The state House of Representatives approved a bill Tuesday that would ban bump stocks, moving Connecticut one step closer to a number of other states that have prohibited the devices used in the deadly Las Vegas shooting last October.
[...]
Bump stocks allow semiautomatic rifles to fire at a rate similar to that of machine guns. The bill also would ban trigger cranks and other so-called rate-of-fire enhancements.
States including Massachusetts, California, Vermont, New Jersey, Washington and Florida already have enacted their own bans. The U.S. Justice Department also proposed a federal regulation in March banning the devices.
American voters overwhelmingly support universal background checks for gun purchases by a margin of 95-4 percent. Support is 94-5 percent among households where there is a gun.
"With each American gun massacre, there is stronger voter support for tighter gun control measures," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
[...]
There was also support 74-24 percent for a ban on the sale of gun modifications that can make a gun work more like a fully automatic weapon. The question comes after 58 were killed and 546 injured following a mass shooting at a concert in Las Vegas where the attacker used bump stocks to make his semiautomatic weapons fire at a rate close to a fully automatic weapon.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
