Discussion topic for Summary Judgment tonight

[Edward Peruta]

This subject will be discussed tonight on Summary Judgment between 6 and 8pm at www.sjtalkshow.com

Live call in to the program is 860-721-8814.

JUSTIFICATIONFOR A FACIAL

or

ASAPPLIED CHALLENGE

TOnumerous CONNECTCUT FIREARM LAWS​

Most if not all of Connecticut's laws pertaining tofirearms were conceived, advocated, drafted, proposed, subjected to publicscrutiny at public hearings, and then debated, voted upon and approved in theConnecticut General Assembly.

The record is clear that most of Connecticut's current firearmlaws were passed and signed into law during the pre Heller/McDonald period whenthe Federal and State Constitutional right to KEEP and BEAR arms was thought tobe a right exclusive to the states for the purpose of maintaining a StateMilitia. (Judge Gill video).

In the Connecticut Constitution, unlike the FederalConstitution, the right to BEAR arms is clearly stated as a right of the citizenswithout any mention or reference to the word Militia. (Article First, Section15, "Every citizen has a right to bear arms indefense of himself and the state.")

The legislative record of Connecticut Firearm laws, oftenreferred to as "LEGISLATIVE HISTORY" is often reviewed and cited byopposing sides to justify legal positions and theories taken in civil andcriminal cases.

Here in the Constitution State of Connecticut, the recentsocial, political and legal focus has been on the most recent post Newtown 2013firearm legislation, (PA 13-3 and PA 13-220), when in fact, Connecticutcitizens have been and are subjected to frequent violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth,Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenthamendment rights.
Elected and appointed public officials in all threebranches of our State and Federal governments have taken political. legal andsocial positions and actions that clearly ignore and violate other clearlyestablished basic constitutional rights when firearms are involved.

Civil, Administrative and Criminal Firearm case filestogether with case documents, transcripts and decisions, provide clear andconvincing evidence that government officials believe that the current matrixof firearm laws are vague, ambiguous and misapplied.

The lack of ability to clearly understand Connecticutfirearm laws is often used and cited to support and defend unlawful actions bygovernment officials in cases where firearms are a factor.

One only has to research the growing list of civil, criminaland administrative case files which involve firearms to understand the magnitudeof the issue.

There are at least 23 cases that support the theory regarding:

Suitability,Restricted speech, Delays, Denials, Revocations, Searches, Arrests ofindividuals and seizures of property (Permits and firearms), Destruction ofproperty, Arrests, Delayed Trials and administrative hearings, Excessive Bonds.