Friday, February 17, 2017
Not only did the recent budget plan by Governor Dannel Malloy add insult to injury by targeting the tens-of-thousands of law-abiding gun owners in Connecticut, but it also demonstrated a clear lack of understanding regarding fundamental constitutional rights. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League ("CCDL") has taken quick action and is fighting back, with support from legislators and the NRA.
The proposal to increase permit renewal fees from $70 to $300 unfairly targets permit holders in an attempt to raise nearly $30 million from a targeted class of citizens. This discriminatory plan is just the latest in a years-long effort to strip law-abiding citizens of a fundamental constitutional right.
While I wasn't able to attend the Capitol News Briefing today, I did give public testimony this past Tuesday, noting that our Governor is following in the footsteps of our lawmakers and courts from the late 1960s, until the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Connecticut Supreme Court caselaw in the matter of Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971). While it may seem to be an unrelated issue, in my view, the underlying issue of access to a fundamental right is all-too-similar. By planning for an unreasonable price increase, the fundamental right in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" . . . is just that, infringed. It will be placed beyond the reach of those on fixed incomes or single parents or those who have children in college.
I'll be watching this issue closely as it unfolds, but in my opinion, it's unlikely it will advance much further given the well organized opposition.
Humbled that such a great guy, former New York Giant and Pittsburgh Steeler, die-hard Greenwich Republican and good friend would show his support for me like this . . . thanks Bob! #LynchForSenate
In one of the more shameful opinions to be released by the Connecticut Supreme Court, the years-long matter of Greenwich business man and former NFL football player Bob Simms. Origins of the legal controversy are in Connecticut family court. A modification in a decades old divorce judgment modified support obligations. When Simms later learned that trial and appellate counsel had knowingly concealed the existence of a significant inheritance, he pursued legal action against opposing counsel.
The trial court, after acknowledging the validity of the plaintiff's claims, ruled that the attorneys were protected by immunity. Both the Appellate Court and Supreme Court upheld that lower court decision. Even though federal case law dictates that "zealous advocacy" is subordinate to "candor to the tribunal," our state chose to protect the bar, blocking Mr. Simms from any recovery. Grievances subsequently filed by Simms with the Statewide Grievance Committee were dismissed, even though the court record itself contained acknowledgements of the misconduct. These are among the items that scores of families have complained about in recent years, but few in our legislature have shown meaningful interest in fixing.
Read the Connecticut Supreme Court opinion >> Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (2013)