4 Police Chiefs Sued Over 'Excessively Delaying' Applications for Gun Permits

[PeacefulWarrior]

Four Connecticut police chiefs have been sued by a gun rights group and four citizens over "excessively delaying" applications for gun permits, the Associated Press reported.
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) announced it had filed a federal lawsuit against Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport and Waterbury police chiefs, saying they had purposefully slowed the licensing process and violated people's rights to bear arms and due process.
Holly Sullivan, president of the CCDL, released a statement alleging the cities were notorious for intentionally slowing the gun permit application process.

4 Police Chiefs Sued Over 'Excessively Delaying' Applications for Gun Permits

Applicants made to wait anywhere from 8 to 11 months for an appointment just to apply?

My only complaint is that the "delay" wasnt nearly long enough.
"Delay" it ad infinitum, I'll throw a party!!

Nice job Police Chiefs, more please!

 

[TurtleDude]

My only complaint is that the "delay" wasnt nearly long enough.
"Delay" it ad infinitum, I'll throw a party!!

Nice job Police Chiefs, more please!

another silly bit of gun banning drivel. not relevant.

 

[Glitch]

do you think Scalia would have had a majority opinion if he held the New Deal was unconstitutional and everything based on Wickard v Filburn and that progeny was struck down?

So your defense of Scalia is his abject cowardice?

First, the overwhelming majority (11 of the 15) of the New Deal programs passed by Congress were tossed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court by 1936, the year Scalia was born. That is when FDR began replacing the entire Supreme Court, because nobody questions a fascist. That corrupted Supreme Court, under extreme duress, is what gave us Miller and Wickard, among a few other unconstitutional decisions between 1937 and 1945.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) was effectively overturned by United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

By 2008 the Supreme Court should have over turned Miller, eliminate the unconstitutional "common use" criteria, and restored the Second Amendment as it was intended, free of federal interference. Instead, Scalia compounded the problem and made things much worse by adding his own additional unconstitutional criteria. Which you are now pathetically trying to justify. Don't go there. You may love Scalia, but if you follow his path and continue to defend his unconstitutional actions it can only mean you are as anti-Second Amendment as he was. Scalia wasn't under duress. Bush43 was not threatening the Supreme Court like FDR. So Scalia had no excuse for his unconstitutional actions, not even abject cowardice will get him off the hook for what he did.

 

[TurtleDude]

So your defense of Scalia is his abject cowardice?

First, the overwhelming majority (11 of the 15) of the New Deal programs passed by Congress were tossed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court by 1936, the year Scalia was born. That is when FDR began replacing the entire Supreme Court, because nobody questions a fascist. That corrupted Supreme Court, under extreme duress, is what gave us Miller and Wickard, among a few other unconstitutional decisions between 1937 and 1945.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) was effectively overturned by United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

By 2008 the Supreme Court should have over turned Miller, eliminate the unconstitutional "common use" criteria, and restored the Second Amendment as it was intended, free of federal interference. Instead, Scalia compounded the problem and made things much worse by adding his own additional unconstitutional criteria. Which you are now pathetically trying to justify. Don't go there. You may love Scalia, but if you follow his path and continue to defend his unconstitutional actions it can only mean you are as anti-Second Amendment as he was. Scalia wasn't under duress. Bush43 was not threatening the Supreme Court like FDR. So Scalia had no excuse for his unconstitutional actions, not even abject cowardice will get him off the hook for what he did.

I don't think you really have a good handle on how the courts work or the political reality of the court decisions.

 

[Glitch]

I don't think you really have a good handle on how the courts work or the political reality of the court decisions.

I'm very much aware of the reality of Scalia's unconstitutional criteria, and the extreme harm he has done to every American for generations yet to come.

A court that can intentionally deprive Americans of their constitutionally protected rights for more than a century and a half should not be allowed to exist. Much less any justice who can simply manufacture any criteria that suits their political ideology.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I don't think you really have a good handle on how the courts work or the political reality of the court decisions.

I think he is simply of the opinion that anyone who disagrees with him is the enemy. Added to that enemies list are people who only a little bit disagree with him. And they are just as much the enemy as people who completely disagree with him. He might get how courts work and how political considerations work themselves into opinions, but he doesn't care. To him, the good is an enemy of the perfect. And the good and the bad are both aligned against perfection as well. There can be no compromise. I get the mindset, but I'm not so naive as to think that I'll always get my way or so short-sighted to think that getting none of what you want forever is preferable to getting what you can get when you can get it.