Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Connecticut gun owners revolt: Widely flouted registration law puts legislators in a bind
Washington Times ^ | February 19, 2014 | Masthead Editorial

Posted on 02/22/2014 11:21:49 PM PST by neverdem

Laws are more than just symbolic gestures. Connecticut's General Assembly must come to grips with this truth before its recent effort to “save lives” ends up destroying them.

State law enforcement officials are now in the difficult position of dealing with one of the most widely flouted laws since the end of the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit and Prohibition. If it’s really serious, the state will have to find space to imprison 300,000 residents for the next five years.

The first article of the Connecticut Constitution couldn’t be more clear. “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state,” it says.

Busybodies at the Capitol in Hartford decided that “every” doesn’t really mean every, and it banned the semi-automatic rifles that would be most useful in defense of the state. As of Jan. 1, owners of arms that have a menacing appearance had to submit registration paperwork to the state.

Only about 50,000 did so. There’s no way to know how many “assault rifles” remain unregistered, but the best guess is that the new “gun safety” law instantly created 300,000 felons.

Eager to exploit the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, easily frightened lawmakers rushed to add yet more hurdles to gun ownership in the state. Those wishing to possess a pistol already had to pay fees, take tests and fill out paperwork to obtain a firearms-purchase permit.

Separate permission from the state was required just to buy ammunition in a process that must be repeated every five years. Bearing arms outside the home requires another permit that the state may, or may not, issue at its discretion...

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: banglist; connecticut
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: neverdem

Too bad about the 50,000 sheep.


41 posted on 02/23/2014 5:52:57 AM PST by mykroar (We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again. - Nathanael Greene)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
...the state will have to find space to imprison 300,000 residents for the next five years.

Everyone of the 300,000 should show up on a pre-determined day at the state capital and turn themselves in to be arrested...

That would put an end to this nonsense...

42 posted on 02/23/2014 6:01:07 AM PST by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
A right to abortion "privacy" is found in the "emanations of the penumbra" of the Constitution.

Yet.........


43 posted on 02/23/2014 6:06:08 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine
Somebody in Hartford needs to read up on what is happening in Ukraine

And the Ukes are armed with only motorcycle helmets and bats, knives, chains. They might carry out one or two successful SWATings in CT, but after that, 300K armed with high capacity reach-out-and-touch-someones fighting on their home turf...?

Hopefully reason infects the brains of the legislature and they quietly, and without fanfare, overturn their unconstitutional ban.

44 posted on 02/23/2014 6:08:03 AM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Thanks neverdem.
State law enforcement officials are now in the difficult position of dealing with one of the most widely flouted laws since the end of the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit and Prohibition. If it’s really serious, the state will have to find space to imprison 300,000 residents for the next five years. The first article of the Connecticut Constitution couldn’t be more clear. “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state,” it says.

45 posted on 02/23/2014 6:25:22 AM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Don’t Connecticut gun owners also have phones and pens? There problem sloved!


46 posted on 02/23/2014 6:26:59 AM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is how fascism works. Pass laws that make everyone felons and then selectively enforce the laws against your political enemies.


47 posted on 02/23/2014 6:41:25 AM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

48 posted on 02/23/2014 6:47:58 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity
The law is patently unconstitutional and almost nobody is going to comply with it.

I can't believe 50,000 did.

49 posted on 02/23/2014 6:55:07 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Imprison 300,000?

Just channel Earl Warren and FDR; they imprisoned 110,000 Japanese in California in 1942.


50 posted on 02/23/2014 7:12:06 AM PST by RossA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A point to remember is that many “bullet proof” vests will not stop a .308 round.


51 posted on 02/23/2014 7:16:13 AM PST by libstripper (Asv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
I can't believe 50,000 did.

Now that's the 50,000 dollar question, isn't it?

I would love to hear their answers.

52 posted on 02/23/2014 7:18:37 AM PST by broken_clock (Do it Sarah! Cut the ties that bind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The left is dumbfounded. Normally the folks just act like good sheep and comply. What will they do now?


53 posted on 02/23/2014 7:22:23 AM PST by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: castlegreyskull
"FEMA Camp?"

Yeah, the dem's all-time wet dream maker, FDR, was all-in on putting U.S. citizens in detention camps.

Old habit/practice for the Democrat party.

54 posted on 02/23/2014 8:04:19 AM PST by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
What will they do now?

They will confiscate unregistered firearms found incidentally during a low-risk police activity (like enforcing a summons for a parking ticket), and then make a high-profile prosecution on that charge.

The search which discovers the firearm(s) will be warrantless, unlawful, and invalid. Charges may be dismissed or nullified by a Jury. The law itself may be successfully appealed and ruled to be unconstitutional. It won't matter. "The process is the punishment".

Repeat as opportunity presents itself.

This will backfire when the firearms owner turns out to be a registered Democrat - and one of the state legislators.

55 posted on 02/23/2014 8:06:22 AM PST by flamberge (What next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens wants to Rewrite Second Amendment

Posted on February 22, 2014 by Gary DeMar

John Paul Stevens served on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, the second longest tenure of all Supreme Court justices. Fortunately for freedom-loving Americans, he can’t do any more damage. Of course, this hasn’t stopped the present crop of justices from significantly remaking America into their own misguided image.

His latest book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, is an inside look into the mind of a Supreme Court Justice, and it’s not a pretty sight. Stevens has been described as a “Midwest Republican conservative” that became a “hero of the political left.”

In his book, Stevens proposes that the Second Amendment be changed from this . . .

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

. . . to this:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

Stevens shows by his call for the addition of “when serving in the militia” that the original meaning referred to private citizens (people) and not only people serving in the military....

Read: http://godfatherpolitics.com/14473/former-supreme-court-justice-stevens-wants-rewrite-second-amendment/


56 posted on 02/23/2014 8:13:24 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

And as felons - they will lose their right to vote.

Take that all you FReepers who think it’s a good idea for felons who are released to no longer have the right to vote.

They take our guns and that gives them the right to take away our vote. What could be better for the dems?


57 posted on 02/23/2014 8:13:26 AM PST by ozarkgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RossA

” they imprisoned 110,000 Japanese in California in 1942.”

Yep. 110,000 UNARMED Japanese. 300,000 gun owners might be a bit different. Maybe.


58 posted on 02/23/2014 8:44:37 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: wita
“Shall not be infringed” has been going on since at least as long as the NRA has been in existance, and for that the NRA should be taken to task as well.

The NRA was first organized after the Civil War because marksmanship in the Union Army was pitiful. The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA-ILA, was first organized in the early 1970s, IIRC, to deal with gun grabber assaults on the Second Amendment.

59 posted on 02/23/2014 9:06:33 AM PST by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RossA

“Just channel Earl Warren and FDR; they imprisoned 110,000 Japanese in California in 1942.”

But those folks weren’t gun owners! They had no means to defend themselves. And in a perverse way, there was some semblance of reason for the action taken.


60 posted on 02/23/2014 9:16:06 AM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson