connecticut law

Imagine Wash constructing the most beautiful sandwiches ever (of all time). Imagine him thoroughly sick of being the victim of distraction theft, or finding stealthy bites have been taken out of his sandwiches in the mere seconds he takes his eyes off them.  Imagine him constructing a decoy sandwich, leaving it on a mess hall table and leaving to “get a drink”.  He returns to find Connie retching next to the table, while North carefully pulls apart lettuce, slices of tomato and salami to find a thick layer of black pepper, cinnamon and slices of ghost peppers.  No one ever touches Wash’s sandwiches again.

Join us for a Tumblr #AnswerTime on the Electoral College!

On Thursday, January 5, at 11 am ET / 8 am PT Oliver Potts and Amy Bunk from the Office of the Federal Register will be answering your questions about the Electoral College here on @usnatarchives​:

  • Who selects the Electors?
  • How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nationwide popular vote?
  • What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?
  • Can electoral votes be contested when Congress counts the votes in January?

The Electoral College:

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. This process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.

The Federal Register:

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) is a part of the National Archives. The OFR coordinates the functions of the Electoral College on behalf of the Archivist of the United States, the States, the Congress, and the American People. The OFR operates as an intermediary between the governors and secretaries of state of the States and the Congress. It also acts as a trusted agent of the Congress in the sense that it is responsible for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the certificates before the House and Senate accept them as evidence of official State action.

About Oliver & Amy:

Oliver Potts became the Director of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) in 2015. His 15-year career in federal government included serving as Deputy Executive Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services. Potts holds a BA in Government and Politics from George Mason University and a JD from the University of Connecticut School of Law.

Amy Bunk is the Director of Legal Affairs and Policy for the Office of the Federal Register, where she provides legal support to staff who review documents submitted for publication in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations. She received her JD cum laude from Syracuse University College of Law.

Ask Oliver and Amy about the Electoral College!

This is one of the finest bits of trolling I’ve ever seen. From u/hunterjay on reddit:

“As you know CT has some tough legislation for “assault” weapons. A local shop created the FM-14 (F*ck Malloy ‘14) which passed the sniff test to date. From their FB post:We put it to the ATF and asked them to render a judgement. 1. It is not a rifle, as it doesn’t have a buttstock. 2. It isn’t a pistol, as it has a forward grip. 2.a. It isn’t a pistol under CT law either, as the barrel is over 12in in length. 3. It isn’t an AOW, as it is over 26in in length. 4. It isn’t ANYTHING in their classification, so they decided it was an 'other’.A firearm that is NOT a rifle, NOT a pistol, NOT an AOW. No tax stamp needed.And since the CT AWB SPECIFICALLY bans 'AW’ under the rifle, pistol and shotgun categories, and since this isn’t any of those, by both CT law and by the ATF decision - ergo - it is NOT an AW. And is CT legal.”

Connecticut To Become First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D) will sign an executive order on Monday barring state-funded travel to Indiana because of the state’s new law that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers for religious reasons.

Get the full story here.

Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge to Connecticut Ban on Semiautomatic Weapons

“The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Connecticut law banning many semiautomatic rifles. The law, enacted in 2013 in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., made it a crime to sell or possess the firearms, which critics call assault weapons. The decision … is part of a trend in which the justices have given at least tacit approval to broad gun-control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them.” - Adam Liptak of the New York Times

Gun control is happening. #SCOTUS

The growth of republicanism and a democratic spirit in most states during the early nineteenth century resulted in the extension of the right to vote to virtually all adult white males by the mid-1820. State constitutions in 1800 had generally tied voting rights to minimum property holdings. Since urban artisans, for example, possessed very little property, they were generally not eligible to vote. The removal of some property qualifications for voting during the early nineteenth century was an effort to channel the energies of dissent into party politics. The expansion of the franchise for white men, however, was often accompanied by the restriction or elimination of the franchise for black men. The New Jersey constitution only limited voting with property requirements until an 1807 state law added racial restrictions. African Americans were allowed to vote in Connecticut until an 1814 law incorporated into the state constitution four years later denied the vote to all blacks who had not voted up to that time. In 1822, Rhode Island’s legislature disenfranchised blacks in that state for the first time.

In New York the constitution of 1777 had guaranteed all men who could meet the property restrictions, including free blacks, the right to vote. New York Republicans tried repeatedly through the early years of the nineteenth century to disenfranchise black voters, but Federalists defended black voting rights and foiled several attempts to institute racial restrictions. The War of 1812 was a turning point for Federalist political power in New York as elsewhere. Discredited by their opposition to the war, Federalists lost control of state politics and were unable to stop Republicans first from limiting the black vote in New York City in 1814 and changing the state constitution in 1821. Property qualifications for white males were removed, but black males were required to have lived in the state for three years and have more than $250 in property before they could vote. This so limited the number of qualified black voters that by 1825 only 298 of a total state black population of almost 30,000 and only 16 of New York City’s more than 12,000 blacks possessed the property needed for voting.

As the roster for eligible white voters expanded in every state, even in the South, a new political grassroots style brought General Andrew Jackson to the presidency in 1828. Political parties vied for the votes of common working people, and candidates portrayed themselves as ordinary men. Jackson’s frontiersman image and William Henry Harrison’s “log cabin and cider” campaign of 1840 (and Abraham Lincoln as “rail-splitter” by 1860) were the products of this new populist politics. “Jacksonian democracy” was both a symbol and a product of this change. This “age of the common man” was the age of the common white man, as black men (and all women) lost the franchise in many states. Party politics became a struggle between white men for the support and loyalty of other white men. Although the Jacksonians’ political ideology was populist in that it attacked a somewhat vague “privilege,” its incorporation of a growing belief in white superiority and its distinctly racial orientation helped make it populism with a class consciousness limited by racial exclusivity. As race became a more powerful determinant of political participation among common people, it became more difficult for nonwhite Americans to assert their rights.

—  James Horton and Lois Horton, In Hope of Liberty: Culture, Community, and Protest Among Northern Free Blacks, 1700-1860
Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law
Researchers at Johns Hopkins and Berkeley say that Connecticut’s “permit-to-purchase” law was actually a huge success for public safety.

In the early ’90s, gang shootings gripped Connecticut. Bystanders, including a 7-year-old girl, were getting gunned down in drive-bys. “The state is becoming a shooting gallery, and the public wants action,” an editorial in the Hartford Courant said at the time.

So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course.

At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit.

Critics scoffed at the plan. They argued that a permit system would hassle lawful citizens, while crooks would still get guns on the black market. If the problem was criminals with guns, why not clean up crime instead of restricting guns?

“This will not take one gun out of the hands of a single criminal,” State Rep. Richard Belden complained to the New York Times in 1994.

Even some supporters of the law, which took effect in 1995, called it a “small step” — a gesture to placate residents alarmed at the gun violence.

Now, two decades later, researchers at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Berkeley, say that Connecticut’s “permit-to-purchase” law was actually a huge success for public safety.

In a study released Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, they estimate that the law reduced gun homicides by 40 percent between 1996 and 2005. That’s 296 lives saved in 10 years.