Sounds like CT Gun Grabbers want to kick in doors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

after next nutcase they round up the registered ones.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

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-h...3161975.column

Now they're going to send out scary letters.

[LOL]

Remember kids, registration=confiscation.

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.

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."