|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CT: Malloy Signs Bills Including Gun Removal After Restraining Order Requirement
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has signed legislation that would prohibit gun possession by people subject to a temporary restraining order. The bill, one of several signed in recent days, was celebrated by domestic violence groups who said it would help protect victims during a critical time – the days between when an order is filed and the parties appear in court. But gun right supporters said it was an overreach by the government and that guns would be taken away with no probable cause. |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(6/1/2016)
|
| In CT its guilty until proved innocent. A restraining order is very easy to get. Many times domestic violence is just a trumped up charge |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
