|
|
|
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 |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
