CT: The "Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Mags" Letter


PDA






Midwest
February 25, 2014, 04:41 PM
Connecticut: The "Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Mags" Letter

If this has been posted here before, then please lock or delete the thread if necessary.

Ammoland published the Connecticut "assault weapons registration rejection letter" . Ammoland put the story on their site today February 25 2014 and the GOA Facebook alerts picked up on it today as well. While the story is an old one, I believe this is the first time I have seen the letter that gun owners received.

Just in case the letter has not been seen before, here it is....

"Today is Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Connecticut Tells Gun Owners, Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Standard Capacity Magazines"


http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/connecticut-tells-gun-owners-destroy-or-hand-over-rifles-standard-capacity-magaznies/#axzz2uN6Yq5zo

http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CT-Assualt-Weapon-Letter.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "CT: The "Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Mags" Letter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Davek1977
February 25, 2014, 05:06 PM
I hope compliance runs as high as it did with the initial registration effort

hovercat
February 25, 2014, 05:29 PM
WOW!! The CT government was very prompt in delivering those letters. How are they doing on delivering the safety that this law promised?

I heard that the number of felonies just took a big jump in CT.

blueskyjaunte
February 25, 2014, 05:42 PM
STOP! Or we'll say "STOP!" again!

Midwest
February 25, 2014, 06:02 PM
There is a bit more to the story ..............


http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/connecticut-closer-to-confiscation-of-guns-magazines/#axzz2uN6Yq5zo

"The problem now becomes, even though the paperwork was rejected it is without a doubt certain that the Connecticut State Police kept the declaration of ownership and now have at least some official records of those who are not in compliance. It was reported late yesterday by the Manchester Journal Inquirer ( http://tiny.cc/9qlubx ) that letters are now going out to at least a certain number of gun owners that they have been found to be in non compliance with the law and were technically felons."


As they say...stay tuned....

.

herrwalther
February 25, 2014, 06:08 PM
And they say "No one is coming to take your guns." Registration leads to confiscation, and sometimes they skip the registering part.

MErl
February 25, 2014, 06:08 PM
So CT is going by the day it was received not the day it was postmarked right?

Owen
February 25, 2014, 06:14 PM
I hope CT gets itself straightened out before people start dying.

Carl N. Brown
February 25, 2014, 06:21 PM
What was the estimated compliance rate (estimated number of affected guns versus timely paperwork received)?

perpster
February 25, 2014, 06:50 PM
Wed 1/1/14 was a federal holiday, so no mail. Yet they had a letter dated 1/2/14 saying "your paperwork was not postmarked or received before 1/1/14"? What about people trying to comply who mailed their paperwork after hours on 12/30 or 12/31 and it didn't get postmarked or delivered because of New Year's Eve and/or New Year's Day? CT couldn't wait a few days?

I grew up thinking CT was the Constitution State. Sheesh.

IlikeSA
February 25, 2014, 08:57 PM
How will these "felons" answer the 4473 question 11d when they try to buy a new firearm? (asked with sarcasm)

CoalTrain49
February 26, 2014, 12:00 PM
I hope CT gets itself straightened out before people start dying.

Makes one wonder how they got themselves in that predicament in the first place. :uhoh:

19-3Ben
February 26, 2014, 12:15 PM
I hope CT gets itself straightened out before people start dying.

For my sake, I do too. I'm here, in a suburb of Hartford, with a pregnant wife. This is actually a high-stakes game for some of us.
We all know how the tree of liberty must be refreshed, and those of us in CT, CA, NY etc… are first in line here.

We have a big rally coming up in March. I'll be there, and I would encourage everyone who can attend to do so.

Mainsail
February 26, 2014, 12:41 PM
It amazes me how history repeats itself. What happened in CT is nothing new, and the road to gun control was paved by gun owners who, while they love their guns, pretty much only love their guns. How does the saying go…. If you won’t learn from history you’re bound to repeat the lesson.

- The hunter doesn’t see a need for more than six rounds in a gun, so he doesn’t care if other people’s guns are outlawed.
- The handgun owner doesn’t know why anyone would need a big scary looking rifle to defend their home, so he doesn’t care if other people’s guns are outlawed.
- The shotgunner doesn’t see a need for a rifle or a handgun that holds more than six rounds, so he doesn’t care if other people’s guns are outlawed.

The anti-gun people had the war plan already drawn up, waiting for the next tragedy to occur so they could dust it off and run the plays. They did, and very successfully too, because the gun owners were already divided. Keep in mind; what you read here in this forum isn’t representative of the attitudes or beliefs of all gun owners.

The truly frightening thing for CT is that this is only the first or second chapter of a voluminous playbook. The camel’s nose is well under the tent, but it’s only his nose so far. Read, “All the Way Down the Slippery Slope (http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html)” to see how it turned out in Great Britain. It’s the exact same strategy, play for play, and they’re just watching it happen like it’s all new!

Hoping the Supreme Court will overturn this is not the way to win. Gun owners in CT, as well as most of the Northeastern seaboard and CA, need to unite against the anti-gun forces. They are coming for ALL the guns, even the ones that they say they are not. Unless you can get all the gun owners to realize that, all you can do is sit back and watch it happen.

Midwest
February 26, 2014, 01:01 PM
The anti-gun people had the war plan already drawn up, waiting for the next tragedy to occur so they could dust it off and run the plays.

Correct, when DiFi unveiled her plan to put an entire class of certain rifles under the NFA, she said she had been working on it a year.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

"On Dec. 17th (2012) , Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” "



Feinstein's "S150" NFA/Rifle and ban bill

"A BILL
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to
keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes

"Assault Weapons Ban of 2013"


http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
.

SilentStalker
February 26, 2014, 01:37 PM
Here is where I am confused. Read below:

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Someone want to explain how this works? Seems to me that everyone in CT who owns said kind of weapon have not been charged with a crime yet, technically. And, they are being deprived of liberty and their property and since this entire law is based on the premise of being for the public's safety then they have not been compensated for the seizure of their property either. Am I completely lost here? I read this as they cannot come and take anyone's property without being fairly compensated of charged with a crime...

smogmage
February 26, 2014, 01:45 PM
I hope CT gets itself straightened out before people start dying.


Some might call that provocative for a board like this, especially coming from a moderator. I would say it's about time! Bravo.

Having just moved out of CT and having gotten into heated debates on this board only to be censored by moderators, I'm still kind of peeved. But its nice to see things might be changing for the better.

I'm still closely monitoring the situation in CT and proving help when and where I can. Lets hope it doesn't get worse before it gets better.

smogmage
February 26, 2014, 01:50 PM
Well SilentStalker, the way they worked it the registration period was open and closed before it was a crime to possess the items without registering them. So its only by peoples own error or the State's unwillingness to count registration forms received in the first week of January, that they have self incriminated. They cant force you presently in CT to declare if you have a prohibited item.


I read this as they cannot come and take anyone's property without being fairly compensated
I dunno about anyone else but I CANT be compensated, my private property IS NOT FOR SALE. They can certainly try to seize my property, after I'm good and dead.

MErl
February 26, 2014, 01:53 PM
Silent, they will be charged with a crime before anything is actually taken (well probably soon after but works out the same). Since there is still the option of selling them outside the state there is no issue of compensation.

SilentStalker
February 26, 2014, 02:01 PM
Smogmage, I agree. However, I am pointing this out as a possible way to fight this. I could argue that by not registering it with the state of CT that I cannot be called upon now to turn my weapon in because that would be self incriminating and if they wanted to push that I could then argue that they can come take my weapons if they want to pay me fair compensation. My point here is that it could be argued that the way the law was implemented and carried out could be a violation of the fifth amendment. Number one they are forcing you to make a decision to register or not register. By not registering, you have successfully implemented your right of the fifth now because if you go and turn your stuff in then it would be self incriminating since you would now be admitting to a crime. And, if you did not register and they want you to destroy it that would be all fine to but then they would need to pay you fair compensation for the destruction of your private property after you admitted to a crime. Do you see where I am going here? Maybe it can't be used in that way. Just tossing around ideas here. I am certainly no law professor :).

SilentStalker
February 26, 2014, 02:04 PM
MErl, yes but the fifth reads that No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. I read that as they have to do more than just charge the person. :) They have to convict them of said crime. Again, I am certainly no law professor though.

smogmage
February 26, 2014, 02:13 PM
I don't believe it works in the way you are describing. The only way I can see that it would work is if they at some point in time they decided that even if you registered it, possession is no longer legal. Then you could say well you violated my Right not to self incriminate by forcing me to declare (register) and then making possession even if registered a crime. In essence forcing me by law to declare I'm breaking the law, which would be blatantly unconstitutional.

They may still win the argument just by the chronology or timeline of laws passed. They would argue that it was legal before we made it illegal and now we've got a list....
Which is exactly why EVERYONE should have refused to register.

But I don't know of anytime a scheme like the one they are currently using has been tried in court. I would think a place like kalifornistan, new jersey or new york city would have a case pending.

Carl N. Brown
February 26, 2014, 02:30 PM
"..... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

They are not seizing the property for public use (like building a road through a piece of real estate). They are seizing property declared contraband, which is forfeiture. They blew up a lot of stills in the Appalachians and put the ax through barrels of booze without just compensation, because if it is declared illegal it is forfeit to the state.

goalie
February 26, 2014, 08:17 PM
Elected officials would be wise to take note of how widespread the civil disobedience is.

PBR Streetgang
February 26, 2014, 08:33 PM
From somewhat of a skewed view, I wouldn't be surprised that the CT makes a few high profile arrests to put the fear in people and after that, pay confidential informants to give information on firearm ownership.

Be very careful with whom you discuss "your" firearms with. Criminals will jump on the bandwagon to turn in people to the police for cash... along with a disgruntled ex for revenge or a neighbor with whom you have had words with over his dog pissing in your yard...

All of the above issues can be converted into a creative search warrant...by a over zealous LEO.............

Jim K
February 26, 2014, 08:37 PM
When will the governor order the National Guard to raid homes and carry out summary executions "in order to save lives"?

JIm

Devonai
February 26, 2014, 09:09 PM
As a member of the Connecticut Air National Guard, I can tell you that any order given to do so will be met with mass disobedience. All but the greenest airmen understand what an unlawful order is, and as residents and gun owners, we will not comply.

Highroadronin
February 26, 2014, 09:24 PM
How many of those who didn't comply do you think are State Police or other LE officers? 99 percent of the State Police don't agree with the law, and they are upset the legislature passed it without even consulting with them.

steve4102
February 26, 2014, 10:23 PM
Makes one wonder how they got themselves in that predicament in the first place.

It'a called a Voting Booth and it's use, or lack of, does have consequences.

JTHunter
February 27, 2014, 12:11 AM
Owen said:I hope CT gets itself straightened out before people start dying.

It may take exactly that before the peopl get off their butts and raise a stink all the way to the State House!
If people start getting killed because they no longer have the equipment to adequately defend themselves, the people just might take some drastic action on the politicians that put them in this predicament.

PabloJ
February 27, 2014, 12:27 AM
The obvious way to defeat their effort is for NOBODY to comply.

Davek1977
February 27, 2014, 05:14 AM
If people start getting killed because they no longer have the equipment to adequately defend themselves, the people just might take some drastic action on the politicians that put them in this predicament.

While that is possible, I think what Owen was inferring (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it creates a dangerous situation for those tasked with actually carrying out any possible confiscation orders, in the event gun owners decide their rights are worth dying for rather than complying with what they see as unjust legislation.

Trent
February 27, 2014, 12:04 PM
Tagging for followup.

Colonel
February 27, 2014, 12:17 PM
If CT is like CA, what they'll do is make the law more restrictive in the future (or, as CA did, just "reinterpret" the law more onerously to make more guns be "illegal" under the law) and then use those registration lists to begin knocking on doors and confiscating guns.

This has all been done many times in the past. Registering your guns on the promise that "if you register them, we won't take them" is a devil's bargain at best. More power to those CT gun owners who refused!

Derek Zeanah
February 27, 2014, 12:29 PM
Tagging for followup.
As an aside, you can click "thread tools" at the top of a thread, and choose "subscribe" from there.

Might be a simpler way to keep track of interesting threads.

Owen
February 27, 2014, 12:46 PM
While that is possible, I think what Owen was inferring (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it creates a dangerous situation for those tasked with actually carrying out any possible confiscation orders, in the event gun owners decide their rights are worth dying for rather than complying with what they see as unjust legislation.

Not just dangerous for the cops...

Paladin7
February 27, 2014, 01:07 PM
If gun owners do not get active in shaping politics this will continue until the antis win... Look at all the rights we have lost already in the last 50 years.

Trying to get gun owners active in my state, NY, is like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. I assume CT is no different. Gun owners have no idea the power they have in numbers and there are already TEA Party Groups that know how to get it done, which can be joined by just showing up at a meeting.

People who don't get involved deserve what they get.

Midwest
February 27, 2014, 01:21 PM
If CT is like CA, what they'll do is make the law more restrictive in the future (or, as CA did, just "reinterpret" the law more onerously to make more guns be "illegal" under the law) and then use those registration lists to begin knocking on doors and confiscating guns.

This has all been done many times in the past. Registering your guns on the promise that "if you register them, we won't take them" is a devil's bargain at best. More power to those CT gun owners who refused!
Both California and Illinois (particularly Cook County) have been going around confiscating guns from people who are no longer 'qualified' to own firearms. It was mentioned here on THR and elsewhere that the problem is that those "lists" are not always accurate and innocent people have had their firearms confiscated as well. California has their registry to work from and Illinois has their FOID (Firearms Owner ID Card) to work from .

Trent
February 27, 2014, 03:08 PM
As an aside, you can click "thread tools" at the top of a thread, and choose "subscribe" from there.

Might be a simpler way to keep track of interesting threads.

Thanks for the tip Derek. Was sitting in the waiting room at the hospital and trying to figure out the new tapatalk app (I've never played with it before), when I was reading this thread.


Both California and Illinois (particularly Cook County) have been going around confiscating guns from people who are no longer 'qualified' to own firearms. It was mentioned here on THR and elsewhere that the problem is that those "lists" are not always accurate and innocent people have had their firearms confiscated as well. California has their registry to work from and Illinois has their FOID (Firearms Owner ID Card) to work from .


Well, here we have an interesting situation in Illinois that is starting to pave the way for stuff like this.

Four pieces of worrisome legislation was inserted in to our concealed carry legislation when it passed last year.

#1 Universal Background Checks (ended face to face sales without state police authorization for each transaction)

#2 Mandatory lost and stolen reporting; limited time to report lost or stolen guns

#3 Mandatory physical revocation of FOID on becoming a suspended person, PLUS you have 48 hours to dispose/transfer all firearms AND give the state police a disposition form for all firearms, make, model, caliber, and serial number, which were disposed of. Failure to do so results in search/seizure/confiscation. In addition any minors under 21 who were "sponsored" by the prohibited person have THEIR FOID cards revoked, and have to surrender /transfer their firearms, or face criminal prosecution.

#4 New mental health guidelines - including mandated reporting by any health care provider, or educational providers (teachers, etc), for adults or children who pose a "clear and present danger". Whoever is accused of being a clear and present danger does not get to confront their accuser, it's anonymous. FOID card is revoked, and see #3 for result.


Taken individually there is not a "significant threat" and many could read in to some of this that it's "good business" to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

But taken together.. mighty potent legislation.

In #2 and #4 you don't get the right to confront your accuser or prove your innocence - an emergency order of protection can be brought against anyone for any reason "he threatened me", and until it goes before a judge to get dismissed, you are a prohibited person. Meanwhile you have 48 hours to dispose of firearms and report ALL of that info, to the state police or face search & seizure. There's no mandate that they have to destroy those records.

Same with #4; no ability to confront accuser of "clear and present danger", and no possibility of knowing who accused you of being a "clear and present danger" unless they volunteer the information. No recourse other than going to get psychological evaluation from someone else to prove you aren't; you are guilty until proven innocent. Meanwhile, guns have to be disposed of (to another party, or to the police), because FOID is revoked. And state keeps a record of everything you own, with no requirement to destroy the information.


They may not line people up and knock on the doors here, but they're getting things like this passed through in the interest of "The National Discussion", and it's really starting to add up.

Trent
February 27, 2014, 03:21 PM
I hope CT gets itself straightened out before people start dying.

On any population base that sized, there are going to be extremists on both sides. Not a large number; but there's certainly a few people who are running scenarios in their heads by now. We (gun owners) all know there are always a lot of "big talkers" but far fewer "doers", but .. when you're talking about the population of an entire state, with over 3.5 million people, there's going to be all types; murderers, rapists, nuclear physicists, and "sovereign individuals" who view themselves as the new "freedom fighters".

I witnessed this first hand after the 1994 Federal assault weapons ban; in the phase now known as the "Militia Movement". Hundreds of home grown militias sprung up across the country, preparing for whatever each leader decided to prepare for. Two key incidents played in to the feeding frenzy; Waco and Ruby Ridge. The OKC bombing turned the population against the movement; signalling the begin of the end.

We haven't had a "cornerstone" moment yet with Connecticut's ban, but eventually, one will happen. The population base is large enough that statistically, one of the two following cases will likely happen at some point.

What Owen is referring to could be boiled down to two possibilities;

#1 Violent resistance to confiscation.
This is the "over my dead body" mindset. Keep quiet and not comply, and when the door is kicked in, resist until death. (Any other outcome is highly unlikely, Rambo was a movie...)

#2 Offensive Action
As unsavory as it sounds, someone sufficiently unbalanced may wage a one person asymmetrical conflict against the powers that be. Targets won't be police or other LEO's - more than likely, politicians would be targeted. I say this because several FBI investigations uncovered conspiracies of this sort back in the 1990's in the Militia movement. While raw inertia kept any of the plans from coming to fruition, there is always a possibility of a lone gunman.

(As an anecdote; as we saw with the Beltway sniper incident, that scenario can be devilishly hard to stop.)

NEITHER of those two are good for gun owners at large - it's the very thing that the anti-gunners secretly (or publicly) HOPE will happen. That some gun owner will come unhinged, so that they can get on the TV and say "SEE! We told you they were evil bloodthirsty people! Now ban them ALL!"

If you haven't stuck around through all of my typing, here's the short of it.

The Connecticut government has opened Pandora's Box. And we all better hope (on both sides and everywhere in the middle), that this situation doesn't go sour. It'll mean bad times for everyone, if it does.

james layman
February 27, 2014, 03:47 PM
I don't see how they can pass a law to make it a crime to own something once legal. How can they make criminals of thousands of people. This should blow up in their face.

Willie Sutton
February 27, 2014, 04:05 PM
^

Really?

Alcohol was outlawed for a while.

Marijuana was outlawed.

Cocaine was outlawed before that. What do you think have the kick to old coca
-cola?

They can outlaw anything they like, and make what you already own prima facia contraband. I just picked a few obvious examples.

Willie

.

rdhood
February 27, 2014, 04:40 PM
And this, from the editorial board of the Hartford Courant (quoted from reason.com)

...the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

This ought to send chills down the spine of every law abiding gun owner. After years and years of the antis (an even our own "reasonable" THR folk) telling us that this is not registration/confiscation, a group of antis show colors and what THEIR plans for the NICS database are. Now you know why they want universal background checks. Its not to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We already know that doesn't work. It is to indirectly catalog the firearms of the law abiding citizens. This is the goal of ALL universal background check legislation.

The "reasonable" folks here at THR say that will never happen. But when you have a database that contains the names of your political enemies and give you the opportunity criminalize them, the temptation to use that database becomes irresistible.

We have an NSA and an intelligence community that has captured the telephone calls, webcam video images, email,etc from hundreds of millions of people. If I had made that statement 2 years ago, the same "reasonable" people in these forums would be calling me crazy. How big does the writing on the wall have to be?

Do you really think that the NICS database is uniquely off limits (and even if it is, do you think they comply?).

RPRNY
February 27, 2014, 05:06 PM
rdhood,

While I don't disagree with your sentiments in the least, you should be aware that CT is a Point of Contact State within the NICS system. While Fed law requires (not arguing execution) that the NICS database be purged of checks within 72 hrs, CT as a POC has no such purge requirement of its own database. Therefore, not only do they have NICS check data on file but they in effect have de facto registration of all firearms transferred via FFL within the State. As the State Police control that database, the Governor's police force has the details of several hundred thousand "assault weapon" transfers. Very scary. But, they have no way of knowing if those firearms are still owned by the receivers. So, do the Courts grant warrants based on this information or not?

My thought is that the Attorney General will pick some unsavory characters from among the incomplete registration pool (they had possession at the time the law went into effect) and prosecute them hard hoping that a subsequent "amnesty" registration draws the sheeple in.

Mass civil disobedience is the most effective thing CT residents can do between now and the next elections.

rdhood
February 27, 2014, 05:19 PM
you should be aware that CT is a Point of Contact State within the NICS system.

Interesting. I stand kind-of corrected. But they are still using the NICS system to create their registration list. Virtually everything still applies, except that the anti's don't even need the actual NICS database! THUS:

In states like CT, 4473/NICS background check IS defacto registration for law-abiding gun owners. No tin foil needed.

THUS: anyone who states that a future UBC is "reasonable" and is NOT defacto registration pulling one over on you. One need merely look to the "point of contact states" in the NICS system to see that information can be legally retained and a database can be legally created.

NavyLCDR
February 27, 2014, 05:30 PM
So nobody has even verified if the letter is real or not or if a single person has received the letter? I vote it's fake:

http://www.gundigest.com/firearm-gun-industry-news/ct-assault-weapons-letter-hoax

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?120571-CT-confiscation-letters-none-actually-sent-out-by-DESPP&p=2039889#post2039889

SilentStalker
February 27, 2014, 05:52 PM
^^^So, you believe the very people that are either coming up with the legislation or enforcing it? Really? In the one link you posted, a guy supposedly called the DESPP to verify its legitimacy and they told him that they don't know of any such letter and you believe them? I mean I am not saying it isn't a fake, but I would not be so quick to believe it is either. To me, its crazy to put so much trust into any government organization at all. Or, for that matter, some random member of a board that supposedly called and found out its fake? How do you know the guy on the board is telling the truth? How do you know that someone at the DESPP just doesn't know about the letters? Could be a lack of communication within the department. If you don't question things, then IMO, you aren't thinking.

Midwest
February 27, 2014, 05:58 PM
They are saying that the letter "could have" been sent by an employee without authorization.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?120571-CT-confiscation-letters-none-actually-sent-out-by-DESPP&p=2039889#post2039889

"I guess its possible that the letters are a hoax....or a letter was sent out into the public domain by a DESPP employee w/o authorization. "

Hoax, or semi hoax (letter sent without authorization) we need to find out if the letter is real or in fact bogus. If it is bogus, then I suggest closing this thread. But until it is confirmed as bogus, could we leave this thread open until we get to the bottom of this?

Thanks......

SilentStalker
February 27, 2014, 06:04 PM
^^^My point is, "How are you going to find out if its indeed a hoax or not?" Are you going to believe a representative from that organization? How do you know they aren't lying? it happens all of the time. I am just saying...

larryh1108
February 27, 2014, 07:40 PM
I think there are enough members of this forum who live in CT that if these letters were sent out, somebody would have mentioned it here. The date of the letter is suspicious. There wasn't enough time from the close of the registration, including the holiday, to figure out who was compliant and who wasn't. If the letter was dated 1/15 or 1/30, then maybe it could be legit. However, 1/2? No way possible. I'd say it was some creative photoshopping created to stir up a hornet's nest.

Midwest
February 27, 2014, 07:45 PM
^^^My point is, "How are you going to find out if its indeed a hoax or not?" Are you going to believe a representative from that organization? How do you know they aren't lying? it happens all of the time. I am just saying...
I don't know, 2 pro-gun sites have alleged this. For all we know the CT officials could be denying the issuance of the letter (even though they sent it) in order to stir things up. We don't know the facts yet surrounding the letter. What does GOA and the NRA have to say about the allegation that the letter is bogus? Maybe we will know more in a day or two.

I found out about it through the GOA alerts which linked it to ammoland's site.

Now this is interesting, on Ammoland's site it says "Editors Note: We were forwarded this letter image from an unknown source and have not received any confirmation from CSP on this document but have posted it here as part of the discovery process."



Now, looking down into the comments section on Ammoland we get this interesting comment:

"DRoberts on February 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM said:
Lt Paul Vance, Spokesperson for the Connecticut State Police ADMITTED in a recorded phone call that the letter IS AUTHENTIC!"

So what is it? Real or bogus? Someone needs to confirm the last comment.

.

kevinakaq
February 27, 2014, 08:28 PM
Updated on the blaze -

UPDATE: A spokesperson with the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection told TheBlaze that a letter has been drafted to send to gun owners who are found to be in possession of unregistered semi-automatic rifles deemed illegal by the state’s new gun control law. However, “not a one” letter has been sent out so far.

The spokesperson, who didn’t want to identify herself, refused to comment on the content of the draft letter. When we asked what other action the state plans to take against owners of unregistered so-called “assault rifles, the spokesperson said we should contact the governor’s office because that’s where they get their orders from.

It’s not clear if the letter published by the Capitalism Institute is authentic, though we can confirm a draft letter does exist.




Sounds to me like this may be an internal leak to judge public response before sending out.....

tarosean
February 27, 2014, 09:18 PM
Interesting. I stand kind-of corrected. But they are still using the NICS system to create their registration list. Virtually everything still applies, except that the anti's don't even need the actual NICS database!

Unless CT is different the only thing sent is

LONG GUN
HANDGUN
OTHER

In addition, CT might have specific laws for LEO, ETC. that require specific warrants to access bound books or 4473's..

larryh1108
February 27, 2014, 09:57 PM
CT is different. They have their own form and don't run an NICS check if you have a pistol permit or permit to own. They also require form DPS-3-C for all transfers, FFL and private:

http://www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/special_licensing_and_firearms/dps-3-c.pdf

So, CT has a form on file, already, from transfers from the past. NICS is a non-issue. I'm sure this information is in a searchable database already. Why wouldn't it be? It's just data. Once they have the data entered from the recent "registration", all they need to do is run a "compare" by permit# and viola! A list of purchased firearms versus a list of registered firearms. Yes, many have been sold, lost, stolen or destroyed but they have a list to start with.

DaBruins
February 27, 2014, 10:03 PM
Unless CT is different the only thing sent is....

CT is different. There is a state form (DPS-3-C) that contains the make, model, and serial number of every firearm sold or transferred in CT. A copy is retained by the ffl, a copy goes to the buyer, a copy goes to the police department where the buyer resides, and a copy goes to the state police. Also, the state law requires that these records are to be kept permanently, unlike the federal regulations that require the purging of records after 72 hours.

SilentStalker
February 27, 2014, 10:17 PM
^^^^if that is true then how come someone has not pursued something against the state then? I am pretty sure federal law prohibits, on paper anyways, a registry to exist. That's why the records are supposed to be destroyed after so many years. Otherwise, the ATF would already have a huge list somewhere of who bought what. Any such registration is supposedly against federal law! So, how is it CT gets away with having a defacto gun registration? The only thing they would not know is if someone still had the weapon at least in my state in state face to face transfers do not have to go through an FFL. I don't but we need to be fighting every bit of this. No matter if the letter is legit or not this is bad legislation that is blatantly against the 2nd.

tarosean
February 27, 2014, 10:22 PM
CT is different. There is a state form (DPS-3-C) that contains the make, model, and serial number of every firearm sold or transferred in CT. A copy is retained by the ffl, a copy goes to the buyer, a copy goes to the police department where the buyer resides, and a copy goes to the state police.

Thanks for the info....

larryh1108
February 27, 2014, 10:33 PM
As far as I know, many states have their own laws regulating firearms. In NYS, you cannot pick up your pistol at your FFL until that specific handgun is listed on your permit. Many states bypass a NICS check if you are a valid permit holder. CA, NJ and many others have had a form of registration in place for many years. How did law enforcement and NG confiscate the guns during the Katrina disaster? You'd be surprised at how many states already have a form of registration.

I do not know of any federal law that prohibits and state from creating a registration. The NICS is supposed to be deleted but that is a federal form, not a state form.

kevinakaq
February 27, 2014, 10:39 PM
Everthing is ok not to worry....this is all being done by 'the department of public safety'....

I feel better already.

I can see the pool notice coming soon.

You have thirty days to either
1. Fill your pool with concrete.
2. Send your children to another state where pools that are deeper than two inches are legal.
3. Surrender your pool for Sunday barbeques by your local law enforcement.

Im getting warm and fuzzy already knowing my well being is so closely looked after.

NavyLCDR
February 27, 2014, 10:54 PM
^^^So, you believe the very people that are either coming up with the legislation or enforcing it? Really? In the one link you posted, a guy supposedly called the DESPP to verify its legitimacy and they told him that they don't know of any such letter and you believe them? I mean I am not saying it isn't a fake, but I would not be so quick to believe it is either. To me, its crazy to put so much trust into any government organization at all. Or, for that matter, some random member of a board that supposedly called and found out its fake? How do you know the guy on the board is telling the truth? How do you know that someone at the DESPP just doesn't know about the letters? Could be a lack of communication within the department. If you don't question things, then IMO, you aren't thinking.
One thing that I have discovered is that a rather high percentage of the pro-gun side can become just as emotionally spooled up over things as the anti-gun groups do - without any factual basis. To my knowledge not a single person has come forward saying, "I got one of these letters...."

RPRNY
February 28, 2014, 12:04 AM
^^^^if that is true then how come someone has not pursued something against the state then? I am pretty sure federal law prohibits, on paper anyways, a registry to exist. That's why the records are supposed to be destroyed after so many years. Otherwise, the ATF would already have a huge list somewhere of who bought what. Any such registration is supposedly against federal law! So, how is it CT gets away with having a defacto gun registration? The only thing they would not know is if someone still had the weapon at least in my state in state face to face transfers do not have to go through an FFL. I don't but we need to be fighting every bit of this. No matter if the letter is legit or not this is bad legislation that is blatantly against the 2nd.


Federal Law prohibits a federal register. It does not prohibit state registers. MA requires that every firearm be registered. Somehow, some agency has successfully argued that this does not violate 2A. I do not know the case law on this issue.

Drail
February 28, 2014, 12:51 AM
I would love to see several hundred thousand CT gun owners line up in front of the State capitol with their arms stretched forward chanting "arrest me". What're they gonna do? Didn't they swear an oath to uphold their laws?

Midwest
February 28, 2014, 05:42 AM
Confiscation without compensation is closer than you think. This is already happening just north of the border in Canada. Swiss rifles worth up to $4,000 and sold in Canada for over a decade are suddenly under the prohibited class and subject to surrender to the government without compensation. https://nfa.ca/news/swiss-arms-confiscated (We already have a separate thread on it).

How are they going to find all the rifles there? Simple, the rifles were already registered and the gun owners are licensed.

Edster12
February 28, 2014, 07:17 AM
Federal Law prohibits a federal register. It does not prohibit state registers. MA requires that every firearm be registered. Somehow, some agency has successfully argued that this does not violate 2A. I do not know the case law on this issue.

In MA your FOID card or what ever they are calling it now is also tied to your drivers license. So on a normal vehicle stop the officer inputs your DL and not only does your driving record come up but EVERY SINGLE FIREARMyou have ever Registered in the State of MA. This also includes ones that you no longer own.

Willie Sutton
February 28, 2014, 07:43 AM
^^ New Jersey has a similar scheme. I'm not sure that it's tied directly to the drivers license, but when I went to change my address on my NJ FID, the police dispacher brought up a screen on her computer that had every rifle, shotgun, and handgun that I had ever bought from a FFL on the screen, as well as every handgun I had bought as a private purchase using a NJ Pistol Permit, back to when I was 18. There were guns on there that I barely remembered, ones I sold back in college. And all of this was accessable to the police dispacher within seconds...... The only guns not listed were rifles and shotguns bought face to face in NJ back when we just showed the FID and did business. The interesting thing is that none of them were removed from my record when they were sold back to FL's in NJ or sold in private sales to others on pistol permits. The database seems to be one that is not correlated when items are resold. I'm sure the same guns are often listed for several different people. But the point is that registration is absolute in NJ. The interesting thing to me is that there were a dozen rifles on my list that are now illegal under the assault rifle ban laws dating back 20+ years. AK's, FAL's, AUG, Galil, Uzi, BM-59, KG-9, etc., etc., etc..... The dispacher looked them all over and never said a word.... (not that they were not removed from NJ long ago).


The bottom line is that they've not come for them because they didn't feel like it, not because they don't know where they are (or more correctly, "were").

What's happening in CT now is, by the way, *exactly* what happened in NJ when they banned "assault rifles". Basically nobody complied, nobody registered anything, and no raids were conducted. But even now, every now and then, a domestic case brings in the cops, they find a FAL or something, and a guy goes away. One by one.... without any publicity.... off..... to............ jail......



I'm so glad to be outta there.


Willie

.

PabloJ
February 28, 2014, 08:19 AM
Ideal outcome would be for citizens of CT not to comply en masse. As punishment those who thought out those laws should be made to collect assault rifles and high capacity from door to door...... I'm sick and tired of stupid laws that do not help us.

alsaqr
February 28, 2014, 10:11 AM
I think there are enough members of this forum who live in CT that if these letters were sent out, somebody would have mentioned it here. The date of the letter is suspicious. There wasn't enough time from the close of the registration, including the holiday, to figure out who was compliant and who wasn't. If the letter was dated 1/15 or 1/30, then maybe it could be legit. However, 1/2? No way possible. I'd say it was some creative photoshopping created to stir up a hornet's nest.

Thank you, larryh1108.

i'm not believing this one until a gunowner from CT who received such a letter confirms same.

steve4102
February 28, 2014, 10:21 AM
Interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxjuz2o9Gk

yzguy87
February 28, 2014, 10:29 AM
As its been said before many times, I hope there's mass disobedience to this nonsense. Too many gun owners have already complied with unlawful laws (irony at its best), I just hope the folks in Ct. stand up to this nonsense and resist it.

steve4102
February 28, 2014, 11:11 AM
I just hope the folks in Ct. stand up to this nonsense and resist it.

The big question for me is, who? Who do you wish to stand up here? In 2008 CT voted almost 70% Obama, that a very large % of citizens that seem to agree with this type of Legislation. Looking at the States voting history, it appears that an over whelming majority of CT is on board with this. Who are we "outsiders" to say they cannot have and should fight against the very laws they voted for?

Carl N. Brown
February 28, 2014, 11:16 AM
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/connecticut-closer-to-confiscation-of-guns-magazines/ct-assualt-weapon-letter/
[draft] 2 Jan 2014 Connecticut State Police Assault Weapon Destruction Letter
Published on Tuesday, February 25, 2014

13 Feb 2014 the Governor's Office instructed DESPP "may choose to accept applications received after January 1, 2014, if the department has reason to believe that an applicant complied with the terms of the Act by attempting to submit the application on or before January 1, 2014, even if the application was not received by DESPP due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control,"
http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/lib/malloy/2014.02.13_bronin_ltr_to_schriro.pdf

Governor Malloy’s General Counsel Luke Bronin: "For example, if an application to register a weapon was signed and notarized on or before January 1, 2014, or an application to register a high capacity magazine was signed and accompanied by an affidavit that was dated on or before such date, the department may treat such applications as timely submissions. Similarly, if the department has reason to believe that an application was deposited in a mailbox or at a post office on December 31, 2013, but the post office closed early or did not collect the deposited mail that day, then that application may be deemed a timely submission."
http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?A=4010&Q=539940

Would such instruction be necessary if the DESPP were not intending to refuse to recognize applications received after 1 Jan even if mailed before or on 1 Jan?

http://www.journalinquirer.com/politics_and_government/one-more-chance-for-gun-owners/article_2d8f816a-9d93-11e3-b18e-0019bb2963f4.html
http://www.gundigest.com/firearm-gun-industry-news/ct-assault-weapons-letter-hoax
"CT “Assault Weapon” Letter Developments", By: Gun Digest Editors, February 26, 2014.

Gun Digest:

A letter was released earlier this week, purporting to be the one the Connecticut State Police will send to the tardy gun registrants.
The validity of the letter at one point was called into question when Gun Digest contacted the Connecticut’s Special Licensing and Firearms Unit. A spokesperson for the department said no such letter had been sent from their office.
Ed Jacvino, however, shines some light on what the letter might be that hit the Internet.
The Journal Inquirer reporter who wrote the article documenting the state’s plans couldn’t vouch for the authenticity of the letter. But he believes it might be an early draft of what gun owners will receive. And he is certain the language to sell, destroy or move out of state the firearms and magazines in question in the letter is accurate.

Ed Jacvino to Gun Digest:

I have a feeling that you’re looking at a draft of the letter that was going to be released before they reached an administrative decision to extend the deadline.
I don’t know if a letter has been finalized yet. I was told last week that it wasn’t finished. But I imagine whatever they do send will be similar.
The sell, destroy or move out of state language is accurate, and I’m told that’s what it will say.
The letter wouldn’t be dated Jan. 2 though. And it might include some explanation of the changes they made (namely accepting applications after Jan. 1 if they were signed and notarized by Dec. 31 and postmarked by Jan. 4).

NavyLCDR
February 28, 2014, 11:45 AM
The big question for me is, who? Who do you wish to stand up here? In 2008 CT voted almost 70% Obama, that a very large % of citizens that seem to agree with this type of Legislation. Looking at the States voting history, it appears that an over whelming majority of CT is on board with this. Who are we "outsiders" to say they cannot have and should fight against the very laws they voted for?

Just because the majority passes a law does not means it isn't unconstitutional. The US Constitution is supposed to be the supreme and final law of the land. Not that it is in reality....but it is supposed to be.

steve4102
February 28, 2014, 11:52 AM
Just because the majority passes a law does not means it isn't unconstitutional. The US Constitution is supposed to be the supreme and final law of the land. Not that it is in reality....but it is supposed to be.

No, but as for now, no court has ruled it Unconstitutional so it is indeed Constitutional and it is indeed what the majority of CT wishes.

Protesting and rallying is not going to change the Law. Only money and the Legal system can do that. No judge is going to rule based on how many protesters showed up at a rally. The time for rallies is before these laws get passed, not after. Did we see any rallies in CT before?

BTW, how many gun owners in CT and how many NRA members live in CT? Just curious.

Devonai
February 28, 2014, 12:19 PM
Did we see any rallies in CT before?

Many, here's just one of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjYr8YWZZac

steve4102
February 28, 2014, 12:26 PM
There ya go. Did it work? What makes anyone think another rally, after the fact, is going to accomplish anything?

Save you money, stay home, send all the money you would anticipate to spend on travel expenses and gas to these rallies and send it (+) to a 2nd Amendment Legal Defense Fund. Money and the Courts, it's the only way.

OH and Join the NRA!!!

pretzelxx
February 28, 2014, 12:27 PM
I don't know of anyone who has an assault weapon, or unless you have a 90+ round magazine, I don't feel it's a high capacity.

That's my interpretation of this letter, therefore I would toss it in the trash, it doesn't apply to myself.

CoalTrain49
February 28, 2014, 12:28 PM
I'm not understanding this new AWB.

If the weapon is illegal to have why would anyone that plans to keep one register it? That would make sure you are targeted by LEO for confiscation and arrest.

If you registered the weapon before the cut-off date would you be able to keep it? If not a registration makes absolutely no sense.

Devonai
February 28, 2014, 12:34 PM
There ya go. Did it work? What makes anyone think another rally, after the fact, is going to accomplish anything?

I would have been content to answer your question in the simplest terms possible. You said:

The time for rallies is before these laws get passed.

So I showed you that we did have prior rallies.

yzguy87
February 28, 2014, 12:37 PM
Does a court have to rule a law unconstitutional before it actually is recognized as such? If so, that's a giant load of crap. Although I wouldn't be surprised.

As for who I'd like to see stand up to this unconstitutional legislation, the gun owners of Ct. If one man or woman doesn't comply with the law then that's an easy "problem" for currupt officials to take care of. If you have thousands of people that wont comply, well then, that is a force to be reckoned with.

Sam1911
February 28, 2014, 01:08 PM
Does a court have to rule a law unconstitutional before it actually is recognized as such? If so, that's a giant load of crap. Although I wouldn't be surprised.

That's pretty much the case. The Constitution provided for a system of courts, the highest of which has the power to determine whether a law does in fact violate the Constitution or not. We can say we FEEL that a law is unConstitutional based on our layman's understanding of the Constitution and the law in question, but the only way to know for sure if there is a conflict is to ask the body empowered to say definitively yes or no.

Us saying that something is unConstitutional is a bit like us saying "this tastes bad." It doesn't make any difference or have any meaning beyond personal preference.

Frank Ettin
February 28, 2014, 01:15 PM
Does a court have to rule a law unconstitutional before it actually is recognized as such? If so, that's a giant load of crap. Although I wouldn't be surprised.

That's pretty much the case....

Us saying that something is unConstitutional is a bit like us saying "this tastes bad." It doesn't make any difference or have any meaning beyond personal preference.And a court with the jurisdiction to do so saying that a law is unconstitutional is the only thing that will keep the law from being applied.

You might think that the law you're in jail for violating was unconstitutional, but since the court didn't agree you're sill in jail.

armoredman
February 28, 2014, 01:25 PM
The US Constitution is supposed to be the supreme and final law of the land.
Unless overriding it can stop "violence", as the 9th said today about school kids being banned from wearing American flag t-shirts during foreign holidays. Even though the 9th is a long ways from Conn, I could see this decision being used as a basis for beginning suits to destroy the 2A even faster as a way to "avoid violence". Of course, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

CoalTrain49
February 28, 2014, 05:05 PM
This whole thing reminds me of a situation we had where I live. A road was closed for construction and an 8 mile detour was established. People found another 1/4 mile detour on a public road and began to use it. Someone along the 1/4 mile detour complained about the traffic and it was barricaded. People removed the barricades and drove on it anyway. I was one of them. A cop caught my neighbor using it and gave him a $120 ticket. He got in an argument with the cop and told him he was driving on it every time he needed to and he would have to arrest him to get him to stop. The closure was so ridiculous that the judge threw out over 100 tickets and told the cop he would throw them all out no matter how many he wrote. Miraculously, the barricade disappeared. True story.

Sometimes you just have to put your faith in the courts and hope they see it your way.

I can see some wealthy individual with plenty of time and money running the course on this one. The 2nd district court might look at VT who is also in that district and decide it's a little extreme.

SilentStalker
February 28, 2014, 05:09 PM
^^^That's a nice story but that is not going to happen in CT where the system is full of anti's.

JSH1
February 28, 2014, 09:43 PM
I'm not understanding this new AWB.

If the weapon is illegal to have why would anyone that plans to keep one register it? That would make sure you are targeted by LEO for confiscation and arrest.

If you registered the weapon before the cut-off date would you be able to keep it? If not a registration makes absolutely no sense.

The ban applies to sales of new guns. Current owners can keep legally keep their guns as long as they register those weapons. It is a now a felony to be in possession of any gun classified in CT as an assault rifle that has not been registered.

EDIT: BTW, my vote is that this letter is bogus. Looks to much like the ridiculous urban legend emails I get forwarded by friends.

basicblur
February 28, 2014, 10:46 PM
The Kelly Files on FOX News was running promos for a segment on this on her Friday night show, but she was not the host and the story did not run.
Maybe at a later date?

I'm sure there will be lots of stories on this in the future if it does not go well.

JRH6856
February 28, 2014, 11:55 PM
The ban applies to sales of new guns. Current owners can keep legally keep their guns for the time being as long as they register those weapons. It is a now a felony to be in possession of any gun classified in CT as an assault rifle that has not been registered.

There, fixed it for you.

JSH1
March 1, 2014, 08:42 AM
JRH6856: You could have at least fixed my typo :)

I answered a question about the current law. Speculation about what will happen in the future is just that, speculation.

CoalTrain49
March 1, 2014, 09:28 AM
The ban applies to sales of new guns. Current owners can legally keep their guns as long as they register those weapons. It is a now a felony to be in possession of any gun classified in CT as an assault rifle that has not been registered.

EDIT: BTW, my vote is that this letter is bogus. Looks to much like the ridiculous urban legend emails I get forwarded by friends.

If this is indeed the case that needs to be in the code. WA is taking steps to make sure that happens and I believe it will. If CT won't pass something like this they plan on taking every one of those weapons sooner or later.

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_471.pdf

larryh1108
March 1, 2014, 09:37 AM
As a resident of CT, I'm going to play devil's advocate.

The state makes a list of people who were known to purchase an evil rifle but didn't register (reregister?) it. These people are fed into a database somewhere as "suspected" violators of the registration laws. (Yes, these people could have sold their gun, lost it in a boating accident, etc., but their name is on this list.)

So, Gunowner Sam is stopped for running a yellow light. All stops are run thru whatever databases are available and it's found that he MAY have an unregistered AR. The officers are instructed to search the vehicle (probable cause?) for any illegal weapons. They find a mag with 15 rounds in it (never "registered" mag). If Sam didn't register his AR, I doubt he registered his "hi-cap" mags. So, they get a search warrant for his residence (probable cause?) and find his "cache" of "illegal", unregistered "assault weapons" and hundreds of "illegal" "hi-capacity" magazines. They also find a "cache" of ammo totalling over 20K rounds.

So, Gunowner Sam is villified on the local 6:00 news and shown as a "gun nut" who has an "arsenal" of illegal weapons and enough ammo to raid a small country. He is brought up on charges, 1 for each unregistered evil rifle and 1 for each hi-cap mag and faces 200 years in prison. This is plastered all over the media to show the other "resistant" "civil disobedient" felons how it works.

So, Sam is pulled over for running a yellow light and is charged with multiple felonies and faces losing his rights to own as well as all of his assets, to defend himself, and all of his weapons and ammo are seized, all because he wanted to stick it to "the man". Do you think this is hyperbole or is it very possible? No one went door-to-door to confiscate anything. It started with an innocent traffic stop and a database. The govenor wants to send a message.

Think this can't happen?
Really?

JSH1
March 1, 2014, 09:59 AM
If this is indeed the case that needs to be in the code.
It is the case and it is written in the law.

So, Sam is pulled over for running a yellow light and is charged with multiple felonies and faces losing his rights to own as well as all of his assets, to defend himself, and all of his weapons and ammo are seized, all because he wanted to stick it to "the man". Do you think this is hyperbole or is it very possible? No one went door-to-door to confiscate anything. It started with an innocent traffic stop and a database. The govenor wants to send a message.

Think this can't happen?

Of course it can happen. That is why gunowner Sam should register his gun and magazines instead of trying to "stick it to the man".

larryh1108
March 1, 2014, 10:27 AM
Of course it can happen. That is why gunowner Sam should register his gun and magazines instead of trying to "stick it to the man".

Totally agree. However, they say maybe 15% complied with the registration. That is being hailed by the gun community as a non-violent protest, which it is. The 85% who are proud of themselves cannot carry a "hi-cap" mag outside the house, cannot go shoot their "assault rifles" and risk losing everything they own and their right to have guns if they get caught. Is it worth it?

The best way to fight is thru the voting booth and courts. More time consuming but legal and it keeps you out of harm's way. If nothing good comes of it then moving is another choice. How many will lose everything before the rest cry for amnesty? Does anybody here think that such a non-compliant rate will make the govenor say "well, shoot, that didn't work. Let's change it back."? I'd bet he will say "let them fight. We'll make them pay and use them as an example. The people will beg for amnesty and we'll just make them pay with even more restrictions to allow amnesty. They will learn who runs this state".

It's basically what he said after they jammed this thru in "emergency legislation". They want control and power and it is out of control. The northeast is a blue area that has been for generations. Their arrogance drives their need for power.

wildbilll
March 1, 2014, 10:45 AM
The letter is probably not fake, just a exemplar drafted to allow for ideas on how to proceed. Someone leaked it.

I think the solution isn't to bunker down and hide these guns.
A mass civil disobedience/demonstration is called for.
Imagine hundreds if not thousands of people marching while bearing these common use firearms.
What would the system do?

JRH6856
March 1, 2014, 10:50 AM
JRH6856: You could have at least fixed my typo :)

I make too many of my own to be worried about anyone elses. ;)

I answered a question about the current law. Speculation about what will happen in the future is just that, speculation.

It is speculation. But speculation taking history into account can lead to a fairly safe assumption. :scrutiny:

JRH6856
March 1, 2014, 11:01 AM
Totally agree. However, they say maybe 15% complied with the registration. That is being hailed by the gun community as a non-violent protest, which it is. The 85% who are proud of themselves cannot carry a "hi-cap" mag outside the house, cannot go shoot their "assault rifles" and risk losing everything they own and their right to have guns if they get caught. Is it worth it?

I saw an article with an estimate that that 85% could represent as many as 300,000 gun owners. I don't have the numbers handy but the article points out that the state currently does not have the prison facilities to house a tenth of that number and putting them all in prison would simply bankrupt the state several times over. So the question is indeed, "Is it worth it?"

JSH1
March 1, 2014, 01:01 PM
I saw an article with an estimate that that 85% could represent as many as 300,000 gun owners. I don't have the numbers handy but the article points out that the state currently does not have the prison facilities to house a tenth of that number and putting them all in prison would simply bankrupt the state several times over. So the question is indeed, "Is it worth it?"

They don't have to lock up 300K people. They simply need a few well publicized arrests and convictions and the vast majority of those people will register. Just sending a letter will get a lot of people to register. I'm sure a good number of the people that have not registered are not trying to protest but simply don't know they need to register. I know a lot of people that don't watch or read the news in any form.

steve4102
March 1, 2014, 01:06 PM
You are assuming that these so called "protesters" will be sent to prison. The goal of the CT citizens and the Legislators is not to imprison, but to disarm.

Prosecute, convict, strip away 2nd Amendment rights then send them home a "prohibited person".

While this is going on on the surface, Holder and Company are working to get Convicted Felons voting rights restored. This will ensure that the Socialists in CT that have lost their Right to Keep and Bear Arms are still able to vote and maintain the Socialist status quo in CT.

Carl N. Brown
March 1, 2014, 01:09 PM
You can keep it if you register it.....for how long?

Folks in California who registered their SKS rifles were sent letters the state had a change of mind and they had to surrender their contraband rifle or prove they disposed of it out of state.

New York City did the same with their assault weapon ban following their assault weapon registration law. They waited a few years and then gave the registered owners basically the same list of options as the proposed Connecticut letter.

Crowcifier666
March 1, 2014, 01:15 PM
^ I agree with Carl. I bet if it was written in law that the registered rifles could be kept "FOR LIFE", a lot more people would have complied. It's so blatantly obvious where they are going with these ridiculous laws. The anti gun crowd/legislators are slowly chipping away at us. We need to fight it every step of the way.

yzguy87
March 1, 2014, 01:36 PM
Posts 90 and 99 are pretty darn accurate

armoredman
March 1, 2014, 04:48 PM
If the weapon is illegal to have why would anyone that plans to keep one register it? That would make sure you are targeted by LEO for confiscation and arrest.

If you registered the weapon before the cut-off date would you be able to keep it? If not a registration makes absolutely no sense.
Ask the Canadians - they had MASSIVE non compliance with the long gun registry, which was ultimately defeated and dismantled. Now look as the RCMP arbitrarily decided the Sig Practical Green rifle is now "prohibited" after being legally sold in Canada for 10 years. What's so ironic is all those Canadians who registered their Sigs like good serfs while the registry was still going on are going to have these $3,000 rifles taken with no compensation. Those who didn't register them will not.
Any law abiding gun owner who thinks registration is a good thing has his/her head in the sand and refuses to understand history.

9w1911
March 1, 2014, 05:50 PM
we need to refer hi cap magazines as 30 round standard capacity, and a 10 round mag as diminished capacity

JSH1
March 1, 2014, 06:10 PM
Ask the Canadians - they had MASSIVE non compliance with the long gun registry, which was ultimately defeated and dismantled. Now look as the RCMP arbitrarily decided the Sig Practical Green rifle is now "prohibited" after being legally sold in Canada for 10 years. What's so ironic is all those Canadians who registered their Sigs like good serfs while the registry was still going on are going to have these $3,000 rifles taken with no compensation. Those who didn't register them will not.
Any law abiding gun owner who thinks registration is a good thing has his/her head in the sand and refuses to understand history.

I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

Why would a law abiding gun owner care about a registry? If a gun was banned, a law abiding gun owner would get rid of that gun. If they don't, they are no longer a law abiding person. Politicians don't need a registry to ban a weapon.

To use the example above. What are the Canadians that did not register their Sig and decide to keep it actually going to do with that gun. They can't use it public.

Matt Dillon
March 1, 2014, 06:20 PM
Jsh1:
You can go ahead and register your guns; for me, I don't trust ANY government agency; if you didn't learn from Nazi history regarding gun registration you will be destined to see history repeated. I guess you also probably believe "If you like your weapons, you can keep your weapons".

Midwest
March 1, 2014, 06:31 PM
I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing.


Would you feel the same if you lived in Australia and the government decided that your firearms which were handed down to to you from your dad or grandparents, or were priceless collectables must now be confiscated by the government and sent to be destroyed? That would ok with you?

.

Mainsail
March 1, 2014, 06:48 PM
I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

Yet.

Read THIS (http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html) for a real history lesson. If you don't think the registry was put in place for later confiscation, you're either shortsighted or a complete fool. A registry serves no other purpose. Learn history or repeat it.

armoredman
March 1, 2014, 06:52 PM
I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way yet.
Fixed it for ya.;)
The Jews of the Wiemar Republic also didn't think registering guns was such a bad idea either.
If you think registration is OK, because "that's the way it's always been", fine for you - I am a citizen of Free Arizona, where we KNOW it's no business of the government what lawfully purchased Constitutionally protected items I may or may not own at this time. Or should I register my printer, because it's protected under the 1A? Think before you answer that one, as flyers, leaflets and bills have been the people's way of protesting for centuries, and printing presses have been restricted in the past. Is it OK, then?
So you register your guns. Tomorrow half of them are declared illegal, and you turn them in. The next day the other half are declared illegal - you will hand all of them in as well, right?
If a gun was banned, a law abiding gun owner would get rid of that gun.
Exactly what good is a right if you won't do anything to defend it?

I'm calling troll or Fudd.

JRH6856
March 1, 2014, 07:01 PM
Why would a law abiding gun owner care about a registry? If a gun was banned, a law abiding gun owner would get rid of that gun. If they don't, they are no longer a law abiding person.

:banghead:

There is "law-abiding" and there is "law-abiding". A lot of law-abiding Germans went to concentration camps because the law said to and they obeyed. A lot of other Germans went on trial at Nuremberg for sending them there because they too obeyed the law and followed orders. History has pretty much determined that neither group should have been so law-abiding.

NavyLCDR
March 1, 2014, 08:12 PM
I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

How about if you show us how the handgun registry has benefited anyone other than the government? How about all the tax dollars being wasted on the resources that you (nor anyone else except the government) receives any benefit from, doesn't that harm you and your fellow taxpayers? :banghead:

Midwest
March 1, 2014, 08:56 PM
I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

It sounds like you are from New Jersey. So handgun registration is a good thing in NJ? I guess you haven't heard the latest from that state. And if you are not from New Jersey, but some other state that has a handgun registry since 1927.... This still makes interesting reading anyway...


http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/66557-weinberg-writes-the-ag-to-activate-the-smart-gun-law/


Now the 'smart gun law' which was signed into law in 2002 didn't take effect UNTIL a smart gun was actually here. Guess what? It is here and come 2017, only smart guns can be sold in the state.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/23/us/new-jersey-smart-gun-law/

"The New Jersey law is the only one of its kind in the United States. It requires that within three years of the technology being available, only smart guns be sold in the state."

So what will happen to non smart guns in NJ? Well since 'dumb guns' cannot be sold after 2017, they could be confiscated as contraband. (I mean how else can you sell them or get rid of them then? Will New Jersey reimburse gun owners if there were mandatory turn ins? Read below and then read the entire text below.)

"no person ....shall sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a personalized handgun"

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM


" It is within the public interest, and vital to the safety of our families and children, for New Jersey to take the bold and innovative step of fostering the development of personalized handguns by firearms manufacturers. To accomplish this objective, the Legislature determines that it should enact legislation designed to further enhance firearms safety by requiring that, within a specified period of time after the date on which these new personalized handguns are deemed to be available for retail sales purposes, no other type of handgun shall be sold or offered for sale by any registered or licensed firearms dealer in this State."

Isn't this all nice warm and fuzzy?

"C.2C:58-2.5 Sale of personalized handguns, inapplicability.

4. a. On and after the first day of the sixth month following the preparation and delivery of the list of personalized handguns which may be sold in the State pursuant to section 3 of P.L.2002, c.130 (C.2C:58-2.4), no person registered or licensed by the superintendent as a manufacturer, wholesale dealer of firearms, retail dealer of firearms or agent or employee of a wholesale or retail dealer of firearms pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:58-1 or N.J.S.2C:58-2 shall transport into this State, sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a personalized handgun or an antique handgun."

So with New Jersey's handgun registry, the state will know where to go to get the contraband firearms (non smart guns) when that day comes. And believe me, that state is infested with the absolute worst anti-gunners in the country. There is even a leader of a faith based organization calling law abiding gun owners "terrorists". http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/66326-nobody-needs-a-15-round-ammunition-magazine-unless-they-are-a-domestic-terrorist-or-a-gangster/

You still think gun registration a good idea?

.

JRH6856
March 1, 2014, 09:13 PM
no person registered or licensed by the superintendent as a manufacturer, wholesale dealer of firearms, retail dealer of firearms or agent or employee of a wholesale or retail dealer of firearms

Well, the law only applies to dealers, not law-abiding citizens. :rolleyes:

Carl N. Brown
March 1, 2014, 09:29 PM
That registry has not harmed me in any way.

In 1983 New Zealand police successfully lobbied the abandonment of the NZ rifle registry because it diverted resources that could be better used on other law enforcement activities. If gun registries represent resources that could be used to better effect, that indicates that they are useless, wasteful and harmful.

If they don't, they are no longer a law abiding person.

Call me a scofflaw then. Or a scoffer at bad law, at unconstitutional law, or at law that does more harm than good. Momma's folks came from coal mining country where the law was corrupt and unjust. Essentially there law abiding meant submitting or kowtowing to tyrants or profiting from the exploitation of miners.

Browns (Dad's family name) from Pennsylvania settled west of Baileyton in the 1780s and rumor has it there was something to do with whiskey and taxes for generations. Some laws worth respecting, some not so much.

In Jan and Dec 1943, Plecker who enforced the Virginia 1924 Racial Integrity Act sent letters to Virginia county officials declaring that the Collinses of Lee and Smyth Counties were not "white" or "indian" but were "colored" specifically Tennessee Melungeon, negroid mulatto mongrels polluting the white gene pool, and ordered birth and marriage records changed to "colored". Shortly thereafter my Great Grandma Maude Collins and Aunt Jimmie moved to Tennessee to join the rest of the family. Should they have stayed and abided by to a law just because it was a law? It was declared unconstitutional in 1969 by SCOTUS and repealed by VA legislature in 1975 but as far as I am concerned it deserved no respect while it was law.

In UCMJ class in the military we were told we had a duty to question orders that were contrary to the Constitution, regulations or the UCMJ, and there could be penalties for blindly obeying unlawful orders (see Nuremburg Trials). My brother-in-laws unit in VietNam refused an order that was simply unwise (a green Lt wanted ti waltz them into ambush) and in the end the Lt was disciplined.

To paraphrase Karl Hess, it would not be America if it did not produce at least a few people who question and refuse to obey laws that are utter nonsense.

JSH1
March 1, 2014, 09:31 PM
I see a lot of posts about how registration leads to confiscation. I've seen nothing on what one does with their banned gun. What use is it to have a gun you can't use. What if your AR-15 was banned completely with no grandfathering. There is no registry so no one can come to your door and confiscate it. What do you do with that gun that is now illegal and easy to identify as such?


To answer the other questions, no I'm not from New Jersey, and yes, I still think registries are a good idea. Registries could be used for enforcement after a ban. The key is to prevent the ban from happening in the first place.

goalie
March 1, 2014, 09:37 PM
I see a lot of posts about how registration leads to confiscation. I've seen nothing on what one does with their banned gun. What use is it to have a gun you can't use. What if your AR-15 was banned completely with no grandfathering. There is no registry so no one can come to your door and confiscate it. What do you do with that gun that is now illegal and easy to identify as such?


To answer the other questions, no I'm not from New Jersey, and yes, I still think registries are a good idea. Registries could be used for enforcement after a ban. The key is to prevent the ban from happening in the first place.

I am sure you can figure out a use for that AR if you watch the news........

JRH6856
March 1, 2014, 09:43 PM
Registries could be used for enforcement after a ban. The key is to prevent the ban from happening in the first place.

One way to keep a ban from happening is to stop the precursors. They know they really need a registry for effective confiscation, so keeping them from getting the registry is good strategy. Especally since effectuating confiscation is a registry's only useful purpose.

JSH1
March 1, 2014, 09:45 PM
I am sure you can figure out a use for that AR if you watch the news........

I watch, read, and listen to the news. However, I haven't seen anything about people using banned AR-15's. Please enlighten me.

NavyLCDR
March 1, 2014, 09:47 PM
yes, I still think registries are a good idea.

My challenge still stands - show us an example where a handgun registry has helped benefit anyone except for the government?

Registries could be used for enforcement after a ban. The key is to prevent the ban from happening in the first place.

So - let me get this straight - we are supposed to just nod in agreement with the government (and you) telling us that a firearms registry is good....oh, but wait, then stand up when the government wants to start using that registry to come for our guns? Umm....exactly what HARM is there in fighting the ban to begin with? You have failed to show us what good a firearms registry does for the citizen.

And let me ask you another question.... what other citizen's possessions do you think should be monitored by the government the same way that you think is as good as a firearms registry? Should the government monitor our internet posts/emails? How about our cell phone conversations/texts? How about GPS tracking in our vehicles? Why single out firearms for monitoring by the government?

george29
March 1, 2014, 09:51 PM
Vote with your feet. There are still places that are worthy of consideration, The Great Southwest and The American Redoubt.

JSH1
March 1, 2014, 10:09 PM
exactly what HARM is there in fighting the ban to begin with? You have failed to show us what good a firearms registry does for the citizen.

There is NO harm in fighting the ban to begin with. That is my point. I think CT's assault weapon ban is stupid and will be ineffective. The time to fight was before the ban. The citizens of CT can also fight this in court and at the ballot box. There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns. The law passed.

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

And let me ask you another question.... what other citizen's possessions do you think should be monitored by the government the same way that you think is as good as a firearms registry? Should the government monitor our internet posts/emails? How about our cell phone conversations/texts? How about GPS tracking in our vehicles? Why single out firearms for monitoring by the government?
You act as if all of the above isn't happening today and hasn't happened for years in the past. Our calls have been monitored since the telephone was invented and an operator listened on the line and connected the call. A purchase made on the internet is not more private than one made in a store. Our cell phones track our every position.

Superpsy
March 1, 2014, 10:49 PM
Groan.

george29
March 1, 2014, 10:54 PM
What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.
Where does government interference end, when they want to outlaw Wii?

george29
March 1, 2014, 10:55 PM
What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.
Where does government interference end, when they want to outlaw Wii?

NavyLCDR
March 1, 2014, 10:59 PM
There is NO harm in fighting the ban to begin with. That is my point.

Ooops, I misspoke. What I meant to type was what harm does it do to fight the REGISTRY to begin with. My mistake, mind moves faster than fingers.

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

Sure...that's what the government says. My challenge still stands: show us AN EXAMPLE where the handgun registry has benefited anyone other than the government - not what the theoretical and political claims are.

You act as if all of the above isn't happening today and hasn't happened for years in the past. Our calls have been monitored since the telephone was invented and an operator listened on the line and connected the call. A purchase made on the internet is not more private than one made in a store. Our cell phones track our every position.

Ahhh.... but here's the difference - if the government REQUIRED you BY LAW to provide all the information necessary for them to monitor your telephone and internet communications, than you would not have a problem with that, right? You would gladly sign a consent form for them to monitor your telephone and internet communications - because, after all, the government says it is necessary to do so for national security. It's for your own protection. After all, you have no problem consenting to them monitoring what guns you have - because the government tells you it is for your protection - oh....even better yet.... it's for the children at Sandy Hook Elementary.

JRH6856
March 1, 2014, 11:10 PM
What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

Can be? That is speculation. That it is a benefit is speculation as well. Show us the statistics of crimes solved or convictions gained because the police could trace a registered gun. That is, convictions not stemming from possession in and of itself. Compare that to the total number of registered firearms. Then we can assess what compelling interest the government might have in registering guns for aid in solving crimes.

Sam Cade
March 1, 2014, 11:29 PM
The time to fight was before the ban.
Really? :scrutiny:


Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?


What Hank said.

PavePusher
March 2, 2014, 12:23 AM
I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

Why would a law abiding gun owner care about a registry? If a gun was banned, a law abiding gun owner would get rid of that gun. If they don't, they are no longer a law abiding person. Politicians don't need a registry to ban a weapon.

To use the example above. What are the Canadians that did not register their Sig and decide to keep it actually going to do with that gun. They can't use it public.
Has it done any good? Solved any crimes? Prevented any crimes?

Why should we allow the government to make us outlaws?

Why do you think the State should be restricting people's Rights?

PavePusher
March 2, 2014, 12:26 AM
There is NO harm in fighting the ban to begin with. That is my point. I think CT's assault weapon ban is stupid and will be ineffective. The time to fight was before the ban. The citizens of CT can also fight this in court and at the ballot box. There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns. The law passed.

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.


You act as if all of the above isn't happening today and hasn't happened for years in the past. Our calls have been monitored since the telephone was invented and an operator listened on the line and connected the call. A purchase made on the internet is not more private than one made in a store. Our cell phones track our every position.
So, once the law is passed, we stop fighting it?

Seriously?

SuperNaut
March 2, 2014, 12:29 AM
Voltaire always had the right thing to say in these situations:

"Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them."

Which leads to:

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."

But then he smartly and sardonically tempers his idealism with pragmatism:

"I am very fond of truth, but not at all of martyrdom."

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 09:41 AM
PavePusher:
Why should we allow the government to make us outlaws?

Why do you think the State should be restricting people's Rights?

We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.

So, once the law is passed, we stop fighting it?

I didn't say that. I said: "There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns.".

steve4102
March 2, 2014, 10:20 AM
We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.


Well there are actually two "best ways", one is at the ballot box, and as almost 70% of CT voted and supports Obama, pretty much a none issue here.

The second is through the courts, this takes time and money. Now is the Time for the citizens of CT to start making large $donations$ or sit back and except what they have. Cuz as you say an overwhelming majority supports this law.

jerkface11
March 2, 2014, 10:24 AM
EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens
I don't care if every other person wants to oppress me I'm still not going to let them do it. We have the constitution to protect the minority from the majority.

danez71
March 2, 2014, 11:02 AM
We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.




Tell that to the people of NY in regards to the SAFE Act. Or better yet, you should better understand how the NY Govt ram-roded their own agenda down peoples throat.

Let me explain:
The NY Safe Act was passed with no hearings, no testimony, and no time for citizens to fight against it.

The New York State Constitution gives governors the ability to get a law passed as soon as enough legislators say yes (and before anyone else can oppose it) in 'emergency' cases.

After Sandy Hook, they called an emergency session and the SAFE Act was literally passed in the middle of the night.

Keep in mind, the New York Public Interest Research Group, pulled together a list of the 415 times a “message of necessity” has been used to pass something the state deemed an “emergency.”


Now take a look at this map to see how many NYS counties support it and how many don't.

http://scopeny.org/Counties_oppose_NYSAFE.html





What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

.

Well, for about the 4th time, please cite some examples.

Ive never heard the police say "as soon as we find the gun, will be able to catch the bad guy because we'll know who bought it"

Ive also never heard the police say "Dang it, we found a gun, but because we don't have a reqistry, its making it more difficult to find the shooter.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard a news story that said the police found the gun used in a murder and are looking for the owner?

And in reality, tracing a gun back to a buyer doesn't prove who pulled the trigger. That's why its never the spot light of an investigation.


Its just like when a drunk driver flees the accident scene and report his car was stolen. The police must prove he was the driver and not just the person that bought the car.


I'll go a head and say that IF you can cite an example of the police catching the shooter by using a registry, there will be 2 examples of how a registry was used to confiscate guns.

CoalTrain49
March 2, 2014, 11:23 AM
We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.



I didn't say that. I said: "There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns.".

This is just another example of local voters flexing their muscle and legislators playing to the voters. The supreme court is also stepping aside to make it possible for states to decide how they want to regulate firearms. No dictators behind the curtains that I can see, just a bunch of voters who want more gov't. I think that mindset is more common in the New England states than the rest of the country. Now that CT has pushed this through I can see more "AW" restrictions coming for more folks in the NE. It's just the way it goes. If you disagree with it be sure to vote. If it doesn't go your way it might be time to think about moving or just comply and get used to it. You may have just become a minority in your own neighborhood without protected minority status.

CatManDo
March 2, 2014, 12:14 PM
So CT49; you don't see a conflict with the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't it say somewhere in there " shall not be infringed upon"? And, who's Law's do you think are the "superior" Law's to have to follow concerning the Bill of Rights; local, state, or Federal?
Seem's to me that you can't argue it both ways at the same time.

HOOfan_1
March 2, 2014, 12:18 PM
We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.



I didn't say that. I said: "There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns.".

Athens was all about majority opinion too...people were executed at the whim of the people. Check out the story of Alcibiades or Pericles's son.

Read Federalist Paper number 10...freedoms are meant to be protected from majority rule in our system.

Sometimes resistance is the only way to save liberty. The framers of our government knew that.

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 01:14 PM
Tell that to the people of NY in regards to the SAFE Act. Or better yet, you should better understand how the NY Govt ram-roded their own agenda down peoples throat.

Let me explain:
The NY Safe Act was passed with no hearings, no testimony, and no time for citizens to fight against it.

The New York State Constitution gives governors the ability to get a law passed as soon as enough legislators say yes (and before anyone else can oppose it) in 'emergency' cases.

After Sandy Hook, they called an emergency session and the SAFE Act was literally passed in the middle of the night.

All done by duly elected representatives that will face their representatives come reelection. If the people don't like how the CT assault weapons bill was passed they can remove the politicians involved. (See Colorado as an example)



Well, for about the 4th time, please cite some examples....

Tracing guns found a crime scenes is standard procedure for law enforcement. The ATF did more than 300,000 gun traces last year. Because there is no database they are required to search paper records manually. If there was no value to tracing guns found at a crime scene, the police would not bother to do so. Tracing a gun to a person can generate leads or a deadend.


Its just like when a drunk driver flees the accident scene and report his car was stolen. The police must prove he was the driver and not just the person that bought the car.

Yes, they do have to prove who was driving. However, they still run the plate and see who the car is registered to. Again it generates leads and the most likely suspect is the owner.

coyotehitman
March 2, 2014, 01:25 PM
Ive never heard the police say "as soon as we find the gun, will be able to catch the bad guy because we'll know who bought it"

Ive also never heard the police say "Dang it, we found a gun, but because we don't have a reqistry, its making it more difficult to find the shooter.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard a news story that said the police found the gun used in a murder and are looking for the owner?

And in reality, tracing a gun back to a buyer doesn't prove who pulled the trigger. That's why its never the spot light of an investigation.

Quote:

Well, for about the 4th time, please cite some examples....

Tracing guns found a crime scenes is standard procedure for law enforcement. The ATF did more than 300,000 gun traces last year. Because there is no database they are required to search paper records manually. If there was no value to tracing guns found at a crime scene, the police would not bother to do so. Tracing a gun to a person can generate leads or a deadend.


Quote:
Its just like when a drunk driver flees the accident scene and report his car was stolen. The police must prove he was the driver and not just the person that bought the car.

Yes, they do have to prove who was driving. However, they still run the plate and see who the car is registered to. Again it generates leads and the most likely suspect is the owner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+1. Danez71, to pretend tracking a firearm has no value is absurd. And have this belief simply because the media doesn't report it is even more absurd. Goofy logic does nothing to support the cause.

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 01:49 PM
We are the government. We select the people that represent us and make laws. You act as if you are fighting a dictator. The fact remains the best way to fight gun regulation is at the ballot box.

EDIT: Some here refuse to acknowledge that these laws are supported by the majority in some regions of the country. It is not a dictatorial government that is trying to regulate you, it is your fellow citizens.

The will of the majority may trump the will of the minority, and the desires of the majority may trump the desires of theminority, but neither ever trumps the rights of anyone. That principal is at the heart of the Constitution. The Courts have modifiend that somewhat by recognizing that rights may be restricted if there is a compelling need to do something and no other way to do it. And even then it must be done by the least restrictive means.

I'm still waiting for stats showing the effectiveness of registration in solving crime. Not possible usefulness, effectiveness.

HOOfan_1
March 2, 2014, 02:14 PM
+1. Danez71, to pretend tracking a firearm has no value is absurd. And have this belief simply because the media doesn't report it is even more absurd. Goofy logic does nothing to support the cause.

Not needing to worry about warrants and questioning suspects without allowing them an attourney would help them too...sometimes freedom makes it harder to enforce laws. I choose freedom

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 02:22 PM
IF there was an overwhelming acceptance in this country of an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, such that right was safe as a result, then UBCs and registration would become simply tools for fighting crime.

But when there is disagreement about RKBA, and a vocally significant segment beliefs mere possession of arms should itself be a crime, then UBC and registration become their tools for fighting that "should be" crime and allows them to chip away at the right.

The acceptance of the right to keep and bear arms is not so general at this time that we can afford to ignore any threats to its existance and meekly accept the implementation of the tools most useful to those seeking to restrict and eliminate the right just because those tools might have other uses.

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 02:33 PM
I'm still waiting for stats showing the effectiveness of registration in solving crime. Not possible usefulness, effectiveness.

Earlier you said:

...effectuating confiscation is a registry's only useful purpose.

I pointed out a useful purpose for a registry. I'm not going to scour the internet looking for studies showing the statistical effectivity of gun traces. You can search out your own. The fact that the ATF continues to trace guns despite the artificial barriers imposed is proof enough to me that traces have value to law enforcement.

The registry in CT has another useful purpose. It allows grandfathering of existing guns. Without a registry, law enforcement has no way of knowing if a gun was purchased before or after the ban. The CT registry creates a list that will be the ultimate test. If the gun is on the list it is legal, if not it is illegal. The same as the machine gun registry but on a state level.

EDIT: IF there was an overwhelming acceptance in this country of an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, such that right was safe as a result, then UBCs and registration would become simply tools for fighting crime.

There you have it. UBC and registration have a useful purpose. You simply believe the possibility of misuse outweighs the benefits.

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 02:56 PM
Earlier you said:



I pointed out a useful purpose for a registry. I'm not going to scour the internet looking for studies showing the statistical effectivity of gun traces. You can search out your own. The fact that the ATF continues to trace guns despite the artificial barriers imposed is proof enough to me that traces have value to law enforcement.

The registry in CT has another useful purpose. It allows grandfathering of existing guns. Without a registry, law enforcement has no way of knowing if a gun was purchased before or after the ban. The CT registry creates a list that will be the ultimate test. If the gun is on the list it is legal, if not it is illegal. The same as the machine gun registry but on a state level.

EDIT:

There you have it. UBC and registration have a useful purpose. You simply believe the possibility of misuse outweighs the benefits.
What I also said (and will try to say perhaps more clearly) is the effectiveness of that useful purpose needs to be sufficient enough to be the most effective way of meeting a compelling need of government to justify restricting or infringing on a protected right. The fact that a use might exist or even does exist, does not rise to that level. Especially when the tool in question can be even more effectively used to restrict the right than for any other purpose.

History provides evidence that registration effectively facilitates confiscation. I am asking for evidence that it is even more effective in securing convictions for crimes other than those related to firearms possession.

NavyLCDR
March 2, 2014, 02:56 PM
There you have it. UBC and registration have a useful purpose. You simply believe the possibility of misuse outweighs the benefits.

It would appear as if we are on equal ground. You wrote earlier, "Speculation about what will happen in the future is just that, speculation. "

You have no problem with the registration of firearms (and probably no problem with universal background checks) because of speculation, with no current proof, that it might possibly help law enforcement at some time in the future, or at some time in future somehow prevent a criminal act (although I, personally don't see how...)

We are against registration and universal background checks for equal reasons - speculation that someday the government will use the recorded information as a means of disarming the American citizen in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

However, past history indicates that the confiscation of firearms from the citizen is a far more likely scenario to occur than using a registry of lawful firearm owners as a means to solve or prevent crime.

Old Fuff
March 2, 2014, 03:02 PM
IF there was an overwhelming acceptance in this country of an inalienable right to keep and bear arms, such that right was safe as a result, …

Ah, but there is no such “overwhelming acceptance,” and isn’t likely to be. Further, if this acceptance changed in the future any registration database would still be in place, and could be exploited.

… then UBCs and registration would become simply tools for fighting crime.

But there is no proof that where these elements exist at a state or local areas they are particularly effective crime fighting tools. Obviously the only ones who will submit to UBC’s or registration requirements are those who are law abiding in the first place. Criminals and other prohibited persons very seldom do, (or would do) either.

It’s like requiring teetotalers who never drink alcohol to take a pledge not to do so, in an effort to combat DWI (Driving Under The Influence). :uhoh:

NavyLCDR
March 2, 2014, 03:03 PM
Not needing to worry about warrants and questioning suspects without allowing them an attourney would help them too...sometimes freedom makes it harder to enforce laws. I choose freedom
And most of the big court decisions regarding 4th amendment rights have come from criminals who were prosecuted by the government overstepping the limits set forth in the 4th amendment. The question is (deferring here to Frank Ettin) when will the SCOTUS determine at what point the government has overstepped the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 03:17 PM
Ah, but there is no such “overwhelming acceptance,” and isn’t likely to be. Further, if this acceptance changed in the future any registration database would still be in place, and could be exploited.



But there is no proof that where these elements exist at a state or local areas they are particularly effective crime fighting tools. Obviously the only ones who will submit to UBC’s or registration requirements are those who are law abiding in the first place. Criminals and other prohibited persons very seldom do, (or would do) either.

It’s like requiring teetotalers who never drink alcohol to take a pledge not to do so, in an effort to combat DWI (Driving Under The Influence). :uhoh:
Yes, I think that is what I said. Thanks for the confirmation and support.

And you are correct that even if general acceptance existed, it could disappear in the future. Since it does not exist, the future is now and any possible use for a registry other than to facilitate confiscation is just speculative. ;)

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 03:21 PM
But there is no proof that where these elements exist at a state or local areas they are particularly effective crime fighting tools. Obviously the only ones who will submit to UBC’s or registration requirements are those who are law abiding in the first place. Criminals and other prohibited persons very seldom do, (or would do) either.

You would think prohibited people are smart enough not to buy from a gun store with a background check yet they do and they are denied. I don't know of any study that determines how many people that are denied at the gun store go on to purchase a gun through other means.

The thing about guns is that all start out legal and then somehow find their way into the hands of prohibited people. UBC with registration would be a useful tool to track that path.

JRH6856
March 2, 2014, 03:23 PM
The question is (deferring here to Frank Ettin) when will the SCOTUS determine at what point the government has overstepped the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

They did so in Heller regarding the "keep" part of "keep and bear". They have yet to grant cert in a case involving "bear" outside of the home. The current split in the circuits created by Peruta may open a door.

larryh1108
March 2, 2014, 04:23 PM
There is no doubt that registration will lead to confiscation. The question is, when? Will it be 6 months or 6 years? Maybe 25 or 50? Make no mistake, registration is step 1 in confiscation.

UBCs are useless without registration. Without registration, it is an exercise in masturbation because anyone denied thru the system will find a way to get a gun. It may stall the buying process for an hour or a day but a determined buyer will get a gun somehow.

Those willing to accept registration and/or UBCs in the name of law enforcement are just naive to the fact that the government will abuse this system to turn against us some day. Maybe not in our lifetime but the day will come, if they have registration in place. Without registration, it would be nearly impossible to disarm the population even though the NICS checks will tell them where to look. However, they won't know what they are looking for without the part that links it all together.... registration. The government has proven time and again that it can and will use any means to get their way. Actually believing that they destroy the NICS checks without sending it to a third party are absurd. We know better. The government has proven to record our phone calls, texts, emails, etc so what makes anyone think they aren't keeping such an important data file? Because they said they aren't? Lol, good one.

Tommygunn
March 2, 2014, 04:24 PM
You would think prohibited people are smart enough not to buy from a gun store with a background check yet they do and they are denied. I don't know of any study that determines how many people that are denied at the gun store go on to purchase a gun through other means.

The thing about guns is that all start out legal and then somehow find their way into the hands of prohibited people. UBC with registration would be a useful tool to track that path.
If people who were denied the purchase due to NICS turndown were arrested and jailed (as even trying to buy a gun under the condition of disqualification is a crime) they would not be able to go elsewhere to acquire their guns.
Reliance upon studies about who goes on afterwards is silly. Anyone with the sense God gave a pump handle realizes that a criminal intent upon acquiring a gun won't stop the first time they're tripped up.
I've had police officers and other authorities who've queried prisoners and ask them how long it would take for them to get a gun once outside of prison tell me they say a few hours to a day.
So just turning them away due to a NICS check turndown doesn't solve a thing.
This is all security theater our govt. sets up to make us think we're safer than we were and our government is looking out for us.

CoalTrain49
March 2, 2014, 04:25 PM
So CT49; you don't see a conflict with the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't it say somewhere in there " shall not be infringed upon"? And, who's Law's do you think are the "superior" Law's to have to follow concerning the Bill of Rights; local, state, or Federal?
Seem's to me that you can't argue it both ways at the same time.

Of course the BOR is the supreme constitution and needs to be enforced. Unfortunately it has a different meaning to different people. The BOR is just a document and by itself it can't guarantee your rights. If you look at the rights of citizens in this country you will see that certain rights have to be defined. The Supreme court or Congress can define those. It took an act of congress to enforce 14A by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the supreme court had denied some of those rights (Jim Crow laws) to some citizens. My right to an education at a state university may still be denied on the grounds of my academic standing. So in practice I don't have a free pass to a certain university although I'm financially able and wish to attend.

So our rights as gun owners are being defined in the courts and by congress. Remember the AWB of 1994? That was one of congresses less than brilliant attempts at defining your rights. Do you seriously want them to have another crack at it? We now have the CT AWB. Same deal, different day. It will stand until either the supreme court or congress defines your right differently or CT voters resend it.

The absolute best approach is to help the gov't define your rights. It isn't likely that the fed is going to help with our dilemma. That leaves the state and local gov't.

WSM MAGNUM
March 2, 2014, 04:38 PM
That letter is an arrogant, un-American, unconstitutional, illegal letter to the people. The Conn. government are the ones breaking the law.

Her is what the U.S. Supreme Court said of governments underhanded method of stealing rights from ignorant and apathetic citizens. In U.S. vs. Minker, the Supreme Court said:
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance."

No law has any effect unless backed up by the use of force. Government likes to show force and intimidate the citizenry. The people of Conn. can revoke the powers of the Conn. government. It is also the peoples right to form a militia to hold lethal force against the government.
Remember Athens, Tennessee 1946?

Every Conn. gun owner needs to not comply with this illegal law, and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, and do not give up those guns or magazines.

CoalTrain49
March 2, 2014, 04:43 PM
So CT49; you don't see a conflict with the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't it say somewhere in there " shall not be infringed upon"? And, who's Law's do you think are the "superior" Law's to have to follow concerning the Bill of Rights; local, state, or Federal?
Seem's to me that you can't argue it both ways at the same time.

Of course the BOR is the supreme constitution and needs to be enforced. Unfortunately it has a different meaning to different people. The BOR is just a document and by itself it can't guarantee your rights. If you look at the rights of citizens in this country you will see that certain rights have to be defined. The Supreme court or Congress can define those. It took an act of congress to enforce 14A by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the supreme court had denied some of those rights (Jim Crow laws) to some citizens. My right to an education at a state university may still be denied on the grounds of my academic standing. So in practice I don't have a free pass to a certain university although I'm financially able and wish to attend.

So our rights as gun owners are being defined in the courts and by legislators. Remember the AWB of 1994? That was one of congresses less than brilliant attempts at defining your rights. Now we have the CT AWB. Same deal, different day. It will stand until either the supreme court or congress defines your right differently or the voters resend it.

The absolute best approach is to help the gov't define your rights. It isn't likely that the fed is going to help with our dilemma. That leaves the state and local gov't.

Midwest
March 2, 2014, 04:56 PM
We should never forget what eventually happened in the U.K. and Australia when firearms were registered. When firearms are registered, it is only a matter of time before they take them away.

Revolver Ocelot
March 2, 2014, 04:58 PM
by the looks of it, some 350,000 residents have said come and take them.

hso
March 2, 2014, 05:12 PM
UBC with registration would be a useful tool to track that path.

To what end? An interest in data doesn't make the data valuable nor does it make gathering it valuable. How then does regulating an activity make getting the data more valuable or worth gathering? Sorry, you can't just want to know something in the face of imposing requirements upon people when there's no net benefit to society or public safety. No credible person denies that we've experienced decades of falling violent crime rates so how can anyone argue imposing new requirements on citizens will reduce violence in any statistically meaningful way? Tiny, immeasurable improvements don't justify the restrictions to the population as a whole when it criminalizes behavior that isn't contributing to the violent crime rate in any significant manner.

JSH1
March 2, 2014, 05:52 PM
by the looks of it, some 350,000 residents have said come and take them.

No they didn't. They simply didn't comply for various reasons. It isn't really a good comparison but many people have compared the situation in CT to the civil rights movement.

Not registering your gun is like drinking from the "whites only" drinking fountain when no one is around. You may get personal rush from defying the law but it does nothing overturn the law.

If you really want civil disobedience you boldly and openly defy the law you are protesting. Civil disobedience is about provoking action and making the authority enforce the unjust law. That action can lead to the law being overturned by a court or by a sympathetic majority deciding that the law is unjust and voting to change it. That is what happened during the Civil Rights Movement. That is drinking from the "whites only" drinking fountain when everyone around can see. To get to that level in CT you need people to not only refuse to register their gun but to publicly say they refuse to register and daring the government to do something about it.


Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting people do that. In my opinion the law will be upheld just like every other assault weapons ban has in the past. I also doubt you are going to get a majority of CT citizens vote to overturn it. However, the above is the difference between non-compliance and civil disobedience.

NavyLCDR
March 2, 2014, 06:06 PM
Of course the BOR is the supreme constitution and needs to be enforced. Unfortunately it has a different meaning to different people. The BOR is just a document and by itself it can't guarantee your rights. If you look at the rights of citizens in this country you will see that certain rights have to be defined. The Supreme court or Congress can define those. It took an act of congress to enforce 14A by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the supreme court had denied some of those rights (Jim Crow laws) to some citizens. My right to an education at a state university may still be denied on the grounds of my academic standing. So in practice I don't have a free pass to a certain university although I'm financially able and wish to attend.

So our rights as gun owners are being defined in the courts and by congress. Remember the AWB of 1994? That was one of congresses less than brilliant attempts at defining your rights. Do you seriously want them to have another crack at it? We now have the CT AWB. Same deal, different day. It will stand until either the supreme court or congress defines your right differently or CT voters resend it.

The absolute best approach is to help the gov't define your rights. It isn't likely that the fed is going to help with our dilemma. That leaves the state and local gov't.

Ultimately, it is the citizen that both defines and guarantees their own rights. From the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

What is necessary for the People to exercise their duty and right to throw off a tyrannical government? The 2nd Amendment states this quite clearly, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In light of the right and DUTY of the people to throw off a tyrannical government, how can it be that "well regulated" means that the government is supposed to be the regulators? I know Frank will say it doesn't matter what I think. However, I believe the "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the government regulating what arms we can possess or where we can possess them, or even knowing what arms we have.

In order to fulfill our duty to throw off a tyrannical government, the people must be regulated, as in guided, towards the singular purpose of "maintaining the free state." It is like the compressed air in a diver's or firefighter's air tank. The air in the tank cannot be used to maintain the life of the diver or firefighter until it is regulated (pressure reduced) to be useful for the person for breathing.

Well regulated means the same thing in the 2nd Amendment. 1 million well armed citizens going in 1 million different directions will maintain the free state of nothing. But 1 million well armed citizens moving towards the same objective of "maintaining a free state" can become a powerful force.

It would seem to me that requiring the citizens to register their firearms with the government can be in now way whatsoever moving towards maintaining a free state, but instead, is moving towards the establishing of a tyrannical government - while moving towards disarming the very "well regulated militia" whose duty it is to throw off a tyrannical government.

Sam Cade
March 2, 2014, 06:09 PM
Not registering your gun is like drinking from the "whites only" drinking fountain when no one is around.

Drinking from the "whites only" fountain wasn't a felony with a mandatory one year sentence.

SuperNaut
March 2, 2014, 06:12 PM
No JSH1, you are wrong. Non-compliance is definitely a form of civil disobedience.

There is a grand tradition of Civil Non-Compliance in the US that has many examples; the most common of which is the massive consumption of marijuana. Another is the total disregard of the 55 mph speed limit. Every time an official "looks the other way" and every time a judge rules "on the spirit rather than the letter" there is Civil Non-Compliance. There are, of course, hundreds of other examples of Civil Non-Compliance that you can choose to ignore because they do not serve your position.

What you are engaging at this point is sophistry, it is quite ugly.

This might make for some good supplementary, supporting reading:

The Death of Common Sense (http://www.amazon.com/The-Death-Common-Sense-Suffocating/dp/0812982746)

Frank Ettin
March 2, 2014, 06:35 PM
The discussion has gone on for a while, we're starting to see too much casual encouragement for other people doing things that could get them into a lot of trouble.

The gun owners of Connecticut have some significant legal and political matters to deal with.

If you enjoyed reading about "CT: The "Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Mags" Letter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!