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

[larryh1108]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

by the looks of it, some 350,000 residents have said come and take them.

 

[hso]

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.

 

[itsa pain]

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.

Law abiding today means a compliant slave. The way this gun owner thinks and the millions more gun owners who make me puke with their law abiding drivel combined with the anti's and waves of aliens coming to this country I say 15-20 years no guns for nobody like England

 

[JSH1]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Frank Ettin]

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.