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

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Midwest

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
2,569
Location
Kentucky
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/con...es-standard-capacity-magaznies/#axzz2uN6Yq5zo

CT-Assualt-Weapon-Letter.jpg
 
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.
 
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....

.
 
And they say "No one is coming to take your guns." Registration leads to confiscation, and sometimes they skip the registering part.
 
So CT is going by the day it was received not the day it was postmarked right?
 
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.
 
How will these "felons" answer the 4473 question 11d when they try to buy a new firearm? (asked with sarcasm)
 
I hope CT gets itself straightened out before people start dying.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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” 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.
 
Mainsail said:
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.
Click to expand...
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/f...ein-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/pub...?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
I hope CT gets itself straightened out before people start dying.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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 :).
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
"..... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
CT Anti-Gun Bills Are Out
Replies
6
Views
466
J nagant
J
6
  • Locked
We all make jokes about tragic boating accidents
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Ignition Override
I
hps1
  • Locked
Could NRA Members Intervene To Stop NY Suit To Dissolve The NRA?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
GEM
G
D
  • Locked
(CT) Owners file suit to void gun ban
Replies
0
Views
671
Drizzt
D
X
  • Locked
Military Is Expanding Its Intelligence Role in U.S.
Replies
10
Views
746
Thin Black Line
T
Back
Top