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

[pretzelxx]

I don't know of anyone who has an assault weapon, or unless you have a 90+ round magazine, I don't feel it's a high capacity.

That's my interpretation of this letter, therefore I would toss it in the trash, it doesn't apply to myself.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'm not understanding this new AWB.

If the weapon is illegal to have why would anyone that plans to keep one register it? That would make sure you are targeted by LEO for confiscation and arrest.

If you registered the weapon before the cut-off date would you be able to keep it? If not a registration makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Devonai]

There ya go. Did it work? What makes anyone think another rally, after the fact, is going to accomplish anything?

I would have been content to answer your question in the simplest terms possible. You said:

The time for rallies is before these laws get passed.

So I showed you that we did have prior rallies.

 

[yzguy87]

Does a court have to rule a law unconstitutional before it actually is recognized as such? If so, that's a giant load of crap. Although I wouldn't be surprised.

As for who I'd like to see stand up to this unconstitutional legislation, the gun owners of Ct. If one man or woman doesn't comply with the law then that's an easy "problem" for currupt officials to take care of. If you have thousands of people that wont comply, well then, that is a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Sam1911]

Does a court have to rule a law unconstitutional before it actually is recognized as such? If so, that's a giant load of crap. Although I wouldn't be surprised.

That's pretty much the case. The Constitution provided for a system of courts, the highest of which has the power to determine whether a law does in fact violate the Constitution or not. We can say we FEEL that a law is unConstitutional based on our layman's understanding of the Constitution and the law in question, but the only way to know for sure if there is a conflict is to ask the body empowered to say definitively yes or no.

Us saying that something is unConstitutional is a bit like us saying "this tastes bad." It doesn't make any difference or have any meaning beyond personal preference.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Does a court have to rule a law unconstitutional before it actually is recognized as such? If so, that's a giant load of crap. Although I wouldn't be surprised.

That's pretty much the case....

Us saying that something is unConstitutional is a bit like us saying "this tastes bad." It doesn't make any difference or have any meaning beyond personal preference.

And a court with the jurisdiction to do so saying that a law is unconstitutional is the only thing that will keep the law from being applied.

You might think that the law you're in jail for violating was unconstitutional, but since the court didn't agree you're sill in jail.

 

[armoredman]

The US Constitution is supposed to be the supreme and final law of the land.

Unless overriding it can stop "violence", as the 9th said today about school kids being banned from wearing American flag t-shirts during foreign holidays. Even though the 9th is a long ways from Conn, I could see this decision being used as a basis for beginning suits to destroy the 2A even faster as a way to "avoid violence". Of course, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

 

[itsa pain]

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.

I have been screaming what you have posted for years to no avail. Gun owners are their own worst enemy. A lot of guys want to act like secret BATF agents when selling a gun treating it like a radioactive hydrogen bomb rather then an inert tool and this from the same guys that say don't blame the gun blame the criminal. Any gun owner for background checks is an ally of Sarah Brady who started the instant check along with the NRA. I just heard a taped phone conversation between a woman and the state police Lt. who said they would lock anyone up that questioned their version of sandy hill where he said if ordered they would go door to door for the guns

 

[itsa pain]

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.

That is a myth created by police can do no wrong crowd. Here in the NY legislature a republican asked a Democrat author of the safe act questions about the enforcement part of the law and after a while he said the SAFE was mostly written by the state police and it is their law. I watched the video on NY state gun owners site

 

[CoalTrain49]

This whole thing reminds me of a situation we had where I live. A road was closed for construction and an 8 mile detour was established. People found another 1/4 mile detour on a public road and began to use it. Someone along the 1/4 mile detour complained about the traffic and it was barricaded. People removed the barricades and drove on it anyway. I was one of them. A cop caught my neighbor using it and gave him a $120 ticket. He got in an argument with the cop and told him he was driving on it every time he needed to and he would have to arrest him to get him to stop. The closure was so ridiculous that the judge threw out over 100 tickets and told the cop he would throw them all out no matter how many he wrote. Miraculously, the barricade disappeared. True story.

Sometimes you just have to put your faith in the courts and hope they see it your way.

I can see some wealthy individual with plenty of time and money running the course on this one. The 2nd district court might look at VT who is also in that district and decide it's a little extreme.

 

[SilentStalker]

^^^That's a nice story but that is not going to happen in CT where the system is full of anti's.

 

[JSH1]

I'm not understanding this new AWB.

If the weapon is illegal to have why would anyone that plans to keep one register it? That would make sure you are targeted by LEO for confiscation and arrest.

If you registered the weapon before the cut-off date would you be able to keep it? If not a registration makes absolutely no sense.

The ban applies to sales of new guns. Current owners can keep legally keep their guns as long as they register those weapons. It is a now a felony to be in possession of any gun classified in CT as an assault rifle that has not been registered.

EDIT: BTW, my vote is that this letter is bogus. Looks to much like the ridiculous urban legend emails I get forwarded by friends.

 

[basicblur]

The Kelly Files on FOX News was running promos for a segment on this on her Friday night show, but she was not the host and the story did not run.
Maybe at a later date?

I'm sure there will be lots of stories on this in the future if it does not go well.

 

[JRH6856]

The ban applies to sales of new guns. Current owners can keep legally keep their guns for the time being as long as they register those weapons. It is a now a felony to be in possession of any gun classified in CT as an assault rifle that has not been registered.

There, fixed it for you.

 

[JSH1]

JRH6856: You could have at least fixed my typo

I answered a question about the current law. Speculation about what will happen in the future is just that, speculation.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The ban applies to sales of new guns. Current owners can legally keep their guns as long as they register those weapons. It is a now a felony to be in possession of any gun classified in CT as an assault rifle that has not been registered.

EDIT: BTW, my vote is that this letter is bogus. Looks to much like the ridiculous urban legend emails I get forwarded by friends.

If this is indeed the case that needs to be in the code. WA is taking steps to make sure that happens and I believe it will. If CT won't pass something like this they plan on taking every one of those weapons sooner or later.

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_471.pdf

 

[larryh1108]

As a resident of CT, I'm going to play devil's advocate.

The state makes a list of people who were known to purchase an evil rifle but didn't register (reregister?) it. These people are fed into a database somewhere as "suspected" violators of the registration laws. (Yes, these people could have sold their gun, lost it in a boating accident, etc., but their name is on this list.)

So, Gunowner Sam is stopped for running a yellow light. All stops are run thru whatever databases are available and it's found that he MAY have an unregistered AR. The officers are instructed to search the vehicle (probable cause?) for any illegal weapons. They find a mag with 15 rounds in it (never "registered" mag). If Sam didn't register his AR, I doubt he registered his "hi-cap" mags. So, they get a search warrant for his residence (probable cause?) and find his "cache" of "illegal", unregistered "assault weapons" and hundreds of "illegal" "hi-capacity" magazines. They also find a "cache" of ammo totalling over 20K rounds.

So, Gunowner Sam is villified on the local 6:00 news and shown as a "gun nut" who has an "arsenal" of illegal weapons and enough ammo to raid a small country. He is brought up on charges, 1 for each unregistered evil rifle and 1 for each hi-cap mag and faces 200 years in prison. This is plastered all over the media to show the other "resistant" "civil disobedient" felons how it works.

So, Sam is pulled over for running a yellow light and is charged with multiple felonies and faces losing his rights to own as well as all of his assets, to defend himself, and all of his weapons and ammo are seized, all because he wanted to stick it to "the man". Do you think this is hyperbole or is it very possible? No one went door-to-door to confiscate anything. It started with an innocent traffic stop and a database. The govenor wants to send a message.

Think this can't happen?
Really?

 

[JSH1]

If this is indeed the case that needs to be in the code.

It is the case and it is written in the law.

So, Sam is pulled over for running a yellow light and is charged with multiple felonies and faces losing his rights to own as well as all of his assets, to defend himself, and all of his weapons and ammo are seized, all because he wanted to stick it to "the man". Do you think this is hyperbole or is it very possible? No one went door-to-door to confiscate anything. It started with an innocent traffic stop and a database. The govenor wants to send a message.

Think this can't happen?

Of course it can happen. That is why gunowner Sam should register his gun and magazines instead of trying to "stick it to the man".

 

[larryh1108]

Of course it can happen. That is why gunowner Sam should register his gun and magazines instead of trying to "stick it to the man".

Totally agree. However, they say maybe 15% complied with the registration. That is being hailed by the gun community as a non-violent protest, which it is. The 85% who are proud of themselves cannot carry a "hi-cap" mag outside the house, cannot go shoot their "assault rifles" and risk losing everything they own and their right to have guns if they get caught. Is it worth it?

The best way to fight is thru the voting booth and courts. More time consuming but legal and it keeps you out of harm's way. If nothing good comes of it then moving is another choice. How many will lose everything before the rest cry for amnesty? Does anybody here think that such a non-compliant rate will make the govenor say "well, shoot, that didn't work. Let's change it back."? I'd bet he will say "let them fight. We'll make them pay and use them as an example. The people will beg for amnesty and we'll just make them pay with even more restrictions to allow amnesty. They will learn who runs this state".

It's basically what he said after they jammed this thru in "emergency legislation". They want control and power and it is out of control. The northeast is a blue area that has been for generations. Their arrogance drives their need for power.

 

[wildbilll]

The letter is probably not fake, just a exemplar drafted to allow for ideas on how to proceed. Someone leaked it.

I think the solution isn't to bunker down and hide these guns.
A mass civil disobedience/demonstration is called for.
Imagine hundreds if not thousands of people marching while bearing these common use firearms.
What would the system do?

 

[JRH6856]

JRH6856: You could have at least fixed my typo

I make too many of my own to be worried about anyone elses.

I answered a question about the current law. Speculation about what will happen in the future is just that, speculation.

It is speculation. But speculation taking history into account can lead to a fairly safe assumption.

 

[JRH6856]

Totally agree. However, they say maybe 15% complied with the registration. That is being hailed by the gun community as a non-violent protest, which it is. The 85% who are proud of themselves cannot carry a "hi-cap" mag outside the house, cannot go shoot their "assault rifles" and risk losing everything they own and their right to have guns if they get caught. Is it worth it?

I saw an article with an estimate that that 85% could represent as many as 300,000 gun owners. I don't have the numbers handy but the article points out that the state currently does not have the prison facilities to house a tenth of that number and putting them all in prison would simply bankrupt the state several times over. So the question is indeed, "Is it worth it?"

 

[JSH1]

I saw an article with an estimate that that 85% could represent as many as 300,000 gun owners. I don't have the numbers handy but the article points out that the state currently does not have the prison facilities to house a tenth of that number and putting them all in prison would simply bankrupt the state several times over. So the question is indeed, "Is it worth it?"

They don't have to lock up 300K people. They simply need a few well publicized arrests and convictions and the vast majority of those people will register. Just sending a letter will get a lot of people to register. I'm sure a good number of the people that have not registered are not trying to protest but simply don't know they need to register. I know a lot of people that don't watch or read the news in any form.

 

[steve4102]

You are assuming that these so called "protesters" will be sent to prison. The goal of the CT citizens and the Legislators is not to imprison, but to disarm.

Prosecute, convict, strip away 2nd Amendment rights then send them home a "prohibited person".

While this is going on on the surface, Holder and Company are working to get Convicted Felons voting rights restored. This will ensure that the Socialists in CT that have lost their Right to Keep and Bear Arms are still able to vote and maintain the Socialist status quo in CT.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

You can keep it if you register it.....for how long?

Folks in California who registered their SKS rifles were sent letters the state had a change of mind and they had to surrender their contraband rifle or prove they disposed of it out of state.

New York City did the same with their assault weapon ban following their assault weapon registration law. They waited a few years and then gave the registered owners basically the same list of options as the proposed Connecticut letter.