Maine Ranks High

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

ladyalicemore,
You would just love Connecticut. They don't have a "stand your ground" law. In fact they just created 110,000 felons out of good honest taxpaying citizens.

You wouldn't like Maine where you can stop at a yard sale and buy a .357 Magnum and it's legal. You can strap it on and drive home. That's legal too. If you want to carry concealed, you need a permit, but Maine is a "shall issue" state. If you are not a felon or certifiably insane, you get your permit within 60 days.

Get the facts straight, and Glenn Beck is not any level of a source of reality. From Wikipedia:

On April 1, 2013, Connecticut lawmakers announced a deal on what they called some of the "toughest gun laws in the country." In retrospect however, Connecticut's gun laws still remain more permissive than in neighboring states and California, even after new gun control legislation following the Sandy Hook shooting went into effect. This new legislation included a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines, although magazines lawfully owned prior to the ban may be kept. The proposal also called for background checks for private gun sales and a new registry for existing magazines that carry more than 10 bullets.[8] The package also creates what state lawmakers said is the nation's first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales and expansion of Connecticut's assault weapons ban.[9] On April 3 the State Senate, followed shortly thereafter at midnight, April 4, the State House approved a bipartisan gun control legislation that would be "the toughest in the United States".[10] It was signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy on April 4. The law makes Connecticut the first state to establish a registry for people convicted of crimes involving dangerous weapons. It also requires background checks for all gun sales, restricts semiautomatic rifles, and limits the capacity of ammunition magazines.

One proposed provision that ultimately did not make it into the final bill would have eliminated the state-level board for approving pistol permit applications and reverted the sole authority for approving or denying pistol permits back to local officials, who would then have wide latitude in adjudicating permit applications by requiring the applicant to show "necessary and proper reason" for a pistol permit, which mirrors California's May-Issue permitting system, where the ability for one to obtain a pistol permit would vary widely from town-to-town, although permits would be valid statewide. A subsequent compromise included in the law adds a mental health expert to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners and establishes a process for local authorities to challenge the appeal of any applications denied at the local level.[11]

So, you wanna believe everything you hear on whack radio, go for it. CT doesn't have a "stand your ground" law, but the Court's have enforced justification just like any other New England State. Helping Glenn Beck spread lies by bringing his hogwash rhetoric to this site is really pretty sad. As far as I can tell, no "felons" have been created except in the squirming minds of internet and talk radio hatred. I sincerely hope you understand that, although possibly ill-advised, the reason for this legislation was the murder of children in Sandy Hook, and a society that felt they had to do something - anything - to try to prevent it from happening again. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see why it came about.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Maineac

That's not government intrusion. It's private business doing the testing. It always amazes me that the "Constitutional" drum beaters don't get it. Fine. Anyone receiving any government benefit or pay, including VA, politicians, police, FBI - anyone working for Government at any level - should be drug tested. But they won't. They'll only drug test those that can't argue over it. Personally, I could pass drug/alcohol tests day in and day out, but wouldn't submit to them, and I worked for the Feds, who wouldn't DARE attempt to test employees. It goes against my Constitutional view of the 4th Amendment.

During my first enlistment [1977 - 1983] drug testing was considered un-constitutional. From about 1980 on, we were all required to pee-in-a-cup about once a month. At first anyone who came up positive was charged with drug use and thrown out. But there were a lot of lawsuits over it. They government never stopped doing urinalysis, but procedures changed every few months. How the sample bottles were handled, which companies did the testing, which tests were used, every part of the puzzle was modified many times. As there were law suits EVERY time urinalysis caused a servicemember to be convicted for drug use.

My second enlistment [1987 - 1993] the procedure had been established, and the courts were happy with how it was finally being done. Every month, among all sailors on the surface, 10% pee-in-a-cup. It is done by a random selection based on the last digit of your SS number. If you never enrolled in SS, then they use your EIN number. 10% are called for urinalysis every month [assuming your on the surface]. I was subject to urinalysis for the remainder of my active Duty career, until I transferred to fleet reserves [retired] in 2001.

I lived through this era of when/how urinalysis became legal. Millions of dollars were spent by the DOD, over a period of years, to fight this through the US Courts. The DOD developed the procedures that the courts finally considered to be constitutional. I have observed Social Engineering done in the US, where it was the DOD that began it and established it, before it spread to the civilian population.

I have worked along side servicemembers who came up positive for drug use, some of them were serving in the era when they were able to get a lawyer to fight it. Some of them served after it had became established as a regular part of life in America.

I have been subjected to urinalysis back when it was unconstitutional, and after when it had became constitutional. I am on the Federal payroll, I am subject to urinalysis.

My Dw works for an alphabet agency under the DOD and she is subject to urinalysis. Her agency has only tested her when she was being hired. Annually in their 'training' they remind that they are all still subject to testing whenever the agency thinks it is needed. We have a close friend through our church, who is also a federal employee. He works for a different federal agency up in Loring. He is also subject to urinalysis.

[Maineac]

Military, and for government employ. A completely different situation, unrelated to receipt of public benefits, but similar to private industry drug testing. I worked for a different agency, and there will never be any drug testing in the Judicial branch. And I remember when the military testing came into existence. See, the Executive Branch is the most active violator of the U.S. Constitution, and the Judicial Branch tends to support the violations, hence, the erosion of our 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendment rights. The private bar and public (including Federal) defenders are the actual defenders of the Constitution, not those actually sworn (prosecutors, police, FBI, military, etc.) to uphold it. Where do the issues of the foregoing constitutional amendments arise? Criminal cases where the arresting agency has violated a Constitutional right, and those agencies are all under the Executive. So no, you don't have a constitutional right to drug test non-military citizens in my book. That's judge made malarkey and in direct violation of illegal (4th) search and seizure.

[maineguy8888]

We are caught firmly between a citizenry which increasingly worships victimhood, and a government which increasingly is only too glad to give people opportunities to engage in said worship.

[camanchaca]

Originally Posted by Maineac

Personally, I could pass drug/alcohol tests day in and day out, but wouldn't submit to them, and I worked for the Feds, who wouldn't DARE attempt to test employees.

I worked for the feds for a number of years through 2012 and I had to pee in a cup multiple times per year.

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by camanchaca

I worked for the feds for a number of years through 2012 and I had to pee in a cup multiple times per year.

Depends on the job, doesn't it? Nobody in Congress will be pissing anywhere but in your pocket. But drug testing benefits recipients makes for good political fodder, and those that its perpetrated on can't argue against it. Then, if they smoke a joint they lose all benefits. That's great, that'll teach 'em, and make a lot of self-righteous know-it-alls feel real good.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

Gov. Malloy of CT has been instructed not to enforce the new law until after the 2014 election. Then it's a full court press. Of course, CT does not have prisons enough to house 110,000 felons so they will just take what you own. The CT police are nervous about this. They are going to have to make some very serious decisions. Some of them know what happened last time tyrants came to seize the provisions and munitions of patriots. It did not go well for the tyrants.


"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
Aleksander I. Solzhenitsyn,
The Gulag Archipelago

[Maineac]

Please, explicate. I don't see any ex-post facto application here. Apparently you do. "Some of them know what happened the last time tyrants . . . " Oh, for God's sake. Try reading the law and turning off Glenn Fullofitandgettingrichoffyou Beck. I repeat, this came about after kids were murdered and the society just felt they had to do something - ANYTHING. It may be wrong headed, and I may disagree with it, but I'm not running around making things up like the plan is to disarm everyone in CT.

[maineguy8888]

"Never let a good crisis go to waste".......Rahm Emmanuel

Even DETROIT is figuring this issue out!

Detroit police chief gives credit to armed citizens for drop in crime | The Detroit News

[Maineac]

Do you understand that children were murdered en masse and the CT legislature is simply doing a knee-jerk reaction, and 95% of what Glenn Beck spreads will grow corn? I haven't read the proposed Statute, but I see above that NMLM jumped back in and qualified his earlier post. I don't believe we need further gun laws, BUT, do you understand these people in CT felt they had to do SOMETHING?? ANYTHING?? What's your answer? Arm everyone and let the nuts shoot it out? Got nothing, do you? Right along with the NRA chant and no answers. Some people shouldn't have guns, and you don't know who they are at this point. It looks to me like they're asking anyone with clips holding more than 10 rounds to register them. I only skimmed the law, but that seems to be the big "hoo hah" that "creates felons." The felon isn't "created" until they're caught with the clip. My hunting gun clips are limited to 5 rounds. 2 for duck hunting (1 in the chamber). While I don't agree with the limitation for sporting purposes, I have to ask why you feel you need 10 rounds? If you think somehow you're going to overthrow the Government, check out some of the new Law Enforcement weaponry, in particular the fully automatic cylindrical magazine shotguns. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, and no further incursions against it, but let's be real here.