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

[Midwest]

^^^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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^^^^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]

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]

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]

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]

^^^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]

^^^^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]

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]

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]

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]

^^ 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]

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]

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]

Interesting video.

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

 

[yzguy87]

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]

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]

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/con...n-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/poli...cle_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]

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]

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]

Did we see any rallies in CT before?

Many, here's just one of them:

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

 

[steve4102]

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!!!