Is Gun Confiscation on the Way in Connecticut? See the Letter the State Is Sending to Owners

The Blaze ^ | 02/27/2014 | Jason Howerton

[Mr. K]

I am thinking making it a requirment to REGISTER their guns AFTER they own it is itself ex-post-facto

[T-Bird45]

Love the graphic and the facts behind it. The CCW badges make me laugh but I could warm up to that one.

[CivilWarBrewing]

Reminds me of notices of firearms confiscation posted in Nazi Germany: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

TRANSLATION:

Regulations on Arms Possession in the Occupied Zone

1. All firearms and ammunition, hand grenades, explosive devices and other war matériel are to be surrendered. The delivery must take place within 24 hours at the nearest German military administrative headquarters or garrison, provided that other special arrangements have not been made. The mayors (heads of the district councils) must accept full responsibility for complete implementation. Commanding officers are authorized to approve exceptions.

[NorthMountain]

No, this is not an ex post facto law.

The law forbids owning something, and requires owners of things to register them. Failure to register, and continuing to own after the ban, are violations committed after the law was passed.

This is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment; it is a clear infringement on the "right of the People to keep and bear Arms."

[ealgeone]

If a state, now KY, has to recognize out of state homo weddings, then NY needs to recognize all CCWs.

Plain and Simple.

[Uncle Miltie]

It seems that Concealed Carry Permits do the same thing: Tells the state where to go to get the guns.

I think I’ll take a pass.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If a state, now KY, has to recognize out of state homo weddings, then NY needs to recognize all CCWs.

If the Obama administration can sue a Transport company for firing Muslim employees for refusing to deliver alcohol, using violation of civil rights as the reason, why aren’t Christians being defended by Obama when they are forced to service gay weddings?

[CivilWarBrewing]

[Mr. K]

you can’t ban something AFTER people own it

You can’t make it illegal to own something AFTER the fact that they own it

[mwilli20]

There is something fishy about this.
The warning letter claims the postmark deadline was Dec 31st.
This warning letter is dated Jan 2nd.
Not enough time has gone by for this to make sense.

[CivilWarBrewing]

Is this legit? The lamestream media doesn’t even show any links on this matter. None. If it IS legit, there’s an obvious cover up in the mainstream media.

[mwilli20]

If they are not making a run on the Capital ... I would be surprised.

Prepare to be surprised.

[Charles Martel]

Not enough time has gone by for this to make sense.

Yes, if you give the weasely "received or postmarked by" language in the letter any credence. In all likelihood, the receipt deadline passed (the 31st) and these letters issued immediately. They're not going to nitpick postmark dates unless someone challenges the state in court.

[ealgeone]

Great Point!

[snoringbear]

““Anything ( not just constitutionally- protected things like arms) they know you have ......they can try to take away from you.””

First guns, then salt, then sodas, then bacon, there’s no end to it....

[NorthMountain]

Yes, actually, you can. What you can’t do is prosecute them for owning it before you banned it; that would be an”ex post facto” law. You can prosecute them for continuing to own it after you banned it.

The questions really are:

1) Does the State have the authority to ban posession of ANY material object?

and

2) If “yes” to (1) above, does the State have the authority to ban posession of weapons?

I’m unclear on (1), but (2) is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

[fortheDeclaration]

‘I gave the gun away’.

[ctdonath2]

“What are they going to do when their local LEO’s come breaking down their neighbor’s door at 2am to confiscate this now illegal weapon?”

Why, gather at the evidence office and politely request its return. In large numbers. Suitably equipped. The Ukranian model should suffice.

[Pollster1]

The CT State Police will need to draft clear orders for their officers to enforce this law. I would suggest that they model their written instructions on the excellent work of the distinguished, experienced, and professional General Thomas Gage:

Orders from General Thomas Gage
to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot
Boston, April 18, 1775
Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot,

Sir,

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions . . . Tents and small Arms, have been collected at _________ . . . you will March . . . with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to _________, where you will seize and destroy all . . . Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property . . .

What could go wrong?

[tsomer]

Is this legit?

I'm skeptical. Registered gun owners are directed to either turn in the guns and magazines, destroy them, or sell them out of state through a dealer. Scenario:

(knock knock)

"Hello?"

"Hi, we're the local gestapo, and we're here to take your registered gun."

"Oh Damn! Wish you'd stopped by yesterday! I melted it down just last night--to make plowshares! You could've saved me the trouble!"

"Plowshares? Excellent! Thank you for your time."