CT: The "Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Mags" Letter
- Thread starter Midwest
- Start date
- Status
Devonai
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1
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.
JTHunter
Member
Owen said:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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
Moderator Emeritus
Not just dangerous for the cops...
Last edited:
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
^
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
.
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
.
And this, from the editorial board of the Hartford Courant (quoted from reason.com)
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?).
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?).
Last edited:
RPRNY
Member
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.
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.
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
member
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/s...ually-sent-out-by-DESPP&p=2039889#post2039889
http://www.gundigest.com/firearm-gun-industry-news/ct-assault-weapons-letter-hoax
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ually-sent-out-by-DESPP&p=2039889#post2039889
SilentStalker
Member
^^^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.
They are saying that the letter "could have" been sent by an employee without authorization.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ually-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......
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ually-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
Member
^^^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
Member
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.
- Status
