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

Skip to comments.

Connecticut Gun Owners: “Come and Get Them!”
Townhall.com ^ | March 4, 2014 | Michael Schaus

Posted on 03/04/2014 7:30:01 AM PST by Kaslin

Connecticut gun owners are calling the state’s anti-gun bluff. The state recently passed a slew of anti-gun legislation, including a gun registration program for so called “assault rifles” that has been received with less enthusiasm than Obamacare. In fact, many gun owners in Connecticut have elected to ignore the patently unconstitutional law in the same way that Millennials have ignored the IRS requirement for health insurance. And now, as the state issues threatening letters and increased confiscation rhetoric, citizens are telling the state: “Come and take them.”

Lawmakers in Connecticut have already threatened current gun owners with confiscation in accordance with the new regulation requirements. And despite a fraction of state gun owners deciding to comply with intrusive registration requirements, the Governor has accelerated his anti-gun rhetoric. (Colorado voters decided to hold recall elections… Connecticut gun owners have decided to take the Barack Obama approach: Ignore inconvenient laws.) Letters have been sent to “known gun owners” demanding registration, or the surrender of their “assault weapons”. The birth place of the Constitution, it turns out, is still home to armed students of human liberty.

Despite the strong rhetoric, and threatened legal action, citizens have remained stunningly unphased by the authoritarian nature of Connecticut’s gun registration scheme. In fact, Connecticut Carry (a decidedly pro-Second Amendment group) has even gone so far as to challenge the state to go door-to-door:

Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision: Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety.

Connecticut Carry has essentially called their state’s bluff: “Repeal the law, or start confiscating”. After all, going door to door, in an effort to confiscate the guns of well-armed citizens, seems like a mildly insane idea… Even in wildly liberal havens such as Hartford.

Connecticut’s assault on self-defense is not, unfortunately, an isolated incident. The NYPD has started a similar gun confiscation program in New York, and New Jersey (judging by their rhetoric) is not far behind. New Jersey, as it turns out, is next in line to butcher the Second Amendment into an unrecognizable web of regulation and restriction as they consider banning .22 Rugers and Henry Rifles… Because, well, such guns could be used in a crime. Recently proposed gun legislation in the Garden State would outlaw the ownership of any rifle that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds… Because, as studies have shown, it is usually the 11th round that is used in a violent crime. (Um… I’m still waiting for someone to create that sarcasm font for me.)

Apparently, Connecticut, Colorado, New York, California, New Jersey, and a growing number of other states, believe it is acceptable to restrict their citizen’s rights on the supposition that those rights might be misused to inflict damage on the greater populace. George Washington is often attributed a quotation that articulates such injustice as a violation of human rights: It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.

In the end, it is neither the legislators, the governors, nor the courts that are the final arbitrator of justice. It is the people. The un-elected masses. Connecticut gun owners are essentially calling on the state to either begin confiscation (and prosecution) of Connecticut’s gun owners… Or shut up and repeal the latest batch of unenforceable gun restrictions; because they understand that laws have little bearing when they infringe upon the common understanding of liberty. And that’s not the interpretation of some right-wing gun nut… Unless, of course, that’s how you describe Thomas Jefferson. Connecticut will soon find itself involved in a protracted legal debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment… Or they will be in the precarious position of confiscating weapons from otherwise law-abiding (well-armed) citizens.

Write whatever laws you want… If you can’t enforce them, they’re as useless as President Obama’s foreign policy.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: Connecticut; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: banglist; gunconfiscation; guncontrol; gunrights; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 03/04/2014 7:30:01 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

2 posted on 03/04/2014 7:36:54 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Is it a bluff?

I guess they’ll find out.


3 posted on 03/04/2014 7:37:35 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

4 posted on 03/04/2014 7:38:06 AM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Better yet -

Require the Legislators to go door to door to confiscate the firearms.

5 posted on 03/04/2014 7:39:32 AM PST by NY.SS-Bar9 (Those that vote for a living outnumber those that work for one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is the best way to fight these unconstitutional laws. Ignore them. Ignore Obamacare too.

Make these commies show their true hand, a hand that resorts to being the instigators of violence against law abiding Constitutionally protected citizens.


6 posted on 03/04/2014 7:40:44 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

California already started their friendly at-your-door confiscation service.


7 posted on 03/04/2014 7:41:49 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

8 posted on 03/04/2014 7:42:19 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dforest

We have a moral obligation not to submit to truly unjust laws.


9 posted on 03/04/2014 7:45:08 AM PST by frogjerk (We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Hmmm...How do I put this...IMO anyone who lives and pays taxes to corrupt commies in Connecticut are insane. Now imagine those people armed to the teeth and not going to give up their guns! Looks like a Violent Crimes: SUV episode in the making.


10 posted on 03/04/2014 7:45:13 AM PST by gr8eman (But thermodynamics is just a social construct, created by the ruling white power structure to perpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Hmmm...How do I put this...IMO anyone who lives and pays taxes to corrupt commies in Connecticut are insane. Now imagine those people armed to the teeth and not going to give up their guns! Looks like a Violent Crimes: SUV episode in the making.


11 posted on 03/04/2014 7:45:41 AM PST by gr8eman (But thermodynamics is just a social construct, created by the ruling white power structure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho

Beat me to it...


12 posted on 03/04/2014 7:50:18 AM PST by Bikkuri ( those would have been affected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Please explain. What is your source
for that assertion? Thanks.


13 posted on 03/04/2014 7:53:12 AM PST by seenenuf ( Save the Right Supremes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The laws will never be repealed. They may not enforce them through daily physical confiscation. However, since they will still be on the books, the laws will be “enforced” only when they become convenient, kind of like IRS tax audits.


14 posted on 03/04/2014 7:53:58 AM PST by immadashell (The inmates are running the asylum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
California already started their friendly at-your-door confiscation service.

No way!

15 posted on 03/04/2014 7:56:35 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dforest
Like I said in another thread the only way they can control you is if you let them control you

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3129345/replies?c=1

16 posted on 03/04/2014 7:58:42 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


17 posted on 03/04/2014 7:59:12 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The 2nd amendment fight is the only one we should be concerned about. The commies are covering us up with other issues to splinter our efforts when the God given right to protect ourselves and our property should be our only cause. Win this fight and we win all others, lose it and we lose all others. We must stop allowing ourselves to be distracted by all the other issues the ba5tard raises.


18 posted on 03/04/2014 8:00:50 AM PST by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Taking a cue from totalitarian states like Cuba and East Germany, Connecticut gun grabbers could locate unregistered guns by using neighborhood snitches and even coercing kids to rat on their parents.
19 posted on 03/04/2014 8:01:20 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dforest

It’s like this.

Dear panty waste commies,

You are going to have to use more than a pen and a phone if you want to take my God given rights.


20 posted on 03/04/2014 8:04:22 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Art in Idaho

March 25 is Greek Independence Day.

1821 overthrow of the Ottoman empire.


21 posted on 03/04/2014 8:04:38 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Foundahardheadedwoman
The 2nd amendment fight is the only one we should be concerned about.

Totally incorrect. We have many worthy battles that need to be fought.

22 posted on 03/04/2014 8:08:20 AM PST by frogjerk (We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m guessing the first things CT will do is deny drivers licences and vehicle registrations.


23 posted on 03/04/2014 8:11:07 AM PST by ryan71 (The Partisans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryan71

How do they know who has a rifle?


24 posted on 03/04/2014 8:12:19 AM PST by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

“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?


25 posted on 03/04/2014 8:12:31 AM PST by Howie66 (John Wayne McCornyn...he's just like US! Honest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Well said!


26 posted on 03/04/2014 8:14:21 AM PST by Howie66 (John Wayne McCornyn...he's just like US! Honest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ryan71

Why would they do that? You really need to stop speculating *rme*


27 posted on 03/04/2014 8:15:35 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
We have a moral obligation not to submit to truly unjust laws.

I look at it this way, if I submit I am likely subjecting my children and grandchildren to tyranny. My rights come from God, not from the Marxists seeking to impose their will upon me.

Just as I served my country and was willing to sacrifice my life for liberty, so too should I be willing to suffer or sacrifice for the sake of liberty. Someone has to do it as others before have done it.

28 posted on 03/04/2014 8:18:59 AM PST by Obadiah (I Like Ted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Not sure about California confiscations but they did make certain semi-auto’s retroactively illegal like in CT. Enforcement and/or confiscation is left to local LEOs.

In New York, FOID’s are being revoked for adjudgement of mental illness (for some very flimsy reasons such as a single visit to a MH professional). Upon revocation the po-po show up & confiscate the citizen’s guns.

Since mental illness is now defined as objecting to the Obama agenda, expect this pretext to be invoked frequently.

The impasse in Connecticut will turn ugly soon. Reverence for the police died when Officer Friendly died of old age. Remember when a cop killer was the worst criminal in the world? That was because the cop on the beat really was your friend. He was far more likely to use his nightstick than his gun and he didn’t routinely tog up in combat gear with an AR-15 & ride into the neighborhood in an MRAP.

Today, the police are seen as armed enforcers of the will of the State. They search your car and ticket you & take your money. Anything you say to them can & will be used against you. A chilling prospect.

We are lectured, “Don’t judge all Muslims because of a few terrorists!”

Well, “Don’t criminalize all gun owners because of the criminal misuse of guns” seems to use the same logic. Doesn’t it?

Doesn’t it?


29 posted on 03/04/2014 8:22:20 AM PST by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
You have no voice without a means to defend it.

Without those, all your other battles are lost before they're begun.

30 posted on 03/04/2014 8:25:27 AM PST by tomkat (3%+1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: seenenuf; Bloody Sam Roberts
Link from Free Patriot

Link from Fresno Bee

Link from Ammoland

Link from Daily Caller

Believe me now?

31 posted on 03/04/2014 8:25:32 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

We agree. But people have a range of priorities in their lives. I’m hoping a sufficient number of CT citizens will refuse to allow this law to stand rather than working around the letter of the law. Full compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law is the worst of all possible options. Even if I had too little backbone to defend freedom, I would rather put my guns and ammo on the front lawn with a “take what you want” sign than give them to a government that was confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens. Better to arm unknown individuals, some of whom will oppose tyranny, than to disarm everyone.

Conservatives are, however, by nature law-abiding. We expect leftists to realize that their demands are unconstitutional and back down eventually (which is not rational on our part - they want unconstitutional, unlimited power, violating our rights is the goal and not just an oversight). It takes a little thought for us to cross the line from complying even with dumb laws because they are laws to active resistance. I think it is worth articulating the available options with firearms, with ObamaCare, with mandates to provide artistic services to gay weddings, and with the rest of the big government overreach.


32 posted on 03/04/2014 8:27:16 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

You are a patriot. Thank you


33 posted on 03/04/2014 8:27:41 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
California already started their friendly at-your-door confiscation service.

I'm not sure what you are refering to. Source?

I live in CA and have not heard or seen such a service.

34 posted on 03/04/2014 8:28:26 AM PST by super7man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

Thank you, sir!


35 posted on 03/04/2014 8:29:25 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Apparently they’ve been getting the info from the NICS forms at gun stores? Yes, I know, they’re strictly forbidden from doing that, but what the heck?

In this case, I think the notices are going out to people who stupidly registered, but after the deadline.


36 posted on 03/04/2014 8:32:28 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Gonna be some dead cops in Cali before this is over.


37 posted on 03/04/2014 8:33:44 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: super7man

See post 31.


38 posted on 03/04/2014 8:33:55 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
While the 2nd amendment helps to secure the first it is not source of the first amendment. The first amendment is our first freedom given to us by God. Also, having the 2nd amendment is totally useless if the first doesn't exist. All of our rights need to be protected as vociferously as the 2nd amendment.

This is why some conservatives don't like the NRA because they have capitulated on other conservative principles (Supporting Harry Reid for one) and cannot see the forest for the trees sometimes.

39 posted on 03/04/2014 8:36:20 AM PST by frogjerk (We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
Doesn’t it?

No. Liberal logic is a different thing altogether. They are mentally defective to start with. Add to that an agenda concerning Muslims (which I swear is meant to do nothing but p!$$ off Conservatives) and their inate fear of guns and you have a serious problem trying to establish a benchmark or find middle ground.

40 posted on 03/04/2014 8:38:42 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why? Because you cannot function without those things. You cannot work you cannot feed your family.


41 posted on 03/04/2014 8:40:56 AM PST by ryan71 (The Partisans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Foundahardheadedwoman

“The 2nd amendment fight is the only one we should be concerned about. The commies are covering us up with other issues to splinter our efforts ...”

+1


42 posted on 03/04/2014 8:41:05 AM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
You have no voice without a means to defend it. Without those, all your other battles are lost before they're begun.

There are plenty of people throughout history that had a voice without being behind a gun or holding a weapon. I'm not arguing that the 2nd amendment isn't a right and should be infringed. I'm just arguing don't denegrate or give up your other unalienable rights by ignoring those battles.

43 posted on 03/04/2014 8:44:05 AM PST by frogjerk (We are conservatives. Not libertarians, not "fiscal conservatives", not moderates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think it is amazing and a bit heartening that even in dark blue Connecticut that 85% of so-called “assault” weapon owners had the courage to thumb their noses at this unconstitutional law. If it had been 10%, the liberals could have just written it off as some law breaking kooks and brought the hammer down. But 85% or close to half a million gun owners is hard to write off as a handful of crazy kooks. The ball is the libs court....


44 posted on 03/04/2014 8:44:48 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

Someone named Holder ordered a SQL query on NCIS for CT background checks? That would be possible but not foolproof, and certainly miss any illegal purchases.


45 posted on 03/04/2014 8:48:11 AM PST by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Your observation becomes easy to understand with a quick look at the axis between Islam & the Left. These are more co-belligerents than soulmates, but share a common enemy: Judeo-Christian based Western civilization.

Since both Islam & liberalism preach first & foremost the destruction of their enemies (to rally their forces) with a side order of control freakiness, they have methodology in common as much as they do their `sacred’ beliefs.

A marriage made in h***, in other words.


46 posted on 03/04/2014 8:49:33 AM PST by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Compliance with Tyranny is Treason.


47 posted on 03/04/2014 8:53:19 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (Nobody owes you a living, so shut up and get back to work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

As an Oath Keeper, I will stand and fight (again) for our Constitution.

Rather than lay your tools for Liberty in your front lawn. feel free to send them to me. One can never have too many, you know.

MOLON LABE


48 posted on 03/04/2014 8:55:35 AM PST by Howie66 (John Wayne McCornyn...he's just like US! Honest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

They will. Just give them time.


49 posted on 03/04/2014 9:04:06 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

>”In this case, I think the notices are going out to people who stupidly registered, but after the deadline”<

I had a “registered” AK-47 Assault Weapon way back when. I sold to an out of State Retired LEO when I decided I didn’t want to be on “THE LIST”.

I put Registering that Rifle and Voting for Perot in 1992 as two of my biggest blunders. Lessons learned and never forgotten.

After I sold the AK, I bought a ‘CA Compliant” Stag AR-15.
It isn’t Registered, and it never will be.

I’m not buying into the Commie “Overnight Felon” crap. Last time I checked this was America, not 1936 Berlin or the Jewish Ghetto.

Compliance with Tyranny is Treason.


50 posted on 03/04/2014 9:11:15 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (Nobody owes you a living, so shut up and get back to work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 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