Connecticut is at it again!

Another question: I'm in Rhode Island, I have a CT nonresident permit. If I travel to Milford, thus passing through New London, do I thus have to stop the car on the Groton side of the bridge, lock my gun in the trunk and then take it out once I've hit Niantic?
 
SwampYankee said:
Another question: I'm in Rhode Island, I have a CT nonresident permit. If I travel to Milford, thus passing through New London, do I thus have to stop the car on the Groton side of the bridge, lock my gun in the trunk and then take it out once I've hit Niantic?
Click to expand...
According to the Sergeant at the CT State Police firearms unit -- yes. And you can't even claim protection under the FOPA, because that describes "transporting" unloaded firearms that are not accessible to the driver.

Dumb, isn't it? I have no idea if the preemption law has a chance of passing. Maybe forum member Daugherty can comment on that. I hope so, because the existing situation is unworkable. In addition to New Britain and New London, I discovered recently that the Connecticut town I grew up in also has a town ordinance that prohibits carry on any town-owned property. That would include not only the town hall, but also the athletic facilities, the extensive town-owned open space trail system, even the transfer station (which was always a Saturday ritual, to catch up on local gossip from the attendants). I shudder to think how many times in the past I might have violated that ordinance. The history is a bit unclear because it has been amended two or three times and there isn't a clear path to what the original version said, but the ordinance number dates to 1947!

I'm sure there are other towns in Connecticut that have similar little legalistic land mines in their ordinances. I hope my brother's town doesn't -- I usually carry when I visit him, but I don't advertise because my sister-in-law would have a stroke. I can't trust my brother to check for me, because he's not good at reading and understanding laws.
 
Last edited:
Aguila, I have looked into this in the past and the law is not enforceable and references state law that requires a permit. I know of several people that live in New Britain and carry every day, on a state permit. My gunsmiths used to operate out of New Britain before they moved and everybody coming in there carried guns on them. The law may still be on the books, it is not enforceable and is never enforced.
 
Luckily, I have an out-of-state location where I can store anything they ban as some knee-jerk response to a nonexistent problem. The fact that said law won't do a thing to stop what they perceive is some type of problem doesn't seem to have stopped them in the past.

I shouldn't have to do that but I realize this state is out-of-touch with concepts of basic freedom. And in 42 months, my state pension and I are leaving for a place with a better clime and better laws. And lower taxes...

Also within a month of moving, all of my weapons that have certain items which are missing as prescribed by the CT law will be configured back to their original design.

I am glad to see the proposed registration law is seemingly halted because had that passed, I would have moved weapons out-of-state and it would have had a negative impact on my shooting hobby for the next 3 1/2 years.

I am sick of this state. :mad:
 
I did some research this morning, and I was wrong. The law still exists. I spoke to my buddy who is a Lt. in New Britain PD and he said the law is there, just never enforced. He searched in the in-house report system back to 1994, and there was no arrest for this. He has been there since 1989 and can't remember anybody ever being arrested for it. So, take that for what it's worth, it's still on the books and illegal, just never enforced.

I have no idea about New London, that's the other end of the world from me.

I don't see the mag ban going anywhere, the state is way too busy with the budget to even discuss anything else. This will probably go nowhere, I hope so at least, the law does nothing. I also can't see how a law will pass taking your property but not compensating you for it. Even when the assault weapons ban came in (another waste of time), it didn't make anyone surrender the weapons, you just couldn't sell them.
 
Whatever bozo posturing "lawmaker" drafted this ridiculous proposal obviously doesn't care about it being constitutional.

The very last part of the 5th amendment reads " nor be deprived of life, liberty ,or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

To be expected to turn something in to the state without being compensated, at the penalty of criminal violation, seems to be against our constitutional rights.
 
They will no doubt argue that by giving you the option of removing the offending magazines from the state, they are not forcing you to give them up without compensation.

But, vis a vis the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, my view as a common serf who never attended law school is that, if I'm in Connecticut and my magazines have to live in [some other state], I have been "deprived" of my property. If I haven't been deprived of my property, why isn't my property here where I can pick it up and use it?

But ... I'm not a lawyer.
 
AH.74 said:
...The very last part of the 5th amendment reads " nor be deprived of life, liberty ,or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

To be expected to turn something in to the state without being compensated, at the penalty of criminal violation, seems to be against our constitutional rights...
Click to expand...
Aguila Blanca said:
...But, vis a vis the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, my view as a common serf who never attended law school is that, if I'm in Connecticut and my magazines have to live in [some other state], I have been "deprived" of my property. If I haven't been deprived of my property, why isn't my property here where I can pick it up and use it?

But ... I'm not a lawyer....
Click to expand...
Confiscation of contraband, i. e., something you can not legally possess, is not a 5th Amendment taking for a public use; and therefore no compensation is required. If that weren't the case, every drug dealer who got arrested would be entitled to reimbursement for any confiscated stash.

In general, due process would ordinarily be satisfied by the fact that a statute was enacted. However, I do see a possible problem with making something contraband that was initially legally owned.
 
What a shame, especially in a gun producing state. Wasn't CT once know as "the nation's arsenal"?

Didn't a few state leaders years ago invite firearms manufacturers to move from CT and MA to their states? I think I remember that. Would serve a state right to lose a corporate taxpayer & job provider over insane regulations. Do you think Samuel Adams & Paul Revere are rolling over in their graves at the behavior of their region?

All these schemes stem from public officials lacking the courage to fight the criminal, then attacking the citizen hard to compensate. Easy to attack the good guy & look strong. Also, the politician fears the citizen will one day realize how the politico has bled him dry. He doesn't want the citizen armed when that light bulb comes on.
 
Confiscation of contraband, i. e., something you can not legally possess, is not a 5th Amendment taking for a public use; and therefore no compensation is required. If that weren't the case, every drug dealer who got arrested would be entitled to reimbursement for any confiscated stash.

In general, due process would ordinarily be satisfied by the fact that a statute was enacted. However, I do see a possible problem with making something contraband that was initially legally owned.
Click to expand...

Confiscation of cash during a crime, or cash obtained by criminal action, is not the same thing as just mere confiscation of legally owned property.

This is not confiscation- it is being required to turn your property in to the state or face criminal charges. I see that as being applicable. I also don't see any way this actually moves forward without modification.
 
AH.74 said:
...Confiscation of cash during a crime, or cash obtained by criminal action, is not the same thing as just mere confiscation of legally owned property....
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about cash. I was talking about drugs held by drug dealer, also know as "stash."

And if this law were to be enacted, possession of high capacity magazines would be prohibited. Therefore they would no longer be legally owned property.

AH.74 said:
...This is not confiscation- it is being required to turn your property in to the state or face criminal charges....
Click to expand...
That is substantially the same, and the difference is of no legal significance. The point is that this is not a 5th Amendment taking of property for public use, and therefore, you would not be entitled to compensation.

AH.74 said:
...I also don't see any way this actually moves forward without modification....
Click to expand...
I hope so for the sake of the gun owners of Connecticut. It's an awful law.
 
I wasn't talking about cash. I was talking about drugs held by drug dealer, also know as "stash."
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misread that word. But my sentiment remains the same, cash or stash it's really the same issue.

That is substantially the same, and the difference is of no legal significance. The point is that this is not a 5th Amendment taking of property for public use, and therefore, you would not be entitled to compensation.
Click to expand...

I still disagree. Confiscated means taken, and whatever the use is it is by the state. Whether that means they are destroyed, it is still a use by the state. I still believe the state cannot just make things illegal, take them and not owe you anything.
 
For once I have to disagree with fiddletown. If I own something (let's call 'em widgets) legally, and the government enacts a law that says as of July 1 your widgets will be illegal, turn them in within 90 days after July 1 or you're a felon -- and the government does not provide for paying me the significant cash value of my widgets -- that represents an uncompensated "taking" for a purported public purpose.

Without the proviso for removing the widgets from the state, such a law could not possibly pass constitutional scrutiny. With that proviso, the state can argue that they aren't really "confiscating" anything since they allowed the option of retaining ownership (but not possession) by removal from the state. That argument might, in fact, pass legal scrutiny, but morally and intellectually it's completely bankrupt.
 
AH.74 said:
...I still disagree. Confiscated means taken, and whatever the use is it is by the state. Whether that means they are destroyed, it is still a use by the state. I still believe the state cannot just make things illegal, take them and not owe you anything....
Click to expand...
Aguila Blanca said:
For once I have to disagree with fiddletown. If I own something (let's call 'em widgets) legally, and the government enacts a law that says as of July 1 your widgets will be illegal, turn them in within 90 days after July 1 or you're a felon -- and the government does not provide for paying me the significant cash value of my widgets -- that represents an uncompensated "taking" for a purported public purpose....
Click to expand...
[1] Sorry, but the legal reality is that confiscation of contraband is not a taking under the 5th Amendment for which compensation is required. See this article:
Confiscation is the taking of private property for public use without compensation. It may occur legally when the government seizes property used in illegal practices, such as a boat used to smuggle illegal drugs. Confiscation may also be referred to as forfeiture. Congress has enacted over 200 civil forfeiture statutes authorizing forfeiture for items ranging from contaminated food to the pelts of endangered species. ...
Click to expand...

[2] Of course these various forfeiture laws have been the subject of considerable criticism. Courts have, in some cases, limited their application on various constitutional grounds. But many have also been sustained.

[3] The real, and significant, question is whether and to what extent a state law can turn something which was legally owned into contraband and thus subject to confiscation. If this law is enacted, I'm afraid you'll have a chance to find out the answer in court.

Aguila Blanca said:
...That argument might, in fact, pass legal scrutiny, but morally and intellectually it's completely bankrupt....
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, if the argument passes legal scrutiny, you will lose -- even if you consider the argument morally and intellectually bankrupt. There are no style points in court.
 
fiddletown said:
Nonetheless, if the argument passes legal scrutiny, you will lose -- even if you consider the argument morally and intellectually bankrupt. There are no style points in court.
Click to expand...
I understand that completely. I hope the other participants in this discussion do, as well.

And that's one of the reasons we need to be so careful about who we allow to represent us, and why we need to remain ever vigilant about what our legislators are legislating.
 
Good it's dropped, now be sure to vote out of office, any office, every person who even looks like they would support such a law. It's not enough to challenge the sponsor of such things, their support structure needs to be shown the political door. Get them off the school boards, local councils, commissions, everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top