“The whole concept of what due process actually is has been turned on its head. Due process used to mean that whatever governmental arm had any kind of intentions of imposing will over a citizen, first had a reasonable threshold,” Wilson said. “By Connecticut’s standards, it now means your due process comes after the fact. That is not due process. The position the State of Connecticut is taking should concern everyone across the country.” – Connecticut Citizens Defense League president Scott Wilson Sr. in Connecticut Law Will Allow Guns to Be Confiscated After Temporary Restraining Order [via freebeacon.com]
This is why we need a process where legislators are personally held accountable for passing unconstitutional laws. There is no way in hell this survives a due process challenge.
1. Capital crimes for infringement.
2. Charges of treason. For failure to uphold their oath to the Constitution.
3. Borrow guillotine from France…
I much as I’d like to agree, the Constitution is incredibly clear on the definition of treason. Failure to uphold an oath of office ain’t it.
Perjury, on the other hand….
Treason? Maybe not, depends on the legislation. Sedition, however…
It’s definitely not sedition. What Groutboy and pwrserge suggest is more akin to sedition (but completely protected by the first amendment).
And in this country treason is specifically defined as making war against the states or assisting those who do.
Any and all sponsors, co-sponsors, and “yay” voters of the law in question are to be held personally liable for any and all of the victim’s financial consequences as a result of the law… And even their estate is held liable after their passing.
That’s a start, I reckon. But I’m no lawyer, and I don’t play one on the Internet, either. But money is a phenomenal motivator, as it turns out.
Jarmac and her maggot organization should be sued. Got to be something. Bankrupt them. Break their taxexempt status.
The clear meaning of the constitution has come to be a poor predictor of a court’s ruling in any given matter. In case after case, rather than reigning in out-of-control lawmaking, the general drift of the courts has become: If it feels good let’s do it.
The bill of rights is like a 3 legged stool you need all the legs to have some thing useful. If you eliminate one or two all will inevitably be compromised.
We chronically worry openly about Fascists taking our Rights by force, while the Socialists are steadily legislating our Rights away with impunity.
Considering how many citizens refused to register their “assault weapons” this looks like a backdoor way for the government to steal that property. And provide some lazy prosecutor an easy case to prove to his anti-gun position to lots of anti-gun Democrats.
“Due process used to mean that whatever governmental arm had any kind of intentions of imposing will over a citizen, first had a reasonable threshold …” — Scott Wilson
Mr. Wilson,
Government now operates on the principle that government has satisfied due process if elected politicians pass a law and law enforcement act on that law. In other words government considers elected politicians passing a law as due process.
Queue Mark N. to tell us GVROs satisfy due process.
Queue Mark N. to tell us GVRO satisfy due process.
I have 2 things to say.
1. You tell me how to make a TRO/TPO stop bullets & you’ll get some sympathy.
2 A responsible gun owner would never put themselves in a situation where they need to have someone file that type of order against themselves. 2A rights including Heller are predicated on self defense. When you begin actively threatening anyone with a firearm, you cease to be in the realm of self defense and enter into the real of criminal activity. If you cant control yourself, your impulses, or your anger you have no business owning a lethal weapon
Smart one, a TRO does not require any evidence of wrongdoing. I could go into court today, swear out a false allegation, and have a TRO filed against you by the end of business. That’s the point. Restraining orders are primafacia unconstitutional for that exact reason.
What’s worse, even if the allegation leading to the TRO is found to be entirely fabricated, the person who filed it will almost never be charged.
And it wouldn’t work anyway…
because…….
da da da daaaa!
Bad guys subject to the GVRO will LIE!
“Sorry officer, that gun was (stolen 5 years ago, sold, lost in a tragic boating accident) and i no longer have it. So the bad guy who you wanted to disarm…isn’t.
lol! Just give me your name. I’ll go file one now. If you live in CT, they can take your guns too, and check and make sure they are not “assault weapons” given the recent legislation. If they are, you can get arrested – don’t pretend to be a law abiding citizen!
The 2A is not predicated on self-defense, self-defense is a bonus corollary.
As I like to say, the 2nd amendment is not about shooting deer or criminals. It’s about sooting tyrants and their lackeys.
What these politicians don’t comprehend is they just made it easy for someone contemplating murder to disarm their target. Want to off your spouse but they are armed? File a TRO, have their guns taken, go after disarmed wife. Law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Can I file a GVRO against the government? Because, I am pretty certain they have it in for me, and they are armed to the teeth. They can have their guns back when I feel safe.
Due process? How quaint.
Sadly, knowledge of the English language actually works against you when working with constitutional law in America today.
The can spice up a TRO with other conditions like not leaving the state or staying away from areas. The CA version is very insidious because anyone can get you tagged. It’s the first step in systematic disarmament.
It’s not like women don’t fabricate stories to advance their cause…which happened to me. Which makes me appreciate my present wife even more. Just another nail in the rights coffin.
Comments are closed.