 |
| Photo from Tapiture.com |
Dear legislators,
Earlier
this year I was the victim of an ex parte restraining order. My
neighbor executed a viscous retaliatory attack against me for having
complained to animal control about their barking dogs.
Nearly half of all
temporary restraining orders are dismissed, and after
hearing the evidence, the judge dismissed this application. My neighbor
clearly abused the judicial system, seeking revenge.
Had HB 5054, AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
been in effect at the time, I would have been required to surrender my
firearms without the benefit of due process. It is, on its face, an
unconstitutional denial of one's due process rights.
As
it was, the temporary order caused me tremendous emotional distress and
consumed a huge amount of my time in preparing a defense. Not only
that, state resources were wasted that could otherwise have been spent
protecting those who truly are at risk. (What is needed, is a way to
penalize those who abuse the system!)
Therefore, I expect you to oppose this bill.
For the same reasons as stated above, I expect you to oppose HB 5623 AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, ACCESS TO MARSHALS, AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING
It too, violates due process rights and contains identical language from HB 5054.
Worse
yet, the bill is a disturbing and disgraceful attempt to make law
abiding gun owners look like they somehow support human trafficking!
Therefore, I expect you to oppose HB 5623 as it is written.
HB 5408, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT violates a person's rights under the 4th Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches.
A Feb 15, 2016 memorandum from the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATE’S ATTORNEY titled, "Open-Carry": Enforcement of General Statutes § 29-35 (b) as Amended”,
clearly states; “By itself, without more, merely observing a person
openly carrying a handgun does not give rise to criminal suspicion
because doing so is lawful in Connecticut by persons who possess a
pistol permit.
“In
this regard, openly carrying a gun is legally akin to driving a motor
vehicle; both activities are potentially dangerous, heavily regulated,
and require a permit/license to engage in. Just as a police officer
cannot lawfully stop a motor vehicle based merely on observing a person
operating one, in order to determine whether that person is licensed,
the officer cannot lawfully seize a person merely on observing him
openly carrying a gun in order to determine whether that person has a
pistol permit.”
Therefore, I expect you to oppose this bill.
HB 5409, AN ACT CONCERNING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR A REVOLVER
will help establish uniform criteria for local permit issuing
authorities across the state. As it is, there seems to be a hodgepodge
of requirements varying from location to location and based on
prejudices of local authorities.
Therefore, I expect you to support this bill.
Very truly yours,
William Boylan
Thanks to Ray Bevis and the CCDL for remaining on top of this issue and keeping us informed
Our Middletown rep, Matt Lesser voted "no" on 5054. Thank you, Matt.
ReplyDeleteAddendum: I sent him a letter relating a personal experience with a malicious TRO levied against me. He was interested enough to inquire back to me for more information. I'd like to think the letter I sent him actually had an impact; Lesser isn't exactly known to be 2A friendly. Thank you again, Matt.
ReplyDeleteI was wrong. Lesser voted in favor of the bill. I mis-read the spread sheet.
ReplyDeleteThis link shows how the legislature voted. My mistake was reading the vote to the right of the name, instead of the left. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/VOTE/h/2016HV-00154-R00HB05054-HV.htm