Registration ==> Confiscation?

The Canadian experience is worth looking at.

Registration of hand guns is still in place, no record of registration ever solving a crime!

Then registration of long guns was implemented, same, never solved a crime.

Long gun register, dumped two? years ago.

The same reasons were given for registration, so Police could punch up the PC in car unit, then they would know? If the house/apt. etc, had guns?

The Police soon went to the common sense method, assume there were guns in all dwellings! That was easy.

The Brits? Ref Registration, got all the guns, years ago, paid for them, but still got them. Many Police were told "Sold that ten years ago!" that was that.

I wonder how many returning Military (from Iraq, Afghanistan) feel about the no gun rules, after the French terrorists attacks?

Welcome to the Gunshine State! Florida.
 
Steve4102 said:
I thought the Gun Owners of CT overwhelmingly refused to register their "Assault" weapons, or was that only a temporary protest and they have since abided by this legal requirement?
Click to expand...
According to friends who live in Connecticut, in the days immediately before the registration deadline the line at the state police headquarters building stretched from the firearms unit on the second floor down the stairs, through the lobby, out the door, and all the way around the building. I'm sure there are some who elected to become instant felons, but from all reports I think that gun owners in Connecticut "overwhelmingly" complied, and that hold-outs are in a very small minority.
 
steve4102 said:
Back in Feb it was reported about 50 K registered.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/conne.../13/id/552558/
Click to expand...
Interesting article.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee, told the Courant. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
Click to expand...
Even so, he almost got it -- I corrected his statement for him. IMHO, if you pass [stupid] laws that people have no respect for, that's a sure sign that you're passing laws that should not be passed.

My great-grandfather was a professor of law at a well-respected law school. My grandfather was his student. I was raised to believe that laws that aren't enforced or are enforced only sporadically are worse than no laws at all, precisely because they teach disrespect for the rule of law. I have a friend who owns and operates a shooting range in Connecticut. He used to have a booklet, put out by the CT State Police, that summarized the gun laws in CT. The booklet was maybe (20) 8-1/2 x 11 pages. The legislative bill that amended the gun laws was 169 pages. It was presented to the rank-and-file legislators less than 24 hours before the vote. How could anyone read and digest 169 pages of legalese in that short period of time? It was like Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare: "You'll just have to pass it to find out what's in it."

That should be grounds for impeachment, right there. How can a legislator justify his or her salary if he or she is voting on bills they haven't even read?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh how people forget their own history. It was in Lexington Ma. and Concord Ma. that British troops marched to seize arms and munitions stored their for the personal defense of the people. Those terrible assault weapons that were equal to or better than the weapons used by the army. No they didn't register their arms but the powers that were in charge Knew they were there and going to make an example out of them to intimidate the rest of the people to comply. Those who don't learn from history are doom to repeat it.
 
There are no concrete numbers, but the estimates of the number of people who did not comply with registration required in the last round of laws is in the hundreds of thousands. The state had pretty good records through their de facto registration of every gun purchased from an FFL so they knew there were way more than 50K "assault weapons" out there.

Several of our state legislators have said that nothing but full confiscation of all semi auto firearms will satisfy them, and our governor agrees. He is currently working to stack the courts with anti gun supreme court judges in anticipation of the prosecutions to come.

There are very dark days ahead for CT. Our legislators and courts admit our current laws violate the Heller decision but claim that they are allowed to ignore SCOTUS decisions in the name of public safety.
 
G P said:
Several of our state legislators have said that nothing but full confiscation of all semi auto firearms will satisfy them, and our governor agrees. He is currently working to stack the courts with anti gun supreme court judges in anticipation of the prosecutions to come.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to challenge any new anti-gun laws in federal court -- which I believe the good people of Connecticut are already doing.
 
I reluctantly complied, not because I felt it was my civic duty, but because at some point it's my expectation to hand my firearms to my kids and I couldn't make them felons, or force them to turn them in. Either way they get what they want, unless I can retire elsewhere before it happens.

Just because I registered my mags doesn't mean I still have them, I might just sell my hi caps or my aw...

While it is certainly a risk, I don't believe the state will be going door to door anytime soon. That could be the start of something very ugly.

It's inconcivable a state do rich in gun history has strayed so far, especially when it has little else to offer other than insurance.
 
We might be facing this here in VA soon. Our governor proposed a laundry list of new gun control policies that include magazine capacity limits, a registry, and a limit on how many you can have.

Luckily he will have a hard time getting it through our pro-gun GA right now, but the future is what I'm more worried about. Things can change, especially when Bloomberg's money is behind it.
 
gojuice101 said:
We might be facing this here in VA soon. Our governor proposed a laundry list of new gun control policies that include magazine capacity limits, a registry, and a limit on how many you can have.
Click to expand...
Bad laws like this have a tendency to propagate -- often encouraged by massive infusions of Bloomberg money to fund "grass roots" lobbying efforts to get them passed. That's why it's a good idea to try to nip them in the bud (thank you, Deputy Fife), before the infection can spread to too many other states.

IMHO, two of the dumbest and most restrictive new laws were the New York SAFE Act, and the package of new gun laws (and amendments) enacted by Connecticut in the wake of Sandy Hook. Both are being challenged in federal court. The oral arguments at the appeals level were heard for both cases on the same day, IIRC in December. I don't think the decisions have been released as yet but it's pretty much a given that, whoever wins at the appeals level, the other side will try to get it before the Supreme Court.

That's why anyone who can afford it should contribute to fighting these laws wherever they are, even if it's not in your state (this year). For Connecticut, contributions can be made through the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. For New York, I believe the lead plaintiff is the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Nevada would also be a state to support. Having made inroads in Colorado and Washington, Bloomberg is now targeting Nevada. I have no idea whether or not there's a single group in NV coordinating the resistance. If there is, try to send them a few rubles.
 
How can a legislator justify his or her salary if he or she is voting on bills they haven't even read?
Click to expand...

Forget their salary, how can they justify being there at all? Their JOB is to carry out the will of the people. NOT "do what they personally think is the right thing", and how could they even do that if they don't read the bills?

They are voting on laws with massive minutiae that will affect millions of people's lives in multitudes of ways, and basing their votes on the TITLE of the bill, or at best a condensed summary prepared by staffers, who may have their own agendas, as well.

I don't CARE what time, or other pressure they feel they are under to "do something" (no matter what issue you are looking at), this is NOT the proper way to do the business of government!

I don't see how this practice can do anything other than more harm than good. They are "gaming" the process, and in the process, screwing us out of good representation. Representing US is the reason we put them there, and why they get paid. IF what they are doing is not actual malfeasance, it is certainly "mis-feasence" of their offices.
 
There are several flavors of feasances (if that's a word -- or even if it isn't)

MALFEASANCE

: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official

law : illegal or dishonest activity especially by a public official or a corporation


MISFEASANCE

: trespass; specifically : the performance of a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner


NONFEASANCE

: failure to act; especially : failure to do what ought to be done


It strikes me that an elected legislator who votes on (either for or against) a proposed law that he/she has not read is committing all three.
 
44 AMP said:
Their JOB is to carry out the will of the people. NOT "do what they personally think is the right thing"
Click to expand...

Personally, I think politicians should uphold their positions/platform they take during an election. There is nothing wrong with a politician changing their position, so long as it is done during an election and any impact of those change(s) are done during the next, newly elected term. It is completely bogus for a politician to run on one thing and then practice something else once in office, even with the claim that it is the will of the people...
 
I put a lot of blame on voters who make no effort to learn what a politician stands for and believes in before they cast a vote. Politicans can rarely surpise a voter who makes minimal effort to do a little research before voting.

Obama ran as a supporter of the 2nd A. If he fooled you with that claim, and you were surprised by his actions after being elected, you are the bigger problem than he is.
 
The old joke (or perhaps a mere observation phrased as a joke) is,
"A good politician is one who, once bought, stays bought!"

I think it was Kissinger who said "the 5% of politicians who actually are honest make things difficult for the rest of us" or something like that....

Look at the base ideals of the Founding Fathers. We have come a long, long way from those, today.

I believe we have gotten here because, for a long time now, we have been electing people to "lead us" instead of represent us. Even though the claim is they represent us, they are doing a very POOR job (and I would use much stronger language if I could).
 
I thought the Gun Owners of CT overwhelmingly refused to register their "Assault" weapons, or was that only a temporary protest and they have since abided by this legal requirement?
Click to expand...

For many years CT has had de facto firearms registration. A DPS 3-C form is filled out in three copies when a gun is purchased from a dealer. Copies go to the purchaser as a receipt, to the local police authority and the CT state police. The form is also used for all private sales.

Seller, obtain authorization number (860) 685-8400, retain the original copy for your records, give one copy to the purchaser as a receipt, submit one copy to the local police authority where the purchaser resides, and submit a final copy to the Commissioner of Emergency Services & Public Protection at: DESPP Special Licensing & Firearms Unit 1111 Country Club Rd., Middletown, CT 06457-2389
Click to expand...

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/dps-3-c.pdf
 
Last edited:
thallub said:
For many years CT has had de facto firearms registration. A DPS 3-C form is filled out in three copies when a gun is purchased from a dealer. Copies go to the purchaser as a receipt, to the local police authority and the CT state police. The form is also used for all private sales.
Click to expand...
It is now but, prior to the post Sandy Hook legislative package, the form was used only for handguns, and long guns bought from an FFL. The new laws extended it to rifles and shotguns sold in private sales.
 
CT, NY, CA and CO passed draconian gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings. It's very unlikely that gun control will ever be rolled back in CT, NY and CA. CO is a maybe.

About two thirds of NY residents support the SAFE Act:

http://www.legislativegazette.com/A...shows-NYers-support-SAFE-Act-by-twotoone.html

Keep an eye on happenings in your state. Universal background checks have wide appeal even among gun owners.

Prediction: The anti-gunners will attempt to pass universal background checks in states with referendums. Brought up in a referendum, universal background checks might even pass in OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top