and talk things out, there would be no wars." He paused and then added, "We are here to test that theory." It must have worked, since there was no subsequent raid.

So I offer this letter and the ones to follow in the same spirit of mutual understanding in the hope of avoiding conflict.

You may be familiar with my name already, as I have been a leading advocate of resistance to your tyranny since my call during a speech in Hartford last April to "Resist, defy, evade and smuggle" in opposition to your new diktat.

In furtherance of that call, I have since led a smuggling campaign to provide standard capacity magazines to Connecticut citizens and I have recently received a bit of newspaper ink in your state with my Toys for Totalitarians program. This has apparently provoked a state police investigation and they have recently tried to contact me. It seemed only fair, then, that as I was a subject of your investigations it might prove profitable to make you a subject of mine. As one of the guys who broke the Fast and Furious scandal on the Internet (with the help of my good friend Link Removed I am not without resources and contacts of my own. Why not apply them here? Why not, indeed. Turnabout is not only fair play but flattery. So consider yourself flattered.

You know it is quite ironic that on the morning I sit down to write this letter we discover that Adam Lanza (whose evil deeds were the supposed excuse for your Intolerable Act) was something of a twisted fellow traveler of collectivism being an apparently homosexual, environmentalist vegan who was anti-Christian enough to forbid his mother to put up a Christmas tree. "Gee," I thought when I read that, "This kid could have grown up to be a Connecticut Democrat politician." That he provided the bloody excuse for tyrant wannabes such as yourself is certainly the Devil's own joke -- send a collectivist killer to enable future collectivist power. Old Scratch must be laughing his ass off.

You know after just a cursory reading of your biography here and here, I realized that I owed you an apology. Previously I had described you as Malloy's "Eichmann." But Eichmann was a rather colorless bureaucrat, defining as Hannah Arendt spelled out, "the banality of evil." But you, sir, are no bureaucratic handmaiden of evil. No, to call you an Eichmann would require an apology to both you and Eichmann. You, sir, are a true believer -- more of a Heydrich than an Eichmann. Or, if you raise a Godwin's objection, shall we say a Felix Dzerzhinsky? Yes. Dzerzhinsky is certainly more fitting.


I note that while you were at UConn in 1977 you "participated in language studies in Russia in 1977" at Moscow and Leningrad. You then earned a Master's Degree in Soviet Area Studies from the University of London in 1981. You were, what, 20 when you first experienced the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War? It must have fascinated you early on in life. Yet after you got your Masters in Soviet Area Studies from the University of London at a time when that and other British universities were prime recruiting grounds for KGB "political warfare" assets, and you subsequently "received a Fulbright-Hays Scholarship to study economic reform in Hungary in 1982," you decided to change course and become, in quick succession, a lawyer, a prosecutor and then a Democrat Party politician.

Why the change, Mike?

Your KGB file might provide some clues along those lines, of course. I had a long chat with a former CIA Cold Warrior who is intimately familiar with the KGB infiltration and subversion tactics of the time of your stay in the Soviet Union. He says that you certainly have a KGB file and had a KGB officer assigned to your case with the object of making an asset of you. No one from the United States got into the Soviet Union back then without the close inspection of the KGB. NO ONE.

And what would the KGB be looking for, I asked? "A lot of dewy-eyed kids were going to the Soviet Union back then with this fascination for the other side. They thought the Vietnam War proved the evil nature of American society and they wanted to see what the other side was like. So they (the KGB) would look for someone with those misconceptions and then look for other vulnerabilities. And their recruitment operations were vast. VAST." What other vulnerabilities? I asked.

"For one, homosexuality or other sexual deviance," he answered. He drew my attention to these passages regarding the Prime case from The New KGB: Engine of Soviet Power by William Corson and Robert Crowley:


Prime exhibited most of the disabilities on the KGB check list and more than qualified as a target for recruitment. A loner, a young man with sexual problems and someone who, by his own admission, believed that the downtrodden of the world would fare better under communism. Such symptoms and attitudes assured that, at an appropriate moment, he would fall into the Soviet bag. The case is not a tribute to the Soviets' prescience but another instance of their readiness for an event such as Prime's self-selection, their single-minded patience, clerical effort, and corps of competent case officers who were trained and fully aware of what their jobs entailed.

In Berlin the Soviet support nets are massive. In addition to surveillance, drivers, couriers, police, and postal employees, they include "swallows" who specialize in foreigners who enjoy mild or other forms of perversion. . . The KGB's 'girls' . . . provide the organs with volumes of information about their clients. . . The girls are also alerted to spot the six "d's" -- discontent, disaffection, depression, drunkenness, desperation, and sexual dysfunction -- nany one of which might provide a future lever. -- pp. 390-361
.


It is a matter of record that after being long in the closet, you "came out" only in 2006.

Of course Prime was not a homosexual but the KGB did not lack for male "swallows" if their target had those appetites.

In my research, I also found this KGB appreciation of the opportunities to use the homosexuality of potential assets:


"Contrary to popular supposition, the KGB is not primarily interested in homosexuals because of their presumed susceptibility to blackmail. In its judgment, homosexuality often is accompanied by personality disorders that make the victim potentially unstable and vulnerable to adroit manipulation. It hunts the particular homosexual who, while more or less a functioning member of his society, is nevertheless subconsciously at war with it and himself. Compulsively driven into tortured relations that never gratify, he cannot escape awareness that he is different. Being different, he easily rationalizes that he is not morally bound by the mores, values, and allegiances that unite others in community or society. Moreover, he nurtures a dormant impulse to strike back at the society which he feels has conspired to make him a secret leper. To such a man, treason offers the weapon of retaliation." KGB — The Secret Work of the Soviet Secret Agents by John Barron, Reader's Digest Press, 1974, (p. 207)



So, what about it, Mike? How's YOUR KGB file hangin'? Would you be so kind as to sign a release so an enterprising reporter can delve into the KGB archive and find out who you truly loved back then -- literally and figuratively?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps we can find someone who can do it without your permission. After all, as someone who doesn't blink at using the violence of the state police power to work his will on otherwise innocent citizens in contravention to the Second Amendment, you can hardly expect that the Law of Unintended Consequences would not also apply here, now can you?

As I said, we'll continue this conversation on the ramifications of your personal quest for tyrannical power in future letters. Have a nice day.

Most sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126


So, I don't know about the rest of you, but I agree wholeheartedly with Mike Vanderboegh that the time for *nicely* freakin' begging for our politicians to respect and protect our rights is long gone. Without Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea, we may have never learned what little we really know about Fast 'n Furious. This guy's contacts and abilities at research are impressive to say the least. He also happens to be fighting cancer, and was in the midst of a second round of chemo when he went to CT to make the speech that he linked to in the above letter. This is what an unyielding, unapologetic Patriot looks like. Thanks Mike, get well soon, and may God bless you and protect you.

Blues
 
Just to clear up any doubt, I asked Mike in the Comments Section of the above post on Sipsey Street Irregulars if he minded that I posted it in its entirety. This is his answer:

Unknown asks: "Do you have any objections to it being reprinted in its entirety on other forums/blogs?"

Certainly not! I would especially like to see this get distribution in CT on discussion boards frequented by CCDL members, etc. But by all means, spread it to the four winds as long as you include attribution and the link.

Mike
III
February 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM

I really only frequent this gun forum anymore, so if anyone thinks it would be wanted/needed at any other forums/blogs you participate at, fire away and use the above permission found at this link if any Admins or Mods question you about it. Make sure to also use the link in the title of the piece to link back to Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.

Blues
 
Even though there is a mountain of evidence that neither so-called "assault weapons" nor "large capacity" magazines have been used in the majority of shooting sprees, the federal judge ruled,

What does "in the majority of shooting sprees" have to do with it?

There is a mountain of evidence that no individual terrorists has evr set off a nuclear bomb on an airplane, but I don't think that is sufficient to conclude that a law against carrying nuclear bombs on airplanes would be unconnected public safety.
 
This is in Ct and, I assume, the federal courts that govern that end of country. There is a reason for the midwest--it keeps the inmates living in the asylum they created on the east coast away from the same kind of inmates living in the asylum they created from the west coast. As if I really care. If I lived in CT and you came into my home unannounced you would have received the same "welcome" as anywhere else in this country. My safety and that of my family is more important to me than any stupid judge, any stupid congress, any stupid judge. I am not a sheep like my fellow Jews in Germany 1930 and someone will go to hell before I go to heaven. Oh heavens, those poor children in Sandy Hook---amazing how sick and twisted politicos can feed off their carcasses with their stupid and ignorant laws that patronize the masses and have no bearing on the next Sandy Hook.
 
If I lived in CT and you came into my home unannounced you would have received the same "welcome" as anywhere else in this country. My safety and that of my family is more important to me than any stupid judge, any stupid congress, any stupid judge. I am not a sheep like my fellow Jews in Germany 1930 and someone will go to hell before I go to heaven.

Hopefully you'll never have to discharge your firearm at another person except under circumstances so clearly self-defense that it could not be question. Because just the slightest of question and those words would hang you if ever discovered.
 
The Constitution was written so that it could be read and understood by common men. It was only when political hacks began to write laws so complicated that even they couldn't understand them that the courts usurped the power of judicial review. The second amendment is not at all ambiguous. Its our corrupt power hungry politicians who have made it so. And in CT a federal judge, appointed by an idiot, does not automatically become an expert at interpreting my rights.
 
The Constitution was written so that it could be read and understood by common men.

Actually, the Constitution was written by extremely intelligent men who found compromise though ambiguity. They devised an ingenious system of government to deal with the ambiguity on three fronts - political, administrative, and judicial.

They provided no detail on purpose - not because of simplicity but because of the diversity of opinion. They even provided a means to amend the Constitution and set about doing just that shortly after it was adopted.

"The right to keep and bear arms" is a meaningless phrase until it is given a concrete definition. The same is true of the words freedom and liberty. They mean nothing in the abstract.

When people assert that the words are plain what they really mean is "the words mean what i want them to mean". Our founders knew better. That's why they devised the system they did rather than let every man be a law unto himself.
 
actually, the constitution was written by extremely intelligent men who found compromise though ambiguity. They devised an ingenious system of government to deal with the ambiguity on three fronts - political, administrative, and judicial.

They provided no detail on purpose - not because of simplicity but because of the diversity of opinion. They even provided a means to amend the constitution and set about doing just that shortly after it was adopted.

"the right to keep and bear arms" is a meaningless phrase until it is given a concrete definition. The same is true of the words freedom and liberty. They mean nothing in the abstract.

When people assert that the words are plain what they really mean is "the words mean what i want them to mean". Our founders knew better. That's why they devised the system they did rather than let every man be a law unto himself.

b u l l s h i t.
 
b u l l s h i t.

Well then, tell me the universal meaning of "the right to keep and bear arms". Does it mean any gun, by any person, in any place, at any time? Does it mean any one and everyone can possess a firearm while in a jail or prison? Does it include nuclear arms? Biological arms? Or is it limited to things that use gun powder?

And then show me in the Constitution where it says "every man is a law unto himself and shall decide for himself what this document means and how it is applied."
 
Well then, tell me the universal meaning of "the right to keep and bear arms". Does it mean any gun, by any person, in any place, at any time? Does it mean any one and everyone can possess a firearm while in a jail or prison? Does it include nuclear arms? Biological arms? Or is it limited to things that use gun powder?

And then show me in the Constitution where it says "every man is a law unto himself and shall decide for himself what this document means and how it is applied."

The "BS" was concerning your assertion that the Framers were purposely ambiguous, which, if true, would mean that they intended any and all usurpations of the Constitution to be....well....constitutional. The very assertion exposes its own pretzel logic. It's complete and total BS, except maybe to people who have built a career around fudging the meanings of words like "shall not" and "make no law" and "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" etc. I can agree that there is some ambiguity in some of those words/phrases, but none of them were meant to be used to the detriment of individual freedom, and what you said has the government benefiting from any and all ambiguity it can squeeze out of the most unambiguous words and phrases to the detriment of individual freedom. And you claim that was the intention of the Framers to boot. That is BS.

I refuse to play your word games. I'm talking about principles that the Framers had in their minds when they wrote/ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You're engaging in high school debate team obfuscations, and that too is BS.

Blues
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top