BobTheTomato
Member
You could alawys rent a storage locker right across state lines.
Connecticut gun owners line-up to register firearms
- Thread starter monotonous_iterancy
- Start date
- Status
22-rimfire
Member
We'll see what you do when it happens in your state? Most will register. Many will get real grumpy about it. Some see registration as a good thing. Hey. It might just stop another Newtown event in CT, right?
GlowinPontiac
Member
Every storage locker contract I have seen specifically forbids the storing of firearms or ammunition.
I'm honestly curious about this one. Is there ever a time you think we all *should* disobey the law?
For instance, this CT. law that says certain firearms have to be registered... then, let's say, next year lawmakers pass ANOTHER law that states "These certain types of firearms are now illegal to own and we are coming to your house to get them... because we know who you are."
Then let's say the lawmakers in another state (pick a state) starts the exact same process... should the people of that state register their firearms?
At some point, laws become just plain wrong. I've been hearing 'registration leads to confiscation' forever, this is something we know as a fact.. when do we *not* let lawmakers set us up like this?
Again, this is an honest question.
larryh1108
Member
Registration surely leads to confiscation. That is the only reason for registration. Can anyone give me a reason, other than confiscation, that registration creates? I guess it could be an easily accessed database to trace a specific weapon used in a crime. However, does this mean that if a gas station says the criminal used an AK47 that the cops will knock on every door of the AK47 owners and ask to see the gun or maybe even take it for a test round for striation comparison? Would that be legal?
Same with the "hi cap" magazine registration. What benefit does this information give to the government other than future confiscation? I can't think of one viable reason to register magazines that could benefit anybody especially when you consider criminals will not register anything.
It is scary, folks.
Same with the "hi cap" magazine registration. What benefit does this information give to the government other than future confiscation? I can't think of one viable reason to register magazines that could benefit anybody especially when you consider criminals will not register anything.
It is scary, folks.
Effective grandfathering cannot be done without registration, see NFA MG lists as an example.
As for combing the lists and asking people that match. Sure it is legal for them to ask and if you have nothing to hide...
Magazines and other items without unique serial numbers, registration is less effective. Only purpose it serves there is that a ban can then be enforced if a person registered no mags. It cannot tell if a person got more mags after registering a half dozen but it can sure tell if they registered none.
Note that registration is used in both examples there to enforce a ban, not outright confiscation (yet). There is little other benefit from it.
As for combing the lists and asking people that match. Sure it is legal for them to ask and if you have nothing to hide...
Magazines and other items without unique serial numbers, registration is less effective. Only purpose it serves there is that a ban can then be enforced if a person registered no mags. It cannot tell if a person got more mags after registering a half dozen but it can sure tell if they registered none.
Note that registration is used in both examples there to enforce a ban, not outright confiscation (yet). There is little other benefit from it.
smogmage
Member
Rest assured the present CT registration WILL undoubtedly turn into confiscation. Don't even kid yourself thinking it wont. One thing always leads to another. The only sensible response is to leave the sate. The sooner you do it the better off you will be.
As a former CT resident, I despise the very thought that I will forever have to list that horrid state as my birthplace. Current residents CAN and SHOULD leave. It's always a matter of what you are willing to sacrifice. I gave up everything I had to leave as quickly as possible. But I also hold my remaining family personally responsible for forcing me out of the state. Voting won't do you any good in CT. You won't outvote them, the numbers aren't going to just magically appear. Yes you can and should continuing suing the state. But you have to decide for yourself, whether you will allow yourself to be dictated to, controlled and made into criminals or if you will draw your line in the sand, stand for what is right and defend it anyway you can.
As a former CT resident, I despise the very thought that I will forever have to list that horrid state as my birthplace. Current residents CAN and SHOULD leave. It's always a matter of what you are willing to sacrifice. I gave up everything I had to leave as quickly as possible. But I also hold my remaining family personally responsible for forcing me out of the state. Voting won't do you any good in CT. You won't outvote them, the numbers aren't going to just magically appear. Yes you can and should continuing suing the state. But you have to decide for yourself, whether you will allow yourself to be dictated to, controlled and made into criminals or if you will draw your line in the sand, stand for what is right and defend it anyway you can.
berettaprofessor
Member
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but didn't this already occur in California years ago?
It was mentioned in another thread about registration. I think the one about ATF copying info from 4473 and A&D.
Stated there that shooter was not found. Cannot even say that the registry ruled those people out because it didn't, it ruled out those guns not the people.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,709
...because that has worked out so well in England, Australia, New Zealand and Canada... What was that quote about those who fail to learn from history?
I left CT in 1977, when I joined the military. Could almost count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've been back since--certainly on the fingers of two hands.
My sister just finally left there last Fall. Unless I want to visit the grave sites of deceased relatives, I now have absolutely no reason to ever visit CT again.
Sad, but true.
One emigrates from a place and immigrates to a place.
I left CT in 1977, when I joined the military. Could almost count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've been back since--certainly on the fingers of two hands.
My sister just finally left there last Fall. Unless I want to visit the grave sites of deceased relatives, I now have absolutely no reason to ever visit CT again.
Sad, but true.
That would be "emigrate from..."
One emigrates from a place and immigrates to a place.
Treedodger
Member
I was unaware this fund existed, so thanks. A donation has been made to your litigation fund. I would hope everyone on here would donate whatever amount they could afford. We must all stick together because this will spread unless it is stopped here and now.
statelineblues
Member
I lived in CT during the '80s after I got out of the service. Worked, went to college, really liked it. Reasonable (for a blue state) gun laws; select fire and suppressors were legal, lots of gun shops and places to shoot. Well, life happened and I left in '89.
When the CT AWB was past in the early '90s, I knew it was only a matter of time before the place turned into NY/NJ/CA restrictive.
Moved back from '06 to '09 and left again. Still have my CT CCW. Even though I have family there, except for an occasional visit, I won't be going back.
When the CT AWB was past in the early '90s, I knew it was only a matter of time before the place turned into NY/NJ/CA restrictive.
Moved back from '06 to '09 and left again. Still have my CT CCW. Even though I have family there, except for an occasional visit, I won't be going back.
Tom609
Member
http://ccdl.us/blog/2013/05/24/litigation-fund/
Like Treedodger, I also sent a donation. I challenge all of you to do the same.
Like Treedodger, I also sent a donation. I challenge all of you to do the same.
PavePusher
Member
There's a bunch of current gun owners, who will eventually be former gun owners, unless CT reverses itself (Good Luck!).
It's only a matter of time...
ShooterMcGavin
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2007
- Messages
- 629
I believe that, per the rules of membership at THR, nobody should be answering this question in the affirmative. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Steve CT
Member
First off, thanks to those who have supported the CCDL litigation effort. I have seen similar actions by some folks on other Forums.
There is a very valid point raised in this lawsuit that legislative due process was not followed, the bill was forced through as an "emergency" measure, with no imminent danger or emergency evident. Many gun owners here in CT were unaware of what it all meant until after it was all over (shame on them) and are now being educated. Hunters who suddenly discovered that they cannot buy ammunition without a Pistol Permit or Ammunition Permit were stunned. Permit required to buy a magazine as well.
I have to believe that this will ultimately be overturned, it may well have to go to the Supreme Court. Once it reaches Federal Court at any level, the NRA will certainly be more involved, likely the NSSF as well.
As for confiscation, once it looks even remotely possible, I will transfer my AR to my son (not in CT). I have trouble imagining any confiscation process that could happen quickly enough for that to not be possible.
This all came about through the thought process of "pass the law and then we will figure it what it means", the same process used to shove Affordable Care down America's throat. People are starting to learn that this type of legislative process results in disaster.
There is a very valid point raised in this lawsuit that legislative due process was not followed, the bill was forced through as an "emergency" measure, with no imminent danger or emergency evident. Many gun owners here in CT were unaware of what it all meant until after it was all over (shame on them) and are now being educated. Hunters who suddenly discovered that they cannot buy ammunition without a Pistol Permit or Ammunition Permit were stunned. Permit required to buy a magazine as well.
I have to believe that this will ultimately be overturned, it may well have to go to the Supreme Court. Once it reaches Federal Court at any level, the NRA will certainly be more involved, likely the NSSF as well.
As for confiscation, once it looks even remotely possible, I will transfer my AR to my son (not in CT). I have trouble imagining any confiscation process that could happen quickly enough for that to not be possible.
This all came about through the thought process of "pass the law and then we will figure it what it means", the same process used to shove Affordable Care down America's throat. People are starting to learn that this type of legislative process results in disaster.
Speedo66
Member
I know in NY we've seen registration/confiscation, but at the same time we have to remember that some states register pistols with a carry license, and they haven't resulted in confiscation.
Onward Allusion
Member
Actually, most DON't register. Aside from the Canada thing and news articles here and there . . . I can relate to you that having grown up in Chicago, ALL the gun owners I knew ignored the Chicago registration, including cops. I knew this firsthand. Of course, this was back in the late 70's and early 80's. After those years, I got the hell out of that horrible town.
Onward Allusion
Member
Never going to happen publicly and definitely not in this forum. At some point, there will be a line in the sand drawn. I hope not to live in those interesting times.
monotonous_iterancy
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 915
So what do they do with them then? Just keep them in the closet and never talk about them?
Onward Allusion
Member
Not everyone lives in big blue cities/towns. Some shoot 'em on their property, keep 'em in their safe, some move later on, some give 'em to relatives . . . etc How many people in this country collect things just to have 'em? Figurines, plates, stamps, coins, knives, paintings . . .etc
45_auto
Member
That pretty much describes about 99% of the guns in the US.
Very few people are actually shooters.
GetmeoutaCT
Member
Well, I'm a reluctant resident of CT (need to stay long enough to support two daughters thru college); you can tell from my forum name that I'm anxious to leave.
I own several of the "assault weapons" included in the 2013 legislation. I thought long and hard about it before registering them, but ultimately did so. Here's my perspective on this whole sad past year, and some history besides.
CT for a long time has been going bluer and bluer as far as government; however, for whatever reason, we managed for a long time to keep an R or an Independent governor as a counterweight to a very D legislature. That said, our independent governor Lowell Weicker was very anti-gun (and a bully and blowhard besides) who forced through our first assault weapons ban in 1993. However, since AR rifles with one military feature were excluded from the definition of assault rifle under this law, so long as stocks were fixed and no flash suppressor was affixed, we were ok. We were required to register offending guns purchased prior to the passage of this law (just as is happening now); I registered a Colt Sporter at that time which I still own.
The ten-year federal ban aside, things stayed pretty much the same in CT until the tragedy of Sandy Hook; this notwithstanding what seemed to me to be more than our share of mass shootings (the "Lottery Shooting" and the "Beer Distributor Shooting" - those that follow such things will be familiar with them). After each of these, the legislature made a run at tightening access to certain guns or hi-cap mags, but all such attempts died without passage. With hundreds of thousands of concealed permit holders in a state of 3 million, we were able to get our voices heard, and more important, listened to.
The D's thought they'd died and gone to heaven when Malloy - a rabid liberal - was elected governor in 2010. The legislature immediately went on a blitzkrieg of progressive wet-dream legislation - death penalty repeal, new taxes, legalization of medical marijuana - knowing that Malloy would (and did) sign all of them into law.
All except gun control (before Newtown). The D's tried again in 2011 to pass a high-cap ban, but again, it died in committee - gun owners kept the e-mail ratio at 10 to 1 against (the other side not caring enough at that time), and the idea was dropped. It looked like we were weathering the storm.
Then came Newtown/Sandy Hook. I have to tell you, unless you've lived in a place where an event like that occurs, you can't know what a difference it makes. You could not escape the pictures of those twenty children and their teachers, especially in a small state like CT. And, gun nut though I am, it hit me like a ton of bricks - it was like I'd lost a child in my family. It was pretty much the same for every resident of this state.
I knew things were going to change big-time in CT regarding guns - the only question was how much. We gun owners were still numerous and loud, but the legislators were on a mission and truly did not care. Mail and e-mail were now running two to one in favor of tighter controls - twenty dead children and six women who died trying to protect them will do that. Recall that a similar massacre in Dunblane, Scotland about twenty years ago, resulted in just about a total ban on private handgun ownership in that country.
It may sound funny, but I think it did not go as badly as it could have here; much better, in fact, than in NY, which passed the type of law I feared here. Here, they banned all semi-auto rifles with 1 military feature, which of course eliminates all AR-type rifles. They also banned magazines of greater than ten rounds.
However, they did not ban hi-cap auto pistols (although if you didn't already own hi-cap mags, you couldn't load them to capacity), and they did not require surrendering of ARS or of magazines, both of which I understand were done in NY.
But, they did require registration of banned rifles and mags, which is what I really wanted to talk about, and which is the subject of this thread.
My honest sober assessment was that the legislature did not want to consfiscate guns and mags - don't forget, there are still hundreds of thousands of us in a small state, and the legislators, determined as they were to do something, feared the next election, after the emotions over Newtown had died down. Registration was a sop to the families of Newtown, who lobbied long and hard for confiscation, both here and in Washington - remember how often those poor folks appeared on podiums with D politicians during the national debate last Spring?
As for why I decided to register - given that I don't honestly think that confiscation will come (at least until I am able to flee the state, please Jesus, no more Newtowns), it struck me as the lessor of two evils - the greater evil being the state cross checking sales of AR's against registrations (don't forget, the state already has records of each purchase). Of course, the argument is made they can't throw us all in jail. Well, true, but they don't have to. All they have to do is take a block of 100 purchasers who didn't register, knock on 100 doors, and ask whether they still own the weapons. If the answer is "yes," they get offered a choice - surrender the hardware, or face a felony prosecution. Want to guess how almost all those purchasers will vote on that particular referendum? Once that news gets out, the remaining non-registerers will be getting rid of them however they can. So what's preferable - registering and keeping, or not registering and risking that?
It's all well and good to bluster and spout things like "from my cold dead hands" when it's happening somewhere else, but when it's your ass or guns that is/are potentially on the block; trust me, you'll choose registration and look forward to the day when you can move to a more sane climate. My condo in Florida is rented at the moment; I can't wait for the day when I can send the eviction notice and move there myself.
I own several of the "assault weapons" included in the 2013 legislation. I thought long and hard about it before registering them, but ultimately did so. Here's my perspective on this whole sad past year, and some history besides.
CT for a long time has been going bluer and bluer as far as government; however, for whatever reason, we managed for a long time to keep an R or an Independent governor as a counterweight to a very D legislature. That said, our independent governor Lowell Weicker was very anti-gun (and a bully and blowhard besides) who forced through our first assault weapons ban in 1993. However, since AR rifles with one military feature were excluded from the definition of assault rifle under this law, so long as stocks were fixed and no flash suppressor was affixed, we were ok. We were required to register offending guns purchased prior to the passage of this law (just as is happening now); I registered a Colt Sporter at that time which I still own.
The ten-year federal ban aside, things stayed pretty much the same in CT until the tragedy of Sandy Hook; this notwithstanding what seemed to me to be more than our share of mass shootings (the "Lottery Shooting" and the "Beer Distributor Shooting" - those that follow such things will be familiar with them). After each of these, the legislature made a run at tightening access to certain guns or hi-cap mags, but all such attempts died without passage. With hundreds of thousands of concealed permit holders in a state of 3 million, we were able to get our voices heard, and more important, listened to.
The D's thought they'd died and gone to heaven when Malloy - a rabid liberal - was elected governor in 2010. The legislature immediately went on a blitzkrieg of progressive wet-dream legislation - death penalty repeal, new taxes, legalization of medical marijuana - knowing that Malloy would (and did) sign all of them into law.
All except gun control (before Newtown). The D's tried again in 2011 to pass a high-cap ban, but again, it died in committee - gun owners kept the e-mail ratio at 10 to 1 against (the other side not caring enough at that time), and the idea was dropped. It looked like we were weathering the storm.
Then came Newtown/Sandy Hook. I have to tell you, unless you've lived in a place where an event like that occurs, you can't know what a difference it makes. You could not escape the pictures of those twenty children and their teachers, especially in a small state like CT. And, gun nut though I am, it hit me like a ton of bricks - it was like I'd lost a child in my family. It was pretty much the same for every resident of this state.
I knew things were going to change big-time in CT regarding guns - the only question was how much. We gun owners were still numerous and loud, but the legislators were on a mission and truly did not care. Mail and e-mail were now running two to one in favor of tighter controls - twenty dead children and six women who died trying to protect them will do that. Recall that a similar massacre in Dunblane, Scotland about twenty years ago, resulted in just about a total ban on private handgun ownership in that country.
It may sound funny, but I think it did not go as badly as it could have here; much better, in fact, than in NY, which passed the type of law I feared here. Here, they banned all semi-auto rifles with 1 military feature, which of course eliminates all AR-type rifles. They also banned magazines of greater than ten rounds.
However, they did not ban hi-cap auto pistols (although if you didn't already own hi-cap mags, you couldn't load them to capacity), and they did not require surrendering of ARS or of magazines, both of which I understand were done in NY.
But, they did require registration of banned rifles and mags, which is what I really wanted to talk about, and which is the subject of this thread.
My honest sober assessment was that the legislature did not want to consfiscate guns and mags - don't forget, there are still hundreds of thousands of us in a small state, and the legislators, determined as they were to do something, feared the next election, after the emotions over Newtown had died down. Registration was a sop to the families of Newtown, who lobbied long and hard for confiscation, both here and in Washington - remember how often those poor folks appeared on podiums with D politicians during the national debate last Spring?
As for why I decided to register - given that I don't honestly think that confiscation will come (at least until I am able to flee the state, please Jesus, no more Newtowns), it struck me as the lessor of two evils - the greater evil being the state cross checking sales of AR's against registrations (don't forget, the state already has records of each purchase). Of course, the argument is made they can't throw us all in jail. Well, true, but they don't have to. All they have to do is take a block of 100 purchasers who didn't register, knock on 100 doors, and ask whether they still own the weapons. If the answer is "yes," they get offered a choice - surrender the hardware, or face a felony prosecution. Want to guess how almost all those purchasers will vote on that particular referendum? Once that news gets out, the remaining non-registerers will be getting rid of them however they can. So what's preferable - registering and keeping, or not registering and risking that?
It's all well and good to bluster and spout things like "from my cold dead hands" when it's happening somewhere else, but when it's your ass or guns that is/are potentially on the block; trust me, you'll choose registration and look forward to the day when you can move to a more sane climate. My condo in Florida is rented at the moment; I can't wait for the day when I can send the eviction notice and move there myself.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
