As a resident of a far-left state (Maryland), for family reasons, I understand the quandary facing armed CT residents. They have so many choices, all of which pose risks or costs:
They can buy parts to modify their firearms; that AR-15 is okay if they replace the barrel with one that doesn’t look as scary and replace the standard-capacity magazine with multiple smaller-capacity 10 round magazines. That is a waste of money that does nothing for public safety, but it does make the individual’s problem go away, at least in the short term, and with minimal effort.
They can buy new CT-compliant firearms and store their current weapons in another state, at least until the house-to-house confiscation talk dies down. That is a waste of money that does nothing for public safety, but it does make the problem go away, at least in the short term, and with minimal effort.
They can (especially if they have grown children so the heavy-handed enforcement will not disrupt their duty to family) openly defy the law and challenge the thugs to “come and get them”. That can result in a felony conviction that will make firearms ownership illegal, or worse, and I’ll bet leftists would love that outcome.
They can ignore the law - not openly defy the law but also make no effort to comply with even the letter of this unconstitutional law. That will probably mean the law has no effect unless and until they use a firearm in self-defense, at which time they will be the ones charged with a crime (and sued by the criminal “victim” of an illegal gun and its violence).
Finally, they can devote all their available time and money to electing a conservative state government and a conservative federal government that will protect this fundamental God-given right. That is what I will be doing.
“They can buy parts to modify their firearms; that AR-15 is okay if they replace the barrel with one that doesn’t look as scary and replace the standard-capacity magazine with multiple smaller-capacity 10 round magazines. That is a waste of money that does nothing for public safety, but it does make the individual’s problem go away, at least in the short term, and with minimal effort.”
I’m not sure of your age, but I can remember a time that we were able to smoke while flying on any commercial airline.
The Libtards started putting limitations in place while telling us that the limitations were safety reasons and that they would not become stricter.
Now, where do we stand on that simple act?
Need I expand on this?