Is Gun Confiscation on the Way in Connecticut?

reply to post by vkey08


This answer doesn't provide any reason that gun registration is useful.
It simply says that you support gun registration, even though you can't provide a reason for the need to register guns.

reply to post by nighthawk1954


Many of us have been stating this was coming.

So, here is what we got.

If the State backs down, they will be seen as weak and will be a huge advantage for those that value freedom and the 2nd.
If the State goes forward, it will be a huge tipping point and will be again, a huge advantage for that that value freedom and the 2nd.

This is what sparks Revolution.

vkey08
Registration does not violate your second amendment rights. I am so sick of people claiming it does. Guns have had to be registered in some form or another for years. This law is really a do nothing law, they will NOT go after people who don't' register, they have so much as stated it.

There are no laws on the books that claim that you cannot have the gun. If THAT were the case, then you would be able to cry and whine and moan and groan, as it stands now, the right to bear arms is NOT infringed upon by a simple registration procedure, and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says otherwise, it simply says you have the right to BEAR the arm, this law does not take that right from you..

This is 15 or so years of defending peoples Civil Rights speaking, and I see NOTHING wrong with simply having to register a weapon, certainly helps if it's stolen ya think? You think this is a civil rights case? It's not. A person that's been told they cannot have a gun because some state says they are mentally ill without a court deeming it, THERE is a civil rights case.

Well as a CT resident, now holding a long gun certificate, and a rabid 2nd amendment supporter, having thought this through for about a year you are correct. None of my 2nd amendment rights have been violated as of now. It just so happened I have no magazines nor guns on their "list". However the right to keep AND, AND, AND bear arms without regard to caliber, magazine holdings, or scary protrusions and looks is not implied nor innumerated in the Constitution. Thus any weasel word laws to cherry pick the word "arms" meaning this or that is infringement. Next is allowing only pellet guns. Then only BB guns. Then only nerf guns. Its a slippery slope once lawmakers start attaching their VISION to a law instead of keeping the law as intended.

vkey08

This law is really a do nothing law, they will NOT go after people who don't' register, they have so much as stated it.

They only said they cannot feasibly go after those who do not register. There would be a lot of man hours involved in going back through all those 4473's.

What will happen though is some poor slob who didnt register will get pulled over speeding or for a busted taillight one day on his way home from the range and a cop will see his rifle case in the back seat and if that driver is not wise to his rights or just loose with his tongue that guns serial is going to be run.

And lo and behold a simple warning that a light was out becomes a felony arrest.

This is why bureaucratic felonies are a bad idea. They turn average Joe Citizen who has never harmed anyone or anything into an orange jumpsuit wearing roommate of some guy who eats puppies.

Looks like jackboots are all too happy to round up those un-American SOB's

tkwasny
None of my 2nd amendment rights have been violated as of now.

They haven't???????

Ahhhhhh, yes, yes they have.

You are being forced to register firearms, and are not allowed to own specific firearms and magazines.

SO, you may want to rethink that statement.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


That video is a misnomer as well, Lt Vance has no real authority, he is directed by Col Stebbins and only says what he's told to, hence the term "spokesman" he's no more a tyrant than he is a working trooper, he is what his title says, the spokesman for the department.

That's why I get so upset at these videos they try to put people in a light that is not correct for their job description.

reply to post by vkey08


Okay, so the col told the lt to say those things.

Makes it all okay then. Totally.

reply to post by vkey08


So, yes he is a spokesman.

Having been in LE, I know and have dealt with the department spokes people.

While they have certain marching orders, when confronted in the manner as depicted, he and other all fall back onto what they personally believe.

So.....there is no reason to not take him at face value and what he states is what he wants.

If this isn't what he wants, then he has no morals and no balls to stand up to this unconstitutional crap.

thisguyrighthere
They turn average Joe Citizen who has never harmed anyone or anything into an orange jumpsuit wearing roommate of some guy who eats puppies.

But they are so delicious. Particularly when you roll them in kittens and stuff them inside a baby seal.

Kinda like an un-PC turducken.

AugustusMasonicus

thisguyrighthere
They turn average Joe Citizen who has never harmed anyone or anything into an orange jumpsuit wearing roommate of some guy who eats puppies.

But they are so delicious. Particularly when you roll them in kittens and stuff them inside a baby seal.

Kinda like an un-PC turducken.

that is the greatest post EVER!....i am so saving that, and using it in a signature of some sort, somewhere....

vkey...

it (registration) is unconstitutional in that it empowers the state(in this case, CT) government to deprive you not only of your firearm, but your freedom as well, for nothing more than exercising a constitutionally guaranteed and protected right.

ANY law that infringes upon, or creates provisions or mechanisms to infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights is an invalid law....

macman

tkwasny
None of my 2nd amendment rights have been violated as of now.

They haven't???????

Ahhhhhh, yes, yes they have.

You are being forced to register firearms, and are not allowed to own specific firearms and magazines.

SO, you may want to rethink that statement.

I haven't been required to register any firearms. By happenstance I don't own any firearms on their list. I can go to any other state and buy a gun or ammo, keep and bear it in CT with out any requirement to contact any state authority even if I didn't go get my long gun/ammo certificate, unless it's a firearm or magazine on their list.

If I get a firearm or magazine from out of state that is on their list, then my rights have been violated. If I want to get a firearm on their list in state, it won't happen so then my rights will be violated.

It's called "standing" in a court of law. I don't have standing because of my choices of firearms to keep and bear. The long gun and ammo certificates means I can buy in-state, but it also does NOT mean I cannot buy out of state and keep and bear it in state.

However, all of this is still unconstitutional because it causes infringement. Looking up the definition of the word infringement means there is zero tolerance with any govt activity, intentional and planned govt incompetence while licensing, fees, impediments to keeping and bearing arms.

reply to post by vkey08

vkey08
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

That video is a misnomer as well, Lt Vance has no real authority, he is directed by Col Stebbins and only says what he's told to, hence the term "spokesman" he's no more a tyrant than he is a working trooper, he is what his title says, the spokesman for the department.

That's why I get so upset at these videos they try to put people in a light that is not correct for their job description.

Let me make this really simple for you. He may be a puppet, just like any legislator who accepts bribes and contributions to do dirty work. But what does he and all military, law enforcement and legislator have in common? They all are sworn to office by the constitution.

So who do you think would become a hard target and a soft target here? If you do not obey your oath, you are an oath breaker and if doesn't matter who's in your pockets.

Let me also make clear that if any officer of the law, orders lower folks on the totem pole to violate the constitution he is putting people in harms way and it does not matter how big of a bribe or how high the order came from, the blood will be on his hands. So lets stop this useless discussion that there is no point to.

Some new info.

Pro-gun Connecticut blogger warned: Cops and politicians 'want you dead!


www.examiner.com...

reply to post by nighthawk1954


I like what the state police think about what's possibly waiting for them out there.

Go get some of that! We're not talking about some gangbangers holding a Glock sideways over their heads either. These are people that train with their weapons.

Connecticut Veteran Says "I Will Not Comply" to Unconstitutional

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by tkwasny


Just because you have chosen not to exercise your 2nd amendment right to own a certain firearm, doesn't mean your rights are not being violated.

macman
Just because you have chosen not to exercise your 2nd amendment right to own a certain firearm, doesn't mean your rights are not being violated.

Well there is finally some good news here in New Jersey. The NRA and 19 other states have filed an amicus brief to overturn the state's draconian concealed carry law which it appears the Supreme Court will have to pick up due to mixed lower court rulings. Additionally the brief states that New Jersey ultra-restrictive laws could be used to overturn other state's less restrictive ones and cite this as the reason for the brief. In the entire state of over 7,000,000 inhabitants only 1,200 have a carry permit.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


And the march seems to be making progress.
Good to hear.

AugustusMasonicus

macman
Just because you have chosen not to exercise your 2nd amendment right to own a certain firearm, doesn't mean your rights are not being violated.

Well there is finally some good news here in New Jersey. The NRA and 19 other states have filed an amicus brief to overturn the state's draconian concealed carry law which it appears the Supreme Court will have to pick up due to mixed lower court rulings. Additionally the brief states that New Jersey ultra-restrictive laws could be used to overturn other state's less restrictive ones and cite this as the reason for the brief. In the entire state of over 7,000,000 inhabitants only 1,200 have a carry permit.

that's because it's next to impossible to get a carry permit...so many hoops to jump through, and several rolls of red tape to contend with..

that, and christy hates guns, apparently...

Daedalus
that's because it's next to impossible to get a carry permit...so many hoops to jump through, and several rolls of red tape to contend with..

There really are no hoops to jump through as there is not real way to get one even if you have what the average person would think is a reasonable request, e.g. the ATM owner who sometimes carries $30-40,000 in cash and was chased multiple times by criminals was denied a permit. The modus operandi is to deny all requests which seriously impinges on our 2nd Amendment rights and compromises many citizen's safety.

that, and christy hates guns, apparently...

This idiotic law was around two decades before Christy and can only be overturned by the legislature.