Posted on 03/11/2014 8:08:23 AM PDT by Sopater
A Connecticut man revealed shocking comments made by a Branford police officer this week who has openly defended door-to-door gun confiscation.
After the tragic Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, Conn. lawmakers mandated that all “assault rifles” and “high capacity” magazines be banned, requiring all in circulation to be registered with the state. Fearing the obvious move towards confiscation, the vast majority of gun owners have refused to submit, with estimates finding less than 13 percent of rifles being registered.
Navy veteran and firefighter John Cinque, who made national news after telling state lawmakers he would not comply with gun registration, briefly commented on the officer’s statements in a discussion with gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti last Friday.
“I’ve had contact with a police officer in my home town, I live in Branford, and his words straight out were, ‘I cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in,’” Cinque said.
In an exclusive interview with Storyleak, Cinque further detailed the disturbing comments made by Branford Police Officer Joseph Peterson, one of the state’s most highly decorated officers.
WarrantWarrantZZZ“It happened on facebook… he posted to a thread on my wall,” Cinque said. “I have known him personally for 20 years. He was interacting with other friends of mine and it was directly about the video.”
In multiple screenshots captured from the lengthy conversation, Peterson continually argued that law enforcement were not obligated to defy unconstitutional laws. Instead, Peterson stated that he would follow any order given, even if it meant confiscating firearms from close friends.
“But like I said I didn’t make the law,” Peterson told Cinque. “But if it comes down to that then I guess we see how you would respond…”
“I’m not going for any warrants… but if my dept gets them and we have to serve them I will see you then.”
As the conversation’s audience continued to grow, Peterson repeated his pledge, telling multiple people that he would never hesitate to carry out confiscation.
“So if they make a law confiscating guns… You will enforce it?” a Cameron Smith asks in a separate screenshot as Peterson reiterates his stance.
LeftNutPeterson0Angered by comments pointing out the state’s unconstitutional law, Peterson goes as far as to say that he would love to knock down Smith’s door personally.
“I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun,” Peterson said. “Hey everyone Cameron is a criminal law breaking psycho.”
Receiving considerable backlash, Peterson quietly disabled his Facebook page following the conversation, although a screenshot was obtained beforehand.
Despite the inability of several officers to understand what a constitutional law entails, Cinque revealed that countless Conn. officers are opposed to the state’s ruling.
“As for the cops who will stand with the people… there are many,” Cinque said. “None have spoken publicly but in private i know many who do not like this one bit… they realize they are being used.”
“They are supporters of the Constitutional rights of the people, but they need to speak publicly soon.”
Officer Peterson’s mentality is eerily similar to that of Conn. State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance, who recently told one woman that he was “the master” after being asked about gun confiscation.
Although police have begun sending out letters demanding residents comply with the law, Second Amendment activists are standing by their line in the sand. As the police leadership takes its time to analyze the situation, one gun group is now demanding the law be enforced or repealed.
“If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence,” a press release from Connecticut Carry reads.
Also last month, gun blogger Mike Vanderboegh was informed that multiple cops and politicians wanted him “dead” for sending a 16,000 word email to the Conn. State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. In the email, Vanderboegh warned that violence would surely unfold if officers attempted confiscation.
Despite denial by a few, the agenda of the country’s most powerful gun control groups has been thoroughly exposed. Only one month after the Sandy Hook shooting, rejected democrat proposals from New York’s SAFE Act gun bill were revealed to include outright gun confiscation. New York mayor Andrew Cuomo even publicly supported the idea, stating, ‘You could say confiscation is an option’ during an interview on station WGDJ.
Also last month, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Mayor John C. Tkazyik announced his resignation from Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) group, pointing out the group’s hidden gun confiscation agenda.
“Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens,” Tkazyik wrote. “Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did.”
During a Moms Demand Action gun control rally last year, a group that recently merged with MAIG, Austin, Texas City Councilman Mike Martinez admitted that his group was pushing gun control in order to reach an outright ban as well.
Unfortunately for them, even with tens of millions of dollars, the popularity of such groups continues to plummet even faster than the country’s gun crime.
I still hold to the “bad apple” theory, in that the vast majority of LEOs are reasonable, within their rules.
Many years ago, somebody got a rude but accurate cop quote, that “the typical cop is like a (homosexual), in that if you (have sex) with him, he’ll (have sex) with you right back, but harder.” So, ahem, reverse ‘golden rule’ with cops. It is their unwritten rules.
Importantly, there are two very critical provisions to this.
The first is that the FBI and DEA both admit that there is considerable abuse of anabolic steroids by police, and combined with high stress levels, this can make a cop an unpredictable time bomb. This is exacerbated by police not wanting to crack down on one of their own.
The second problem is all the other problems combined, to include bribery, gambling, prostitution, narcotics, and good old fashioned mental illness.
But a single cop, or a peer-pressure group of cops reflects on the rest of their department, no matter how many good cops there are.
“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”
-Representative Henry A. Waxman
Yes, Henry, we should all go like sheep to the slaughter.
If even a minor number of CT gun owners put a gallon glass jug of gasoline behind their front doors, who knows how many SWAT teams would be incinerated in their body armor in the course of “kicking down doors”?
So stated Adolf Eichmann. The banality of evil. The ultimate bureaucrat.
It is like the story a couple weeks ago of the junior high school girl forced outside in minus degree temps during a fire alarm at a school. She got frostbite on her feet. No one thinks to cover her up; put her in a car; wait for her to get dressed. No - the rules say we have to do it this way and everyone will comply. There is no room for free thinking, no questioning the orders, the rules.
This cop knows a person who for over 20 years had a certain type of firearm. For 20 years this firearm owner is a law abiding citizen. Then a law makes him a felon overnight. The cop does not question the law. Just enforces it. Never mind the fact the gun owner never caused any problems in his life. The state has now decreed he is a felon and will be treated as such.
Too many dangerous people running around in charge. Dangerous times indeed.
I don't know which party you refer to as having lost perspective. While being a LEO may be at times difficult , that is not an extenuating condition for the profound contempt for the Constitutional Rights of the citizens of Connecticut that Officer Peterson displays. I have had an experience early in my professional life with an officer who believed that I had no rights under the 2nd Amendment. This was more than 30 years ago and in another state. Many, perhaps most police officers in the US have so little moral(as opposed to physical ) courage and are so ignorant of the foundational basis of Constitutional Liberty that they would behave towards gun owners or whoever else is a designated ‘enemy of the state’ such as TEA party members in the same fashion that the French police at all levels behaved towards Jews who were French citizens in World War 2. Those people had a choice and overwhelmingly they chose not just to go through the motions in a slow, inefficient pro forma way to sabotage the Final Solution through through pretended compliance, instead they displayed energetic zeal and a sadistic pleasure in doing all and more than SD directed. After the Nazis were ejected from most of France the same police agencies and frequently the same men acted with the same sadistic zeal in rounding up and incarcerating ‘collaborators’ of various degrees of culpability. What does this say about the mentality of those who fill the ranks of police agencies. That many are craven, power worshiping statist thugs? Perhaps so. In any case, in this small city officer Peterson should be made to feel the sting of public contempt. There is nothing illegal about organizing a public ‘shunning’ campaign in which many of his fellow townsmen will refuse to speak to him, transact business with him or have any social contact with him at all. After a number of persons cross the street to avoid his presence, refuse to acknowledge his greeting or cut him dead in restaurants, churches, and businesses this will have an effect. At West Point it used to be called giving someone ‘The Silence’. The Silence should be employed today on the likes of Peterson and a good many others.
Would that not also endanger everyone inside the house? Would that not also potentially destroy the house?
I thought the goal was to turn back the Gestapo and live to fight another day, not go out in a ‘blaze of glory’.
JBT Ping!
Wow... that’s the flip side of the founders’
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
Waxman’s base assumption is upside down - that the government should have all the rights and people would be wrong to resist the taking of the people’s rights.
It depends on the phase of the conflict.
In the first phases, the strategy should be to escape and get the word out.
Then organization gets underway,
then ambushes,
then “hunting”.
Conn. Cop: I Will Kick Down Doors To Confiscate Guns and you will have a bullet in your head.
And his statement is right in line with the majority of the Rat Party.
At no point in history has any government ever wanted its people to be defenseless for any good reason ~ nully's sonThe fire and confusion *might* buy you enough time to escape.
As an alternate, there is nothing saying there will even be a fire, rather than just a gasoline spill.
For a fire one would need an ignition source, would a gasoline soaked cop risk becoming a fireball from his own muzzle flash, or even the sparks from his own Taser?
Run!
As you say.
One thing is for sure - if any shots come from the house toward the cops, right house or wrong house,
EVERY PERSON IN THE HOUSE WILL DIE.
This is according to an observation of their current “rules of engagement”.
The audio of that conversation was posted recently on FR, and I heard it. I'll bet Lt. Vance is still on the job after his boast. It was a phone conversation, at one point the lady (who's husband had gotten a letter that he was soon to be visited and his weapon confiscated) told him, "Hey, you're the servants! We citizens are the masters." He replied "We are the masters, we are the masters."
Remember this jackwagon next time somebody assures you the cops would never go through with it. Like Hell they wouldn't. They will, and they will totally enjoy doing it. And they'll break your wife's jaw just to teach you not to give them any sass.
No, he doesn’t state he will just follow orders.
He state he would LOVE to kick down doors and violate constitutional rights.
He states he would even cheerfully give up body parts to crush a citizen.
Nothing so passive as “I vas yust followink odors”.
This Jack-Booted Thug is a wildly enthusiastic cheerleader for state sponsored terrorism against us mere citizens.
Unions!
You forgot to mention the unions.
Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void.”
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County.” 118 U.S. 425
“No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622
“The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
“State courts, like federal courts, have a “constitutional obligation” to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.” Stone v. Powell 428 US 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067.
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.