Sounds like CT Gun Grabbers want to kick in doors

[UrbanWolf]

http://newtown.patch.com/groups/cagv-dissenter/p/no-to-assault-weapon-amnesty--cagv-dissenter

This is the open letter, two words really throws me off. More than "Automatic weapons" and "high cap clips".


This is an open letter to the elected officials of Connecticut and concerned citizens:

I am a long-time supporter, financially and morally, of CT Against Gun Violence and have applauded their accomplishments in the last legislative session. The new gun law was a triumph of common sense and the law should be allowed to stand unchanged. Simply put, we can not allow any amnesty nor leniency for owners of automatic weapons and high capacity clips.

Earlier this week, I received an email from CAGV that has me distressed. Apparently, the organization wishes to support a limited amnesty for gun owners who have either intentionally or unintentionally ignored the registration deadline at the end of December. In exchange, CAGV proposes other tweaks to the law that seem too technical to matter much.

I am against this proposal and I am writing today to implore all of our elected officials to block any sort of "amnesty" for owners of automatic assault weapons or high capacity clips. These items are a menace to your culture and it should be left to the courts to decide if changes to the law are warranted, not political back scratching.

Our best in the nation law was passed last spring and these people have had many months during which to get their act together and submit the required forms. Offering those who were too lazy or too stupid to comply in the allotted time a window during which to register their now illegal assault weapons and clips is an insult. Ignorance of the law and/or a belated sense of concern about being caught is no reason to change the law. Let these "law abiding citizens" reap what they have sown and leave the ban as it is.

That John McKinney and other Republicans seems to be supporting this "amnesty" should be seen for the political act that it is. McKinney has learned that his noble support of the new law has soured the GOP base against him and he is seeking to get back in their good graces. As residents of Connecticut we should not allow McKinney and other worried/vulnerable Republicans to shore up their support with the GOP gun owners at the expense of the rule of law.

No amnesty, no leniency, no exceptions. Voters are watching you Hartford. And the CAGV membership is watching its leadership.

I am a CAGV dissenter.

"that these items are a menace to your culture"? Is this "person" even from here? Might as well say "The dear leader wills it" in the end.

[nynco]

Sounds like the rantings of an A-hole

[trlcavscout]

I stand with the ones refusing to register. Screw this clown and "his culture". When are the gun companies leaving CT? That is gonna be a big hit for the state just like MD is taking. Man I bet WY would love to have colt and magpul!!! My family in WY sent me a thank you letter over magpul.

[UrbanWolf]

I stand with the ones refusing to register. Screw this clown and "his culture". When are the gun companies leaving CT? That is gonna be a big hit for the state just like MD is taking. Man I bet WY would love to have colt and magpul!!! My family in WY sent me a thank you letter over magpul.

Colt is building another site in FL.

[wctriumph]

In CA when they had registration and very few people registered their firearms, the state AG ran a one year amnesty to register your banned weapons. Some people then registered their banned firearms during this amnesty. Well guess what? Someone sued and a judge said that the amnesty was illegal because the AG just can't make up laws as he goes along. Then they sent out letters to those that registered during the amnesty to turn in their illegal arms or face arrest and prosecution. One guy tried to sue and lost, the ban was in place and registration led to firearms confiscation by the state. It is still going on under new laws enacted in the recent past and new laws being proposed now.



TEA

III

[Gcompact30]

I agree a rants from an A-hole


Sounds like the rantings of an A-hole

[HoneyBadger]

F*ck that guy...

[merl]

It yet remains to be seen how heavily this will be enforced.

There WILL be a database of registered weapons and people, hell it is only ~50k records according to news reports. That could be entered by hand.
Once that can be called up on any random LE encounter look out.

[Rucker61]

The discussion below the article did lead me to discover the Girandoni rifle, of which I was unaware. It looks like some militaries of the period around the ratification of the Constitution, and indeed some private citizens including Thomas Jefferson, had access to a 21 shot .46 caliber repeating rifle.

[Skip]

It yet remains to be seen how heavily this will be enforced.

There WILL be a database of registered weapons and people, hell it is only ~50k records according to news reports. That could be entered by hand.
Once that can be called up on any random LE encounter look out.

Yes!

I would argue it's not for enforcement of the current "law" but for confiscation. And that is why the grabbers are so angered. Moms Demanding Action are very demanding.

In the heart of every Liberal is a little dictator who knows that as long as those weapons are in the hands of civilians, they have the means to resist.

[merl]

Yes!

I would argue it's not for enforcement of the current "law" but for confiscation. And that is why the grabbers are so angered. Moms Demanding Action are very demanding.

In the heart of every Liberal is a little dictator who knows that as long as those weapons are in the hands of civilians, they have the means to resist.
That remains to be seen. Worst case is the existing law is strictly enforced now against those that did not register then in a few years after next nutcase they round up the registered ones.

[hatidua]

after next nutcase they round up the registered ones.

I cannot think of any other legitimate reason to create a database of owners/addresses.

[merl]

I cannot think of any other legitimate reason to create a database of owners/addresses.

The first half of my sentence, remove them as encountered from all those that did not register. Enforcement without registration is not feasible. Consider how enforceable the mag ban passed here would be if there was a list of allowed owners. Who cares if the mags are the ones they had when they registered, by registering they effectively signed up for a permit to possess "high cap" mags.

The roundup is the next cut, first get the "illegal" ones.

[Zundfolge]

In CA when they had registration and very few people registered their firearms, the state AG ran a one year amnesty to register your banned weapons. Some people then registered their banned firearms during this amnesty. Well guess what? Someone sued and a judge said that the amnesty was illegal because the AG just can't make up laws as he goes along. Then they sent out letters to those that registered during the amnesty to turn in their illegal arms or face arrest and prosecution. One guy tried to sue and lost, the ban was in place and registration led to firearms confiscation by the state. It is still going on under new laws enacted in the recent past and new laws being proposed now.

This is the first thing I thought of when I heard CT was going to offer an amnesty for registration. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the plan.

[nynco]

Rucker, thanks for the heads up on the Girandoni. What a fascinating piece of history.

[hatidua]

Just saw this link on another site, sorry if a repost but I thought it was relevant to this thread:

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-haar-gun-registration-felons-20140210,0,3161975.column

[brutal]

Now they're going to send out scary letters.

[LOL]

[BPTactical]

Remember kids, registration=confiscation.

[davsel]

I think they will delay confiscation until a larger number of states pass registration laws. If they confiscate too soon, other states will be less likely to pass registration laws.

However, they could just decide to be the East Coast California and round-em-up regardless.

[cofi]

Aaaaand here's the reason I stopped buying through ffl's

"The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know."

[buffalobo]

Remember kids, registration=confiscation.

Pretty simple, not sure why the grown ups don't get it.

Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain

[kidicarus13]

This post got messed up somehow. Mods, please delete.

[BPTactical]

I'm gonna break protocols and post a link to "that other site". This is a long read but it will give you an insight into CT's Micheal Lawlor, who is instrumental in CT's plan.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1592034_Michael_Lawlor__the_CT_Governor_s_Hatchet_ Man_on_Firearms_Confiscation__CT_people_might_want _to_read.html

Terrifying

[kidicarus13]

Then another amnesty and the 97% will roll over and show their bellies. Seems low to me.


Aaaaand here's the reason I stopped buying through ffl's

"The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know."

"I no longer have those rifles." The penalty will be no worse if the person is found with an unregistered gun or they are found with an unregistered gun that the state has previously inquired about.

[wctriumph]

I guess that if they really want to take guns away that are not registered they will go to the shooting areas and ranges and ask to see "Your Papers Please". The authorities show up at a range in force of arms and ask for proof of registration and start confiscating firearms if you can't prove that you registered it. What would you do in that situation?

[Hound]

The responses were well thought out and appropriate. It does not so much matter the statements of those ill-informed as does the reasoned response that it engenders lest the correct answer be dragged onto the same level as the incorrect answer.

[Hound]

I guess that if they really want to take guns away that are not registered they will go to the shooting areas and ranges and ask to see "Your Papers Please". The authorities show up at a range in force of arms and ask for proof of registration and start confiscating firearms if you can't prove that you registered it. What would you do in that situation?

Shoot... I don't know ;)

[rockhound]

this is exactly why i sold all my guns, that's right all of them prior to the ist of july 2013 .................................................. ....................