Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Connecticut has a gun problem.

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberKaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
CT has recently created thousands of felons. Felons with evil black rifles. This could get ugly.


Also, I found it ironic that the press would suggest that the police use background checks to find people that, uhm, passed background checks.
Didn't they tells us that BGCs would not be used as registration/confiscation devices?

Connecticut has a gun problem.

It's estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31.

That's the deadline imposed by a tough bipartisan gun-safety law passed by the legislature last year in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Widespread noncompliance with this major element of a law that was seen as a speedy and hopefully effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook creates a headache for the state.

The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.


http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-14/news/hc-ed-gun-registration-20140214_1_new-law-gun-registration-military-style-assault-weapons
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

Adam J. McCleod


Replies

  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Central MNPosts: 14,671 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    CT has recently created thousands of felons. Felons with evil black rifles. This could get ugly.


    Also, I found it ironic that the press would suggest that the police use background checks to find people that, uhm, passed background checks.
    Didn't they tells us that BGCs would not be used as registration/confiscation devices?





    http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-14/news/hc-ed-gun-registration-20140214_1_new-law-gun-registration-military-style-assault-weapons


    It's going to suck to be the first CT gun owner to get the no-knock warrant, you know they will be coming loaded for bear, cameras rolling.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,706 Senior Member
    Ummmmmm. . .if you can use the background check database to see who bought firearms of a specific type, aren't they, by definition, already registered?:bang:
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Kaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    It's going to suck to be the first CT gun owner to get the no-knock warrant, you know they will be coming loaded for bear, cameras rolling.

    The first people targeted will be outspoken defenders of the Second Amendment. The CT state police will call them domestic terrorists after they kill a few, or are killed by one.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Soon to be in TexasPosts: 1,503 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    This could get ugly.



    I seriously doubt it. In the end watch for a few home raids to instill fear and intimidation. There will be a bit of the standard outcry protests, NRA speeches and other useless actions. After that, gun owners will follow the law in the end. People today are too damn spineless and have refused to unite and organize as one despite years and years of warning. People today stay cooped up in their home, no longer vote and would rather stay divided over petty politics ie: legalizing pot or discuss the latest Duck Dynasty episode. Besides most people today are too damn fat to be of any use anyway.

    I really hope I'm wrong but again ...people just don't care anymore.
  • pjames777pjames777 Senior Member Lincoln, CAPosts: 1,421 Senior Member
    And so it starts......
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    CT has recently created thousands of felons. Felons with evil black rifles. This could get ugly.


    Also, I found it ironic that the press would suggest that the police use background checks to find people that, uhm, passed background checks.
    Didn't they tells us that BGCs would not be used as registration/confiscation devices?





    http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-14/news/hc-ed-gun-registration-20140214_1_new-law-gun-registration-military-style-assault-weapons
    They have told/promised many things.
  • 1hogfan831hogfan83 Member Posts: 347 Member
    Wait wait wait wait, Connecticut, the land at the end of the rainbow, wants to use the registration database to find the unregistered guns. We don't have gun registration where I live, were free here, but I'll guess that if a gun is registered, you know where they live, phone number, stuff of that nature. So if its not registered, you don't know those things. I guess I just don't understand stuff like that. Would you just go breaking down doors because someone may have a gun unregistered when all of their other guns are? "well, I have 12 AR's, but I forgot to register that unlucky number 13." I see a lawsuit. Unconstitutional warrants, search and seizures, especially with no past history of criminal activity. I'm not a drug dealer and I think they should be locked up for life on their first strike but when they arrest someone for large amounts of money and nothing else, sorry, that's just wrong. If your mad because I like to keep my money under the bed and not in a bank and I make more money than you, too bad. Someone is going to get hurt and its going to be the police with their no knock or their going to claim they "knocked." A Texas man killed a county deputy during a no knock raid in the middle of the night. Initially he was charged with capital murder and possession of a deadly weapon while in possession of pot, 5 pounds worth. The grand jury wouldn't charge him with murder, their were better ways of going about it, get him at work, during the DAY, anything. He said he was protecting his pregnant gf and himself. I would do the same as I suspect anyone would. The sheriff should be brought up on charges.
    "Well he shoulda armed him self" William Munney-Unforgiven"
    "You believe there is one God, that is good, even the demons believe and shudder in fear" James 2:19
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member God's countryPosts: 4,646 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    The Courant is one of the most disgusting, liberal rags that has ever been published to look like a serious newspaper. They believe their own lies and misinformation and what's worse they forget that once you leave Fairfield county there is a WHOLE lot of a different Connecticut out north and east. Much like New York state, a few liberal communities rule CT. But there are a bunch of ol' Yankee boys that are NOT going to give up their ARs willingly.

    I hope you're right, I'm convinced the Feds are watching the situation both there and in NY.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • FlashoverFlashover Member New Brunswick CanadaPosts: 390 Member
    sounds more like a politician problem than a gun problem to me...I say register and ban the politicians.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Under a logPosts: 27,457 Senior Member
    I guess this is a good example of, "There is no moral obligation to obey an unjust law."
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Kaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Ummmmmm. . .if you can use the background check database to see who bought firearms of a specific type, aren't they, by definition, already registered?:bang:


    red-dawn-4473.png
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Somewhere north of MozambiquePosts: 6,637 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Ummmmmm. . .if you can use the background check database to see who bought firearms of a specific type, aren't they, by definition, already registered?:bang:


    Please don't cloud the enforcement of a law with facts or logic.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    The best way to motivate reform of a bad law is to enforce it, and see all the unintended consequences. I hope things get really ugly in Connecticut, and let the ugliness serve as a warning to every other state not to overreach on gun control. Thankfully, we already have several states with "Constitutional carry" and almost no gun control of any kind doing quite nicely, and serving as positive examples for any other state with an open mind. It's funny how freedom is an almost sure cure for ails caused by government.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Flashover wrote: »
    sounds more like a politician problem than a gun problem to me...I say register and ban the politicians.

    Now you talkin the truth Flashover! We could register the politicians and if they got caught with their finger in the cookie jar we could lock em up and throw away the key. We'd know who they were because we'd have em fingerprinted and their SN recorded in BLOOD!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Central MNPosts: 14,671 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    The best way to motivate reform of a bad law is to enforce it, and see all the unintended consequences. I hope things get really ugly in Connecticut, and let the ugliness serve as a warning to every other state not to overreach on gun control. Thankfully, we already have several states with "Constitutional carry" and almost no gun control of any kind doing quite nicely, and serving as positive examples for any other state with an open mind. It's funny how freedom is an almost sure cure for ails caused by government.

    Sure, you go first.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • WeatherbyWeatherby Senior Member Posts: 4,953 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    The first people targeted will be outspoken defenders of the Second Amendment. The CT state police will call them domestic terrorists after they kill a few, or are killed by one.

    It won't get ugly because absolutely nothing will happen with this.

    They can make all the laws they want....they just will not be enforced
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    Sure, you go first.

    On some dark and infamous day, if Arizona goes from Red to Blue, I may have to "go first." I'll cross that bridge, or not, if and when I come to it. For now, for better or worse, the ball is in Connecticut's court. I am reminded of the scene in the movie "Zulu" where a scared private asks his sergeant "why is it us? why us?" The sergeant answers, "because we're here, lad, nobody else, just us."
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement