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

Skip to comments.

Molon Labe: Connecticut’s Terrifying Start Of Gun Confiscation
Townhall.com ^ | March 10, 2014 | Rachel Alexander

Posted on 03/10/2014 8:28:17 AM PDT by Kaslin

>The latest gun control law in Connecticut has crossed a very frightening line. A standoff has been created between the government and tens of thousands of gun owners now considered felons. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian new phase. Gun owners saw it coming, as evidenced by their recent adoption in recent years of the defiant expression “molon labe.” The phrase originated from Spartan General-King Leonidas, who reportedly responded with “Come and get them!” to Persian Emperor Xerxes’ demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans fought valiantly, but were ultimately defeated. With the prequel to the Hollywood bestselling movie 300 just released last week, Americans are now even more aware of the phrase.

Until now, gun control laws hadn’t mandated the confiscation of weapons; generally, banned guns were grandfathered in under previous laws so their current owners could continue to legally own them. The Connecticut law changes all that. Passed last year in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, SB 1160 bans so-called “assault weapons” - certain rifles, more recently known as AR-15s, that have been singled out based on purely cosmetic criteria - and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The firearms have been banned based on how “scary” they look, not their actual usage in crimes. According to a study from the BATF that came out a few years ago, none of the top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. were so-called assault weapons; they were all pistols or revolvers. In fact, the #5 gun used in crimes was a shotgun, which Vice President Joe Biden advised Americans last year to use for self-defense.

The only way to legally retain one of these newly banned firearms or magazines in Connecticut now is to register it - but most gun owners do not want their name on a government list. They are well aware that a list of gun owners can someday be used by the government for confiscation. If gun owners didn’t register their firearms or magazines prior to the December 31, 2013 deadline mandated by the legislation, their firearms will be subject to confiscation and the owners considered guilty of a felony.

So far, it appears that the vast majority of gun owners affected by the legislation did not register their guns prior to the December 31 deadline, making between 50,000 and 350,000 gun owners felons. This is frightening, considering the law doesn’t just make the violation a misdemeanor, it makes it a felony, which could result in a prison sentence. Fewer than 50,000 gun owners registered their firearms by the deadline to comply with the law.

Gun owners who sent in their applications for registration after the deadline have reported already receiving letters by the government instructing them to get rid of their guns. The Hartford Courant notes that the government has records of gun owners who went through background checks in order to purchase AR-15s. The government could potentially go after any of those gun owners who failed to register their guns.

There is shock that gun owners are showing defiance. "I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

On January 30, Federal District Court judge Alfred V. Covello upheld the law in Shew v. Malloy. While he admitted that it placed a substantial burden on the Second Amendment, he claimed that it “substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.” It is astonishing that a judge would use that as justification, considering even Congress sunsetted the federal assault weapons ban due to a lack of evidence showing it was effective.

Many judges come up with rulings based on their personal political views, or are pressured into a certain decision by outside special interests. Judicial activism is nothing new. Judicial activists have successfully forced a tortured, restricted interpretation of the Second Amendment over the years, in order to diminish its validity. Covello’s disappointing decision is currently being appealed, backed by the powerful NRA.

Trying to prosecute 50,000 to 350,000 gun owners would be insanity. The liberal activist politicians who passed the foolish legislation in response to an emotional response to the Sandy Hook Shooting do not represent the will of the people who elected them, who want the Constitution upheld. In many ways, the Second Amendment is our most important right, because without it, we cannot protect any of our other rights. There is a reason why it is the Second Amendment, not the 30th Amendment.

Requiring gun owners to register their firearms puts them on a fast track with sex offenders, who are required to register with the government so they can be monitored for the rest of their lives. If gun owners fail to register for tracking, they are then treated like criminals, just like sex offenders. This is bizarre, considering lawful gun owners are merely patriotic Americans concerned about protecting their cherished rights. AR-15s aren’t guns used in crimes, but are popular guns for self-defense and target shooting.

Connecticut Carry, a leading gun rights organization in the state, is daring the government to come after gun owners. The stage is being set for massive civil disobedience unless the law is changed. Many prosecutors and law enforcement officers are not going to uphold a law this heavy-handed; nevertheless, this ill-conceived legislation, pushed through by gun-control activists, is going to pit many law-abiding law enforcement officers against thousands of patriotic, American freedom-loving gun owners. It is terrifying that here in America, innocent gun owners would be put in the same category as sex offenders, turning them into felons. Connecticut governor Dannel Malloy (D), who signed SB 1160, seems to have become another King Xerxes. This time around, will the Spartans in Connecticut prevail?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: alfredcovello; banglist; civilwar2; civilwarii; confrontationwatch; cw2; cwii; donutwatch; feos; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-157 next last

1 posted on 03/10/2014 8:28:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I hope Henry Bowman has woke his lazy butt up and is on the way to CT. He has some appointments to make.


2 posted on 03/10/2014 8:32:38 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

3 posted on 03/10/2014 8:33:30 AM PDT by dblshot (I am John Galt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A branford CT cop “can’t wait to kick your door in”

http://www.branfordseven.com/news/local/article_b9001a90-a7eb-11e3-9579-001a4bcf6878.html


4 posted on 03/10/2014 8:33:58 AM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (I miss you, dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This will indeed be the start of CW-II.

In prep, hopefully ALL addresses of the pieces of Obamastuff that perped the law will be published.

A visit to one gun owner’s home should rightfully be reflected by visits to those homes.


5 posted on 03/10/2014 8:34:18 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They will run out of cops before Connecticut runs out of guns.


6 posted on 03/10/2014 8:34:42 AM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (I miss you, dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Civil disobedience is morally justified here and is absolutely required. It is a must. People need to stand strong and we must stand with them and support them in any way possible.


7 posted on 03/10/2014 8:34:53 AM PDT by Obadiah (I Like Ted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

He might be getting a bit long in the tooth by now, but I’m sure he can still set up a scenario to his advantage.


8 posted on 03/10/2014 8:35:14 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Can you say Lexington and Concord? Is it time?


9 posted on 03/10/2014 8:35:15 AM PDT by cld51860 (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I really have not followed this issue too much. It wasn’t until I read this thread that I caught the single reason this is such a big deal:

The deadline passed months ago and the state KNOWS that hundreds of thousands of citizens refused to comply and risk being felons.

This is a VERY big deal.


10 posted on 03/10/2014 8:37:22 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You’re going to see more and more passive civil disobedience in the next decade or two. Not just with guns but with the culture,Obamacare...


11 posted on 03/10/2014 8:37:23 AM PDT by LMAO (Insurgent conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Battle of Athens, Part II
12 posted on 03/10/2014 8:37:44 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Those hundreds of thousands have committed the huge “crime” of

DEFIANCE.

Libs can’t stand defiance.


13 posted on 03/10/2014 8:39:18 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Notice that in spite of the rhetoric, not a single door has been kicked in or a single warrant served.

This shows that LEO and Elected Officials are, in fact, afraid to do so.

It also shows they are unable to get a warrant based on the fact that somebody purchased one of the banned weapons at sometime in the past.

My guess: They'll pick off these folks as opportunity presents itself. WHEN LEO encounters one of these weapons in the normal course of police work they'll confiscate and charge.

They really have not other choice.

14 posted on 03/10/2014 8:39:59 AM PDT by Mariner (uely)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

how much is the state of connecticut paying for this confiscation. you can take without compensation.


15 posted on 03/10/2014 8:41:12 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

So what happens when the govt storms the homes of the alleged gun owners and no guns are found? Will the owners have standing to sue? I sure hope so!


16 posted on 03/10/2014 8:41:36 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
They really have not other choice.

Yes they do. "Shall not be infringed"
17 posted on 03/10/2014 8:41:42 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Those hundreds of thousands have committed the huge “crime” of

DEFIANCE.

Libs can’t stand defiance.


But libs only win in courtrooms with bought and paid for judges. If this spills out from there, they don’t have a paryer.


18 posted on 03/10/2014 8:41:53 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis T. OJustice

> “If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they
> don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”

You mean like the immigraton laws?

You mean like the Defence of Marriage Act?

You mean like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

You mean like the subject-to-change-without-notice Affordable Care Act?

Why is this IDIOT “shocked” about people refusing to obey an UNLAWFUL act when the state and federal governments don’t obey the laws?


19 posted on 03/10/2014 8:44:37 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Spartans were defeated, but they became a rallying cry for the rest of the Greeks.


20 posted on 03/10/2014 8:45:44 AM PDT by chae (I was anti-Obama before it was cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
"Yes they do"

What I meant is that they have no other choice if they actually want to enforce this law.

Sure, they could go to the door of everyone they suspect of having one of these weapons, based on their records, and demand entry or surrender...but only a complete fool or idiot would accede.

They cannot obtain a warrant based on those background check records.

Now, what I personally would like to see is 10,000 of these rifle owners rally, with their weapons, on the Capitol Steps...taunting LEO, Elected officials and media.

They just better make sure these weapons are loaded.

21 posted on 03/10/2014 8:49:09 AM PDT by Mariner (uely)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
What I meant is that they have no other choice if they actually want to enforce this law.

Bullshit. The 2A supercedes the crap law they passed.

If they passed a law saying certain words could land one in jail if uttered, would that be Constitutional?

No. Well, neither is this.
22 posted on 03/10/2014 8:51:02 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
"Notice that in spite of the rhetoric, not a single door has been kicked in or a single warrant served."

There was an article posted which pointed out that 25 officers had signed an open letter in opposition to the gun confiscations. My suspicion is that the majority of officers want no part of kicking in doors to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens. There was one officer who made a statement about how he can't wait to kick in a door, but thus far, at least publicly, he is heavily outnumbered.

23 posted on 03/10/2014 8:51:12 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Civil disobedience is morally justified here and is absolutely required. It is a must. People need to stand strong and we must stand with them and support them in any way possible.

Don't forget jury nullification. We have to educate conservatives in CT and nationwide on the importance of that power. If any decent person is called for jury duty in a gun rights case, it's important to get on that jury by being truthful but not helpful (think Bill Clinton under oath) and then to vote 'Not Guilty' regardless of the letter of the law. An unjust law is no law, and it's the jury's job to ignore such laws no matter what the judge or an unconstitutional written law may say.

24 posted on 03/10/2014 8:52:54 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I assume the government jackboots could not just kick your door in and look for unregistered guns. Wouldn’t they need a court issued warrant to do this? I also assume that there would have to be some due process to allow a court trial. If my assumptions are wrong and the government could simply kick in my door on the suspicion I had an illegal firearm and confiscate it on the spot and haul me off to jail, then a line has been crossed and the citizens of Connecticut are living in a police state. In that case resistance in any form is warranted.


25 posted on 03/10/2014 8:53:22 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The state assumed that folks would just do as they were told.

Now they have to answer the question of whether they want to enforce the law, which might take a lot of blood and money. You’re talking formal LEO funerals, life insurance payouts, a swollen prison population, courtroom costs, personnel payroll, uncooperative sheriffs, on and on.

Just the insurance costs alone for law enforcement is a game ender.


26 posted on 03/10/2014 8:53:40 AM PDT by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Until now, gun control laws hadn’t mandated the confiscation of weapons; generally, banned guns were grandfathered in under previous laws so their current owners could continue to legally own them. The Connecticut law changes all that.

Uh, not quite. The writer is obviously unfamiliar with the New Jersey "assault weapons" ban jammed through the legislature by Gov. James Florio in the early 1990s. It BANNED the possession of a whole list of guns, plus any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds...and it is still on the books. NO GRANDFATHERING AT ALL!

Now NJ's rat-controlled legislature is about to give Gov. Christie a bill that outlaws any magazine over 10 rounds, and it'll outlaw tube-fed .22s that hold more than 10 rounds. We'll see what fat boy does - try to please his sheople in NJ, or try to not piss off Republicans around the country by signing it.

NJ never went door-to-door to collect anything - they just used the gutless way out, that of tacking on charges to anyone who the arrested who also had a prohibited weapon or magazine. I left that $hithole in 2000, and had about 200 years worth of prohibited mags sitting 18 inches behind my arse as I passed the "Welcome to Delaware" sign on the way out. As we passed the sign, I told my wife, "Now you won't have to bail me out of jail." When I explained why, she turned white as a sheet. She asked me, "They don't have laws like that in Texas, do they?" I told her, "No, Texas is in America."

27 posted on 03/10/2014 8:53:44 AM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Left will pick and choose and select easy targets to intimidate the rest of non-compliers. They will publicize a high profile felony arrest and trial to show what they are prepared to do. The only way short of armed resistance to force this tyranny back is for gun owners and Second Amendment organizations to hound, follow, and confront the individual state legislators everywhere they go until this law is repealed.


28 posted on 03/10/2014 8:53:48 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Gun control for dummies - It’s common sense.

Good explanation of the 3rd Amendment and the BILL OF RIGHTS

http://www.youtube.com/embed/F584p5kJL-U?rel=0****


29 posted on 03/10/2014 8:54:19 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chae

Defenders of the Alamo, also.


30 posted on 03/10/2014 8:55:01 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

If, with the stroke of a pen, you pass laws that violate the Rights granted by the Creator to all mankind and turn upwards of a third of a million people into felons then you have a real problem.

Can you say "overreach"? I knew you could. This one's gonna blow up in their faces.

31 posted on 03/10/2014 8:56:41 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (Historians will refer to this administration as "The Half-Black Plague.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

There are probably 10,000 of these rifle owners or many, many more who have owned them way before they needed papers to own them.


32 posted on 03/10/2014 8:57:35 AM PDT by Red_Devil 232 ((VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
"....the government has records of gun owners who went through background checks in order to purchase AR-15s. The government could potentially go after any of those gun owners who failed to register their guns."

But there were NO REQUIREMENTS to have a paper trail for the sale or trade of ANY long guns - they may know who bought them, but have no way of knowing who HAVE them.

33 posted on 03/10/2014 8:57:58 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

He may be outnumbered, but how does the homeowner know he isn’t the cop battering down the door or otherwise executing a warrant to seize your weapon?


34 posted on 03/10/2014 8:58:11 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I predict the state will attempt to enforce this by revoking driver’s licences and vehicle registrations.


35 posted on 03/10/2014 8:58:31 AM PDT by ryan71 (The Partisans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Travis T. OJustice

They’re going to run out of cops much faster than they think they will too.

Have friends up in CT. One of them commented on the sudden appearane of pro-2nd Amendment bumper stickers on the civilian vehicles in the employee parking lot at his local police dept hq.

There have been a couple instance of a**hole cops talking smack about busting down doors. There are a heck of a lot MORE cops who are going to suddenly find somewhere better to be should confiscation orders be issued.


36 posted on 03/10/2014 8:59:31 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
I don't believe you're actually reading what I'm writing.

I'm not addressing whether the law is Constitutional.

I am saying ONLY that if they want to enforce it they are not currently empowered...nor are they likely to ever be...to go kicking down doors based on a list of background checks.

Do not think for a minute that I'm advocate for this law, nor for any LEO that is corrupt enough to attempt enforcement. No do I believe that it's legal under the Constitution.

37 posted on 03/10/2014 9:01:17 AM PDT by Mariner (uely)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"Libs can’t stand defiance."

"Dissent is patriotic." - Hillary Clinton

38 posted on 03/10/2014 9:01:41 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis T. OJustice

These coppers have got to understand that they have no protections that cannot be overcome. The locals whose doors they kick in and arrest the homeowners know who these cops are, where they live as well as about their families. I say families because cops do have a tendency to kill innocents in houses they bust into.

After all, the TV show “COPS” is where many of them learn the perceived attitudes and actions of the police departments.


39 posted on 03/10/2014 9:02:01 AM PDT by biff (WAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/bracken-dear-mr-security-agent/

The Yellow Line: crossed.
The Red Line: crossed.

Running out of lines in CT.


40 posted on 03/10/2014 9:02:36 AM PDT by Unknowing (Now is the time for all smart little girls to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Sorry if I misunderstood your post.


41 posted on 03/10/2014 9:04:09 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
"I predict the state will attempt to enforce this by revoking driver’s licences and vehicle registrations."

Yeah, they might try that.

But it won't withstand legal challenge...at least on appeal.

Nobody can prove these folks have those weapons.

Now, I will say this: For you guns owners in the midst of child custody and/or divorce fights...move, and move now. Take your weapons with you out of state.

If you ex or one of your deluded kids swears they saw the weapon in the house, you're had.

Could also be a neighbor or "friend" or sister-in-law etc.

Prime affiants all.

42 posted on 03/10/2014 9:05:55 AM PDT by Mariner (uely)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Obadiah

Could always boycott Connecticut, but what is there to boycott? :-)


44 posted on 03/10/2014 9:06:43 AM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman; Kaslin

“If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”

If, with the stroke of a pen, you pass laws that violate the Rights granted by the Creator to all mankind and turn upwards of a third of a million people into felons then you have a real problem.

Can you say “overreach”? I knew you could. This one’s gonna blow up in their faces.
___________________________________

Yeah, just like Prohibition, except that involved the entire populace. I’ll never forget listening to my kindly, mild-mannered grandfather about 35 years ago, talking about mixing up booze in a still that he made. I was shocked - but he told me that people had been drinking for thousands of years, and he wasn’t going to let a law passed by a bunch of nosy do-gooders change his life. He also informed me that lots of friends and family did the same thing.

Now what do you think that such an idiotic law did for the respect that people had for the law in general? It crushed it, that’s what. Just as the 55 MPH limit made me have contempt for the law in the early 1980s, after there was no fuel shortage at all, and the safety Nazis got in on the game of trying to regulate everyone’s behavior.

And then I started buying guns...and my transformation into someone who has utter contempt for the law and the hypocritical, corrupt SOBs (or just plain Bs) that pass said laws, was complete. Now I obey laws that I believe to have some or any basis in morality or practicality, and those that can land me in big trouble if I am caught violating them. When the government passes laws and exempts itself and its functionaries, when the functionaries are caught and not prosecuted, and when our ELECTED SO-CALLED REPRESENTATIVES themselves speak of their contempt for the very Constitution that created their office...at that point I will do as they do.

I have to tell you, it took quite a bit of doing for me to get to this point - I grew up in a law and order household, with my parents being products of the late-40s and early-50s, where the government basically did no wrong. Nice work, morons.


45 posted on 03/10/2014 9:08:02 AM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
"He may be outnumbered, but how does the homeowner know he isn’t the cop battering down the door or otherwise executing a warrant to seize your weapon?"

I am only pointing out what is within my current knowledge. I am not going to try to guess how a homeowner can determine who is at the door.

46 posted on 03/10/2014 9:08:13 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chae

There were two parts to that battle, the land and the sea.

Leonides lead the land battle, Themisticles lead the sea.

Leonides lost only because of betrayal.

Themisticles won outright.


47 posted on 03/10/2014 9:08:28 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Travis T. OJustice

Absolutely correct. Ditto federal efforts at the same. These scum ride the tiger.


48 posted on 03/10/2014 9:10:31 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (If you can read this, you are part of the resistance. Or some scum sucking kapo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

Excellent!!!!


49 posted on 03/10/2014 9:11:07 AM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“The Hartford Courant notes that the government has records of gun owners who went through background checks in order to purchase AR-15s.”

This caught my attention. I thought the information from background checks had to be destroyed. Anyone know different?

In the last failed Federal gun control bill, the 2nd Amendment Foundation added an amendment which added a penalty for not destroying the background check data.

The current law states that the background check data must be destroyed but there is no penalty for not destroying it. Anyone else familiar with this?


50 posted on 03/10/2014 9:12:24 AM PDT by joshua c (Please dont feed the liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-157 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