Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

Registered my high capacity mag w/state of CT- STOOPID LAW!

Recommended Posts

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

With a guy like you in town, I'm glad my daughter goes to school in a different one.

 

BTW - you don't need a 20 round clip for hunting. Why don't you just buy a shotgun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a few shotguns, and other long guns, but the Ranch Rifle is good for protection on a boat. Supposed to be stainless, but sure attracts a magnet, so I expect it is really brushed nickel finish. Good varmint or self defense unit....

 

Kevin recommended I stock up an a bunch of 20 round clips before the New Year, but I reckon I only need one.

 

Got to protect my family from the Tea-tards!! LOL!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my semi-automatic, firing .223 NATO rounds does NOT have to be registered. Only the Mini-14, with "folding stock" are considered "assault weapons" under this stupid law. Just the High capacity magazine must be registered. Yet, with it's short barrel, the Ranch Rifle is just as deadly in close quarters as the "scary black gun", AR-15, that is the main target of the laws intention.

 

How about the legislature spend some time and angst on treating mental illness, that is the root of all of these mass shootings?? We used to have medical facilities for treating those with serious mental illness, but they have all been closed and most of them abandoned and fallen into such disrepair as to be unusable for any other purpose. They are "tear-downs", Seaside in Niantic, the huge campus on the river near the casinos.. WTF???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my semi-automatic, firing .223 NATO rounds does NOT have to be registered. Only the Mini-14, with "folding stock" are considered "assault weapons" under this stupid law. Just the High capacity magazine must be registered. Yet, with it's short barrel, the Ranch Rifle is just as deadly in close quarters as the "scary black gun", AR-15, that is the main target of the laws intention.

 

Registering your scary gun makes children safer in school. Why do you hate the children?

 

How about the legislature spend some time and angst on treating mental illness, that is the root of all of these mass shootings?? We used to have medical facilities for treating those with serious mental illness, but they have all been closed and most of them abandoned and fallen into such disrepair as to be unusable for any other purpose. They are "tear-downs", Seaside in Niantic, the huge campus on the river near the casinos.. WTF???

 

Prisons are the new psych hospitals.

 

The way we handle mental illness these days infuriates me. If there is one branch of medicine that I absolutely cannot stand, it's psych. Touchy-feely fuzzy liberal bullshit with a heavy dose of psychotropic pharmacology that we don't even understand mixed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

 

Why did you summit to an unjust and immoral law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole, "you can't hunt with an AR15" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" is complete bullshit. We just got back from a hunt down in VA, lots of climbing though brush and lots of freezing rain. My son had a problem with the scope on his bolt action 30-06, and ended up using my AR15 in .50 Beowulf, an SBR with an extra dose of S. After seeing how he managed with that, vs how I fared in the thick stuff with my Rem 700, I have come to the conclusion that in that kind of terrain, and especially in that type of weather, an AR15 in .50 Beowulf is an ideal deer gun. Contrary to what some clueless pols will say, the deer my son took with it was far from ruined, and in fact there was less trauma and bloodshot meat than you would see from the 300 winmag I was carrying. Most politicians are idiots when it comes to firearms, and it is not surprising that the best they can come up with is idiotic legislation regarding firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

 

Why did you summit to an unjust and immoral law?

 

I "SUMMIT" to the law, so as not to get arrested when the neighbors call the cops because I am shooting targets legally on family owned land. They call the cops for shooting 22's. .223 NATO round is a bit louder, eh mate??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be considered a "lefty", but I certainly don't "pine" for more government control, except to regulate the 1 percenters who have fucked the rest of us over the past 20 years or so.... If that makes me a "lefty", then so be it! Jail the fucking banksters that are too big to fail. Many people failed due to their actions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya told me nothing, Jeff; I knew it all along. Any, intelligent, thinking person can figure that out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole, "you can't hunt with an AR15" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" is complete bullshit. We just got back from a hunt down in VA, lots of climbing though brush and lots of freezing rain. My son had a problem with the scope on his bolt action 30-06, and ended up using my AR15 in .50 Beowulf, an SBR with an extra dose of S. After seeing how he managed with that, vs how I fared in the thick stuff with my Rem 700, I have come to the conclusion that in that kind of terrain, and especially in that type of weather, an AR15 in .50 Beowulf is an ideal deer gun. Contrary to what some clueless pols will say, the deer my son took with it was far from ruined, and in fact there was less trauma and bloodshot meat than you would see from the 300 winmag I was carrying. Most politicians are idiots when it comes to firearms, and it is not surprising that the best they can come up with is idiotic legislation regarding firearms.

If you need 30 rounds to hunt....you shouldn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The whole, "you can't hunt with an AR15" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" is complete bullshit. We just got back from a hunt down in VA, lots of climbing though brush and lots of freezing rain. My son had a problem with the scope on his bolt action 30-06, and ended up using my AR15 in .50 Beowulf, an SBR with an extra dose of S. After seeing how he managed with that, vs how I fared in the thick stuff with my Rem 700, I have come to the conclusion that in that kind of terrain, and especially in that type of weather, an AR15 in .50 Beowulf is an ideal deer gun. Contrary to what some clueless pols will say, the deer my son took with it was far from ruined, and in fact there was less trauma and bloodshot meat than you would see from the 300 winmag I was carrying. Most politicians are idiots when it comes to firearms, and it is not surprising that the best they can come up with is idiotic legislation regarding firearms.

If you need 30 rounds to hunt....you shouldn't...

Who said anything about 30 rounds, did you read what I wrote or do you just feel the need to be a prick and asshole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The whole, "you can't hunt with an AR15" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" is complete bullshit. We just got back from a hunt down in VA, lots of climbing though brush and lots of freezing rain. My son had a problem with the scope on his bolt action 30-06, and ended up using my AR15 in .50 Beowulf, an SBR with an extra dose of S. After seeing how he managed with that, vs how I fared in the thick stuff with my Rem 700, I have come to the conclusion that in that kind of terrain, and especially in that type of weather, an AR15 in .50 Beowulf is an ideal deer gun. Contrary to what some clueless pols will say, the deer my son took with it was far from ruined, and in fact there was less trauma and bloodshot meat than you would see from the 300 winmag I was carrying. Most politicians are idiots when it comes to firearms, and it is not surprising that the best they can come up with is idiotic legislation regarding firearms.

If you need 30 rounds to hunt....you shouldn't...

I don't think anybody makes a 30 round .50 Beowulf mag for the AR. The largest I've seen is 10. Perhaps you could educate yourself. Or you could continue looking like a fucking tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The whole, "you can't hunt with an AR15" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" is complete bullshit. We just got back from a hunt down in VA, lots of climbing though brush and lots of freezing rain. My son had a problem with the scope on his bolt action 30-06, and ended up using my AR15 in .50 Beowulf, an SBR with an extra dose of S. After seeing how he managed with that, vs how I fared in the thick stuff with my Rem 700, I have come to the conclusion that in that kind of terrain, and especially in that type of weather, an AR15 in .50 Beowulf is an ideal deer gun. Contrary to what some clueless pols will say, the deer my son took with it was far from ruined, and in fact there was less trauma and bloodshot meat than you would see from the 300 winmag I was carrying. Most politicians are idiots when it comes to firearms, and it is not surprising that the best they can come up with is idiotic legislation regarding firearms.

If you need 30 rounds to hunt....you shouldn't...

 

 

I don't think anybody makes a 30 round .50 Beowulf mag for the AR. The largest I've seen is 10. Perhaps you could educate yourself. Or you could continue looking like a fucking tool.

 

 

Perhaps you should read the comment I was replying too, or you could continue to look like a fucking idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The whole, "you can't hunt with an AR15" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" is complete bullshit. We just got back from a hunt down in VA, lots of climbing though brush and lots of freezing rain. My son had a problem with the scope on his bolt action 30-06, and ended up using my AR15 in .50 Beowulf, an SBR with an extra dose of S. After seeing how he managed with that, vs how I fared in the thick stuff with my Rem 700, I have come to the conclusion that in that kind of terrain, and especially in that type of weather, an AR15 in .50 Beowulf is an ideal deer gun. Contrary to what some clueless pols will say, the deer my son took with it was far from ruined, and in fact there was less trauma and bloodshot meat than you would see from the 300 winmag I was carrying. Most politicians are idiots when it comes to firearms, and it is not surprising that the best they can come up with is idiotic legislation regarding firearms.

If you need 30 rounds to hunt....you shouldn't...

 

Who said anything about 30 rounds, did you read what I wrote or do you just feel the need to be a prick and asshole?

I read this:

 

"you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

So why do you need a 20 round magazine? Deer? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

No, my semi-automatic, firing .223 NATO rounds does NOT have to be registered. Only the Mini-14, with "folding stock" are considered "assault weapons" under this stupid law. Just the High capacity magazine must be registered. Yet, with it's short barrel, the Ranch Rifle is just as deadly in close quarters as the "scary black gun", AR-15, that is the main target of the laws intention.

 

How about the legislature spend some time and angst on treating mental illness, that is the root of all of these mass shootings?? We used to have medical facilities for treating those with serious mental illness, but they have all been closed and most of them abandoned and fallen into such disrepair as to be unusable for any other purpose. They are "tear-downs", Seaside in Niantic, the huge campus on the river near the casinos.. WTF???

 

You're learning Billy. Just like all these feel good laws. Sadly, you didn't see it coming enough to get pissed off. Welcome to the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole, "you can't hunt with an AR15" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" is complete bullshit. We just got back from a hunt down in VA, lots of climbing though brush and lots of freezing rain. My son had a problem with the scope on his bolt action 30-06, and ended up using my AR15 in .50 Beowulf, an SBR with an extra dose of S. After seeing how he managed with that, vs how I fared in the thick stuff with my Rem 700, I have come to the conclusion that in that kind of terrain, and especially in that type of weather, an AR15 in .50 Beowulf is an ideal deer gun. Contrary to what some clueless pols will say, the deer my son took with it was far from ruined, and in fact there was less trauma and bloodshot meat than you would see from the 300 winmag I was carrying. Most politicians are idiots when it comes to firearms, and it is not surprising that the best they can come up with is idiotic legislation regarding firearms.

 

If you need 30 rounds to hunt....you shouldn't...

 

Who said anything about 30 rounds, did you read what I wrote or do you just feel the need to be a prick and asshole?
I read this:

 

"you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer"

Yeah, chambered in 50 Beowulf. You just did not bother to read the whole statement, you just read what you wanted and decided to be an insulting douchenozzle.

 

There is no such thing as a 30 round Beowulf magazine, what is a double stack 223 mag is a single stack Beowulf. The mag my son used was a 7 round one, which is 3 fewer rounds than my 1894 lever gun holds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The whole, "you can't hunt with an AR15" or "you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer" is complete bullshit. We just got back from a hunt down in VA, lots of climbing though brush and lots of freezing rain. My son had a problem with the scope on his bolt action 30-06, and ended up using my AR15 in .50 Beowulf, an SBR with an extra dose of S. After seeing how he managed with that, vs how I fared in the thick stuff with my Rem 700, I have come to the conclusion that in that kind of terrain, and especially in that type of weather, an AR15 in .50 Beowulf is an ideal deer gun. Contrary to what some clueless pols will say, the deer my son took with it was far from ruined, and in fact there was less trauma and bloodshot meat than you would see from the 300 winmag I was carrying. Most politicians are idiots when it comes to firearms, and it is not surprising that the best they can come up with is idiotic legislation regarding firearms.

If you need 30 rounds to hunt....you shouldn't...
I don't think anybody makes a 30 round .50 Beowulf mag for the AR. The largest I've seen is 10. Perhaps you could educate yourself. Or you could continue looking like a fucking tool.
Perhaps you should read the comment I was replying too, or you could continue to look like a fucking idiot.

Maybe you should read the comment you replied to, you seem to be the one who is confused and ignorant here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You right wing NRA type always get all lathered up at simple rules.

Why don't you take it like a good citizen?

 

bend over and grab your ankles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you need 30 rounds to hunt....you shouldn't...

Who said anything about 30 rounds, did you read what I wrote or do you just feel the need to be a prick and asshole?

 

 

I read this:

"you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer"

 

 

Yeah, chambered in 50 Beowulf. You just did not bother to read the whole statement, you just read what you wanted and decided to be an insulting douchenozzle.

 

There is no such thing as a 30 round Beowulf magazine, what is a double stack 223 mag is a single stack Beowulf. The mag my son used was a 7 round one, which is 3 fewer rounds than my 1894 lever gun holds.

 

 

I get it, you've taken the "you" personally instead of as a figure of speech. Slightly odd considering there is an impersonal "you" in your post which I quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be considered a "lefty", but I certainly don't "pine" for more government control, except to regulate the 1 percenters who have fucked the rest of us over the past 20 years or so.... If that makes me a "lefty", then so be it! Jail the fucking banksters that are too big to fail. Many people failed due to their actions....

You don't "pine" for more laws unless they affect someone other than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Yeah, chambered in 50 Beowulf. You just did not bother to read the whole statement, you just read what you wanted and decided to be an insulting douchenozzle.

 

There is no such thing as a 30 round Beowulf magazine, what is a double stack 223 mag is a single stack Beowulf. The mag my son used was a 7 round one, which is 3 fewer rounds than my 1894 lever gun holds.

 

he also doesn't know enough about the AR platform to know about frangible. Don't treat him seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I read this:

 

 

"you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer"

...and it triggered another episode of your NRA Derangement Syndrome, causing you to see scary magazine capacities where none were mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

I read this:

 

 

"you don't need an AR15 to hunt deer"

...and it triggered another episode of your NRA Derangement Syndrome, causing you to see scary magazine capacities where none were mentioned.

 

Imagine!

 

Y'all are might sensitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand the intent, JBSF.

No one was talking about hunting with 30 round magazines, so Mark had to imagine it up so he could speak out against the only possible need for such a thing: hunting.

As long as we're not talking about providing for personal defense and the common defense as intended by the second amendment, it's hard to come up with good reasons for owning such a thing. That's why I asked Billy why he needs one.

The question might become important. Hey Billy, are second amendment rights need-based in your state yet? Your ability to own your magazine may one day depend on your ability to say why you need such a thing, so you better get busy on the explanation. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand the intent, JBSF.

 

No one was talking about hunting with 30 round magazines, so Mark had to imagine it up so he could speak out against the only possible need for such a thing: hunting.

 

As long as we're not talking about providing for personal defense and the common defense as intended by the second amendment, it's hard to come up with good reasons for owning such a thing. That's why I asked Billy why he needs one.

 

The question might become important. Hey Billy, are second amendment rights need-based in your state yet? Your ability to own your magazine may one day depend on your ability to say why you need such a thing, so you better get busy on the explanation. ;)

 

Whoa, you mean they make smaller clips?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't "need" a 20 round clip, Tom-Ray, it just came with the gun. Kinda like, I don't really "need" the 3 liter six-banger that came in the X-3. It's OEM standard equipment.

 

 

EDIT - I shot my first turkey this morning; scared the shit out of everyone in the frozen food department!

 

HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL YOU FUCKNUTS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't "need" a 20 round clip, Tom-Ray, it just came with the gun. Kinda like, I don't really "need" the 3 liter six-banger that came in the X-3. It's OEM standard equipment.

 

 

EDIT - I shot my first turkey this morning; scared the shit out of everyone in the frozen food department!

 

HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL YOU FUCKNUTS!

 

 

The image of billy putting 20 rounds into the frozen turkey case is too funny!

 

Not so funny: you were allowed to register that magazine, but the registry is closed. People who did not own one in time, including all future generations, will not be allowed to own one in your state.

 

If the adage "as California goes, so goes the nation" is true, the next step will be declaring your magazine a nuisance and banning all the magazines that were previously registered and grandfathered in.

 

That magazine came with the gun because sometimes having that many rounds can be useful. Useful for personal defense, useful for the common defense, and even useful for hunting if you have lots of piggies running around. CT has decided it's useful enough for you, not future generations.

 

Because they can guarantee that at no time in the future will any generation of CT residents face a situation in which the shit really hits the fan and citizens need to provide for their own defense and the common defense.

 

I think that's a shaky guarantee at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could have used it in Newtown a year ago, possibly; to take out the bad guy.... SAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could have used it in Newtown a year ago, possibly; to take out the bad guy.... SAD

 

I guess it's possible but it seems unlikely that a citizen with a mean looking rifle would be nearby and able to intervene.

 

It still seems a stretch to pass a law based on the idea that citizens in your state will never need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the law is because we don't need them? Maybe that's their lame excuse though? The real reason is because they go hand in hand with scary black guns....


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think the law is because we don't need them? Maybe that's their lame excuse though? The real reason is because they go hand in hand with scary black guns....

 

I'm sure Ed can explain why registering your scary magazine keeps school children safer.

 

Ed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes you guys feel any better I just got a shipment of magazines yesterday. I had ordered them a few months ago and forgotten about it. It was like a little christmas surprise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes you guys feel any better I just got a shipment of magazines yesterday. I had ordered them a few months ago and forgotten about it. It was like a little christmas surprise!

 

Yeah, but you are in UT right? 30 round magpul mags are basically stocking stuffers out there from what I understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If it makes you guys feel any better I just got a shipment of magazines yesterday. I had ordered them a few months ago and forgotten about it. It was like a little christmas surprise!

 

Yeah, but you are in UT right? 30 round magpul mags are basically stocking stuffers out there from what I understand.

Yeah, pretty much. I had just assumed I wasn't going to get them since I had ordered them so long ago. And I actually might use a couple as last minute gifts for a few friends because I really don't need another box of magazines. I usually only keep 4 or less in rotation for actual use. Just bought them cause they were cheap and I figured I should have some extras for a rainy day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you take it like a good citizen?

 

 

A good citizen would refuse to comply with this blatant violation of an individual's basic rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why don't you take it like a good citizen?

 

 

A good citizen would refuse to comply with this blatant violation of an individual's basic rights.

 

If I were to choose to be a scofflaw in this regard, then I will surely be charged by the state police. Anytime one of my family goes target shooting out on our family property, someone calls the cops and a state trooper shows up. Stupid, NOT to send them two pieces of paper to be legit...

 

EDIT... Guy at work here at Pratt has a half a dozen machine guns, he spent a half a day getting his paperwork sorted and legal. Used to have a lot more, but sold a bunch to buy a hot-air balloon....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I were to choose to be a scofflaw in this regard, then I will surely be charged by the state police. Anytime one of my family goes target shooting out on our family property, someone calls the cops and a state trooper shows up. Stupid, NOT to send them two pieces of paper to be legit...

 

Yet another reason why suppressors are so nice. Doesn't piss off the neighbors.

 

BTW - why are the neighbors calling the cops?

 

I would definitely pick up a suppressor for my .22 and .45 if it was not such a pita. How much of a difference does it make with the faster rounds?

 

The people I know who shoot in the philly suburbs get the cops called on them all the time when they shoot. Some folks think any time a gun goes off that a crime has been committed. We have so much state forest and national forest around us, that you can hear guns going off every day of the week at some point. People here are just used to it, even the newer arrivals from east of the Delaware. Although, I did freak out some family hiking through the state forest with their big gulps as I came out with my crossbow. Some of the tourists still think of the forest as a more wildernessy Disney attraction, as opoosed to the organic supermarket it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I were to choose to be a scofflaw in this regard, then I will surely be charged by the state police. Anytime one of my family goes target shooting out on our family property, someone calls the cops and a state trooper shows up. Stupid, NOT to send them two pieces of paper to be legit...

 

Yet another reason why suppressors are so nice. Doesn't piss off the neighbors.

 

BTW - why are the neighbors calling the cops?

 

 

Cuz, they're afraid of scary black guns??? Need to speak to my nephew about leaving his spent shotgun shells laying around, not cool..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I were to choose to be a scofflaw in this regard, then I will surely be charged by the state police. Anytime one of my family goes target shooting out on our family property, someone calls the cops and a state trooper shows up. Stupid, NOT to send them two pieces of paper to be legit...

 

Yet another reason why suppressors are so nice. Doesn't piss off the neighbors.

 

BTW - why are the neighbors calling the cops?

 

I can almost garantee ya it's because they're either transplanted Gnu Yawkers----or transplanted Kalifukians....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not "Hollywood quiet", but the difference is HUGE! You can shoot a .30 cal rifle comfortably without hearing protection. A .223 is a piece of cake.

 

That is quieter than I would have thought. I am going to have to find someone local who has one I can try. I think the backlog for getting the application processed is a year long now, but it still might be worth it if I could shoot in my backyard without waking people up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT scrambles for amnesty after realizing citizens are not registering weapons or magazines


Governor Dannel Malloy and the government of the state of Connecticut are having their own “Oh, poop” moment, now that they’ve tallied the number of citizens who have registered their “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” required by the state’s unconstitutional gun laws, compared that to the estimated number of applicable weapons and magazines in the state, and realize they’ve been ignored.

 

Historically speaking, 90-percent or more of those required to comply with gun registration laws in the U.S. refuse to do so, and there is no reason to suspect that this registration attempt in Connecticut is any different. I’ve seen estimates of 1,000,000 firearm magazines that should have been registered under the law, but the state reports registering only 40,000… just 4 percent.

 

Seems quite a few CT residents understand that "registration" is just a shorthand way of saying "signing up to have your guns confiscated."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

You need a category D license to own a mini 14 here, you have to be a contract shooter and must show these contracts to be approved for a category D license which allows you 1 self loading rifle.

 

If you have a category D license and a mini 14 you could expect the Police to visit your home twice a month to inspect your safe you store it in, this takes the Police away from their real job which is chasing criminals.

 

If you stop contract shooting they take your D license away and you have to hand in your gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT scrambles for amnesty after realizing citizens are not registering weapons or magazines

 

 

Governor Dannel Malloy and the government of the state of Connecticut are having their own “Oh, poop” moment, now that they’ve tallied the number of citizens who have registered their “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” required by the state’s unconstitutional gun laws, compared that to the estimated number of applicable weapons and magazines in the state, and realize they’ve been ignored.

 

Historically speaking, 90-percent or more of those required to comply with gun registration laws in the U.S. refuse to do so, and there is no reason to suspect that this registration attempt in Connecticut is any different. I’ve seen estimates of 1,000,000 firearm magazines that should have been registered under the law, but the state reports registering only 40,000… just 4 percent.

 

Seems quite a few CT residents understand that "registration" is just a shorthand way of saying "signing up to have your guns confiscated."

 

 

Interesting? Most of the Right Wing, Obama hating, Union Member, gun nutters here at the mil-spec jet engine plant, followed the law and registered their guns, as did I. I am not worried about the state confiscating my guns, but when the state cops show up while I am legally target shooting on family property, I will certainly have registered my 20 round magazine, so as NOT to have it confiscated.

 

The fact that many did not register does not surprise me though. Most folks here don't follow the posted speed limit of 65, and I will soon be going to court for the 4th time in 2 years for failing to do so. But, the state does not prosecute for anything under 78 MPH, so why do these idiots keep issuing me $450 mail in tickets that I am certainly not going to pay??? I just get one of my mates to cover the tool crib for a couple hours while I pop up to the courthouse to be immediately nolled.. What a country!!! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I am not worried about the state confiscating my guns, but when the state cops show up while I am legally target shooting on family property, I will certainly have registered my 20 round magazine, so as NOT to have it confiscated.

 

...

 

 

When the registration law passed, you had quite a few legislators and citizens disappointed that existing owners were grandfathered in and allowed to keep their guns.

 

That's another way of saying, "disappointed that existing guns were not banned and confiscated."

 

It was not some fringe group either, given that the Governor of New York said that confiscation was an option for getting "assault" weapons out of New York. He wants to be President and clearly thinks that position has wide support.

 

That would worry me if I were you, but then, so would committing a felony by failing to register. Tough choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon I should bring a copy of the states letter confirming receipt of my registration, when I do go target shooting, or risk confiscation??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws


...The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

 

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

 

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

 

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

 

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

 

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

 

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

 

Ooops. "Scores of thousands" of newly minted felons who need to be taught a lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA comments on their loss in court (and takes a swipe at SAF and Alan Gura). Not mentioned: one of those publicity stunts that was unlikely to succeed (and that the NRA tried to scuttle) was a case named Parker vs DC. You might know it by its later name: Heller vs DC.

 

...NRA is currently backing a lawsuit, Shew v. Malloy, to challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the law, including its expanded bans on semi-automatic firearms and its restrictions on magazine capacity. Some have wondered why NRA has not appeared as a named plaintiff in the suit. Simply put, experience has often shown that NRA is more effective in lending its expertise and resources, rather than its name, to litigation. Many within the legal elite have been slow to embrace the fundamental, individual rights protected by the Second Amendment, and getting a fair hearing on these matters is difficult enough. When NRA participates in a legal case as a plaintiff, its involvement attracts a traveling media circus eager to criticize and attempt to discredit whatever it does. This can further inhibit courts from giving the merits of the case a thorough and impartial hearing. Unlike some groups who will eagerly tout their participation in any "gun rights" case, no matter how ill-advised or unlikely to succeed, NRA is more interested in advancing our Second Amendment freedoms through litigation, rather than just using lawsuits for publicity or fundraising purposes.

In any event, a federal district court judge has, for now, upheld the contested provisions of the law. An appeal is already underway. The court's ruling, while unfavorable on the law, contained important factual findings, including that the newly-banned firearms and magazines are, in fact, commonly owned and legally used nationwide, including in Connecticut. These findings could well make a difference as the case makes its way through the appeals process....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a few shotguns, and other long guns, but the Ranch Rifle is good for protection on a boat. Supposed to be stainless, but sure attracts a magnet, so I expect it is really brushed nickel finish. Good varmint or self defense unit....

 

Kevin recommended I stock up an a bunch of 20 round clips before the New Year, but I reckon I only need one.

 

Got to protect my family from the Tea-tards!! LOL!!

 

304 Stainless will attract magnets - not as well as regular steel but usually well enough to stick. 316 is pretty much non-magnetic. A lot of people use 304 cause it's cheaper than 316 but is still 'stainless'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have a few shotguns, and other long guns, but the Ranch Rifle is good for protection on a boat. Supposed to be stainless, but sure attracts a magnet, so I expect it is really brushed nickel finish. Good varmint or self defense unit....

 

Kevin recommended I stock up an a bunch of 20 round clips before the New Year, but I reckon I only need one.

 

Got to protect my family from the Tea-tards!! LOL!!

 

304 Stainless will attract magnets - not as well as regular steel but usually well enough to stick. 316 is pretty much non-magnetic. A lot of people use 304 cause it's cheaper than 316 but is still 'stainless'.

 

This attracts the magnet every bit as much as steel. Doesn't even look like real stainless steel, more like a brushed nickel finish, that is considered "stainless" because it doesn't rust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to make an appointment with the State Police to have a town constable meet me at Town Hall to affix my thumb print to the bottom of the form. Also had to create and have notarized an affidavit swearing that I acquired it prior to April 4, 2013. All this BS for one 20 round "banana clip" for a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle...

 

Like this is going to cure the mentally ill people who go on shooting rampages????

 

 

 

... a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. ...

 

 

 

Does Billy have a right to his rifle, including the standard capacity magazine, Mike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, that's up to CT, not Wofsey.

 

Connecticut is a most interesting study in gun safety awareness. 190 years before Heller, it's State Constitution unequivocally granted the individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, this CT detail (and its particular wording) emphasizes that the framers of the constitution intentionally went in a different direction (by specifying militia gun use only at the federal level).

 

“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself [or herself] and the state” ---- Article I, § 15, Connecticut State Constitution

 

However, CT regulates the "right" well.

 

 

Generally, Connecticut courts have upheld reasonable restrictions on the Connecticut Constitution's right to bear arms. The cases in which restrictions or regulations have been allowed include those construing the state's authority to

(1) ban the sale of assault weapons,
(2) limit a person's right to carry a gun under permitting statutes, and
(3) limit the possession of guns by felons.

A Superior Court decided the oldest and latest cases in 1979 and 2011, respectively. The State Supreme Court decided two cases in 1988 and 1995.

- Report No. 2013-R-0195, written by Christopher Reinhart, the Chief Attorney at the Office of Legislative Research.

This is the way the state legislature sorted it out:

[in 1995 Benjamin v Bailey] The court found that the constitution protects each citizen's right to possess a weapon of reasonably sufficient firepower to be effective for self-defense but that it does not guarantee the right to possess any weapon of an individual's choosing for such use. Thus, the court held that as long as citizens have available to them some types of weapons that are adequate reasonably to vindicate the right to bear arms in self-defense, the state can prohibit the possession of others. The court next determined whether the weapons ban infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms. It concluded that the ban is not an infringement because it continues to permit access to a wide array of weapons.

 

The logic and wording are quite similar to Heller. The RKBA is simply not absolute, or infinite.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g.,Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

[uS Supreme Court Opinion - DC v Heller,

 

Guns can be well-regulated at the state level, and in Connecticutt they are. Their stated reasons for restricting high-capacity magazines are similar to the NY Supreme court's:

According to the court, the facts as the trial court found them showed that assault weapons pose an increasing risk to society, including police officers and innocent victims. Thus, the ban serves a legitimate interest of the state acting pursuant to its police power. The court also noted the fact that the trial court specifically discredited testimony offered to establish that the weapons subject to the ban had legitimate self-defense qualities. Lastly, the court found that the ban does not cover a significant percentage of firearms that continue to be available for citizens to possess, thus, the ban is sufficiently circumscribed so as not to intrude upon the constitutional interests involved.

For more information, see
Office Legislative Research Report 95-R-1274.
[Judicial Opinion:
Benjamin v. Bailey, 234 Conn. 455 (1995)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey BBS - does CT consider your Mini-14 an "assault rifle"? Just wondering, thanks.

 

We've been through this upthread. The rifle itself isn't banned. The standard capacity magazine Billy has is banned. He got special permission to keep his magazine, suggesting he has no right to it, at least by Mike's standard.

 

But elsewhere, Mike seemed to think he had a right to such a rifle. I'm just trying to clear up whether a permission slip is the sign of the loss of a right. Seems like it is if the slip says "concealed weapons permit" on it, but not if it says "gun/magazine registration" or "firearms owner ID" on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rifle itself is only banned IF it has a folding stock and/or flash suppressor, add-ons like that. The Ranch rifle with wood stock is totally legal, although every bit as lethal as the "scary black" AR-15...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rifle itself is only banned IF it has a folding stock and/or flash suppressor, add-ons like that. The Ranch rifle with wood stock is totally legal, although every bit as lethal as the "scary black" AR-15...

 

Hence the term "mean looking weapons ban" for such laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do I get a magazine like that for my Mini-14? Ooh-La-La; me likey!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do I get a magazine like that for my Mini-14? Ooh-La-La; me likey!!

 

In a state where it's legal.

 

If you come to FL, I might buy one for you. Knowing that you plan to take it back to a place where it will be illegal would make the transaction legally dubious, but I'd call it civil disobedience. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the quiz pics do not show. But out of 1, 4 and 6, the mini-14 is deadliest, has far more ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#5. The hello kitty rifle would attract the most vicious and cold blooded predator imaginable, a female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#5. The hello kitty rifle would attract the most vicious and cold blooded predator imaginable, a female.

 

Okay, four has a scope, and Ranch Rifles are not well know for their accuract except at shorter distances. I can only see pics of those two and Hello Kitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Papers, Please!

 

What happens when a CT security guard gets tired of responding to that demand and refuses to produce his paper?


...Remember, Lazurek had threatened nobody. He was arrested only for failing to produce a piece of paper which legally allowed him to do as part of his job what the people arresting him were also doing as part of their jobs—carrying a pistol openly.

So, a year-plus later, he got his permit back.

 

That pissed off the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. That agency objects that Lazurek is not a "suitable person" to be allowed a pistol permit because "at the hearing, Lazurek testified that gven the same set of circumstances he would respond in the same fashion and would again refuse to enable officers to ascertain whether he was legally carrying his weapon." Or so they say in the lawsuit filed by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection against the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners and Lazurek.

 

Hey, Lazurek didn't show due deference to competing security guards, and he insisted that carrying a gun is a right—he's definitely not a Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection kind of guy.

 

People who get tired of proving they have permission to exercise their rights are exactly the kind of people who should be denied those rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Papers, Please!

 

What happens when a CT security guard gets tired of responding to that demand and refuses to produce his paper?

 

 

...Remember, Lazurek had threatened nobody. He was arrested only for failing to produce a piece of paper which legally allowed him to do as part of his job what the people arresting him were also doing as part of their jobs—carrying a pistol openly.

So, a year-plus later, he got his permit back.

 

That pissed off the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. That agency objects that Lazurek is not a "suitable person" to be allowed a pistol permit because "at the hearing, Lazurek testified that gven the same set of circumstances he would respond in the same fashion and would again refuse to enable officers to ascertain whether he was legally carrying his weapon." Or so they say in the lawsuit filed by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection against the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners and Lazurek.

 

Hey, Lazurek didn't show due deference to competing security guards, and he insisted that carrying a gun is a right—he's definitely not a Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection kind of guy.

 

People who get tired of proving they have permission to exercise their rights are exactly the kind of people who should be denied those rights.

 

 

Two state agencies arguing in court with taxpayer dollars. CT has now become FL!! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

you've actually got pretty good gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PBS poll on CT's stooopid new law

The new Connecticut law strengthened gun laws that were already on the books. The law:

  • Made background checks universal for all gun and ammunition purchases
  • Limited the ability of the mentally ill to purchase guns
  • Outlawed more than 100 additional assault weapons, including the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook shooting
  • Banned large capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds

What’s your take? Would you support similar policies in your state?

 

My take is that the large number of non-law-abiding CT residents who refused to sign up to have their guns and magazines confiscated were smart. No, I would not support a slow-motion ban on ordinary rifles and magazines in my state.

 

The evidence for effectiveness is weak:

 

While federal legislation stalled in partisan gridlock, in April of 2013, Gov. Dan Malloy signed into Connecticut law a series of new restrictions on guns in the state. While gun violence experts say it’s too early to tell if the new law is effective, Malloy points to the fact that there were 32 percent fewer murders in 2013 than in 2011.

 

Yeah. Almost back down to their 2002 number. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ctcrime.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon I should bring a copy of the states letter confirming receipt of my registration, when I do go target shooting, or risk confiscation??

 

 

You're already at risk of confiscation because you registered your magazine. Of course, it was either that or risk a felony, so I get why you did it.

 

Now that they know you have it, the Governor's panel of experts wants to confiscate it from you.

 

At the risk of stoking paranoia by talking about stuff that gungrabbers actually propose...

 

 

In its interim report last March, the commission included the proposed gun ban, which is opposed by the gun lobby and manufacturers. It would go much further than a 2013 Connecticut law which, among other things, expanded the state's assault weapons ban and barred the possession and sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

 

"Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide," said former Hartford Police Chief Bernard Sullivan, a member of the panel. "The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons."

 

Commission members said during a meeting Friday that they want to emphasize that there needs to be more regulation of guns that can inflict mass casualties, even if it causes some inconvenience to recreational shooters.

 

Twenty children and six educators were killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting by a gunman using a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.

 

The commission also decided not to include language from the interim report that would have acknowledged the importance of the Connecticut's gun manufacturing industry and would have included a disclaimer that nothing in the report "should be construed as a prohibition against the manufacture of any device legal for sale or possession in other jurisdictions."

 

Dr. David J. Schonfeld, a commission member and director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, said it made no sense to restrict the commissions' recommendations to only guns sold and possessed in Connecticut.

 

"We're not writing proposed legislation, we're writing end results, saying this is where we think you guys need to go," said Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, the commission's chairman. "We're hoping that some of our recommendations will go far beyond the borders of the state of Connecticut."...

 

I have this paranoid delusion that they don't really care whether their proposals are constitutional.

 

I also have a paranoid delusion that they want to ban possession of Billy's magazine. And that they want every firearm owner to sign up to have all guns confiscated register all guns. And sell ammo only for registered guns.

 

It would be easier for me to rid myself of these paranoid thoughts if gungrabbers in a government panel would quit including them in their official recommendations. But they won't, so I can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon I should bring a copy of the states letter confirming receipt of my registration, when I do go target shooting, or risk confiscation??

 

I'm hoping jocal will show up here and explain to you what should have happened to your magazine instead of registering it.

 

When a gun ban closed registry is imposed, he doesn't want to wait until existing owners die to start the confiscation. He believes "grandfathering" in existing owners is a dangerous loophole that waters down effective gun laws.

 

In other words, he believes your magazine should have been confiscated instead of registered.

 

Right, jocal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I reckon I should bring a copy of the states letter confirming receipt of my registration, when I do go target shooting, or risk confiscation??

 

I'm hoping jocal will show up here and explain to you what should have happened to your magazine instead of registering it.

 

When a gun ban closed registry is imposed, he doesn't want to wait until existing owners die to start the confiscation. He believes "grandfathering" in existing owners is a dangerous loophole that waters down effective gun laws.

 

In other words, he believes your magazine should have been confiscated instead of registered.

 

Right, jocal?

 

Well, we could start with how the national AW ban of 1994 became a joke because of the AW grandfather clause, as imposed by the NRA.

Or that Connecticut voters had had the foresight to have their own state-wide AW restrictions by 1993, which included, by voter demand, the first round of high-capacity magizine limitations.

 

Instead, let's step back to Colonial times, and recognize the unequivocal individual right to arms granted by the CT state constiution.

“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself [or herself] and the state” ---- Article I, § 15, Connecticut State Constitution

 

I have only proposed CT as a nation model out of respect for its interpretation of, and support of, the second amendment. They research ALL state laws before they write or present legislation; their appeals court track record is good.

  • An explicit right to armed self defense has been in force in the state of Connecticut since 1818.
  • It is an individual right and is very similar to the core right defined in the Heller decision.
  • For the last 20 years, state courts have upheld most of Connecticut's gun laws as constitutional restrictions on the individual RKBA.
  • The voters had spoken and acted on AW's in CT 19 years before Adan Lanza
  • And they had stiff gun regulation already past committees when Lanza used a Bushmaster on kids

Badgeless Dodger, Connecticut's gun reform laws in 2013 were passed with bipartisan support. How? Significantly, in contrast with many US gun safety battles, what's different about CT is that their legislature is not infested with ALEC members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it gets curioser. It may be covered elsewhere, but the CT Sandy Hook Commission has spoken, and they want long or short guns with hi capacity mags curtailed.

 

This Commission had a few psychiatrists, a school principal, a few present or former chiefs of police, a pediatrician, a Homeland Security rep, the Mayor of Hamden, a teacher, a pediatrician, a guidance counseling administrator, juvenile risk supervisors...and a fire chief.

It was an open process; they had 28 meetings, each with open minutes. The first was forty days after Sandy Hook. Their Interim Report involved city and school defense strategies, not broad gun policy direction.

Tom and Billy, I am somewhat sympathetic. But simply put, the CT legislators and I are on the same page. ANY idiot can push his behavior until his gun should be taken, hopefully by friends. It appears that our society has reached the point.

The dealbreaker is that the gun culture has accepted extreme leadership, thus losing credibility.

Sandy Hook Commission Wants To Ban All Guns That Can Fire More Than 10 Rounds Without Reloading

January 24th, 2015

Adan Salazar:

An advisory commission conceived in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting put forth recommendations Friday to further restrict the Second Amendment in Connecticut, calling for an all-out ban on guns “that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading,” reports the Associated Press.

The panel of “experts,” created by Governor Dan Malloy, convened last week to discuss preparations for their final report which will address numerous school security issues, including law enforcement and emergency response, safe school design and operation and mental health and wellness.

Among the recommendations considered will be a ban, not only on so-called assault weapons, but on handguns as well, as discussed at a meeting last March.

“I believe that if we’re serious about banning assault weapons, it shouldn’t just cover long guns,” former Hartford Chief of Police and member of the 16-member Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Bernard Sullivan recommended at the time. “It should also cover handguns because the weapons of choice in the urban environment are primarily the 9-millimeter Berettas, Sig Sauer, whatever you want to call them, that have high-capacity magazines that can fire 17 or 18 bullets without reloading because of the magazine.”

Friday’s agenda specifically listed a discussion on “making unlawful the possession of certain firearms.”

“Whether or not this law would stand the test of constitutionality is not for this commission to decide,” Sullivan said at Friday’s meeting, according to AP, adding, “The commission has expressed very strongly that this is a statement that is needed regarding the lethality of weapons.”

The panel’s proposal would further restrictions passed by the State of Connecticut last January, which banned ammunition magazines able to carry more than 10 rounds, retroactively requiring owners of such magazines to register them with state police, and banned assault rifles manufactured after 1994, requiring them to also be declared to authorities.

Constitutionally-minded Connecticut gun owners have already made a show of expressing their disapproval of gun control legislation.

Following the ammunition and “assault weapon” ban, a mere 38,000 out of 2.4 million “high-capacity” magazines were registered under the law, in addition to only 13 percent of assault rifles being registered.

In March, the Second Amendment organization Connecticut Carry also threw down the gauntlet, issuing an ultimatum to authorities to “enforce the tyranny they passed or repeal it entirely.”

Despite backlash, members of the Sandy Hook commission say they hope their gun control notions will permeate to other parts of the country.

“We’re not writing proposed legislation, we’re writing end results, saying this is where we think you guys need to go,” said Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, the commission’s chairman. “We’re hoping that some of our recommendations will go far beyond the borders of the state of Connecticut.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am so excited that you (in the Pacific North Wet) is on the 'same page' as some idiotic idiots in a one of the Thirteen Colonies. Makes me wanna go target shooting right now with some 'illegal' hi-cap mags.

 

You, sir, are an idiot of epic proportions......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Commission had a few psychiatrists, a school principal, a few present or former chiefs of police, a pediatrician, a Homeland Security rep, the Mayor of Hamden, a teacher, a pediatrician, a guidance counseling administrator, juvenile risk supervisors...and a fire chief.

 

No NRA representation? No experts on Constitutional law?

 

Nah. We'll give credibility to their report because they are a "Commission". If "juvenile risk supervisors" were in charge, my future grandkids would never know the pleasure of experiencing a fucking swing-set.

 

The "commission" was nothing more than a progressive circle jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am so excited that you (in the Pacific North Wet) is on the 'same page' as some idiotic idiots in a one of the Thirteen Colonies. Makes me wanna go target shooting right now with some 'illegal' hi-cap mags.

 

You, sir, are an idiot of epic proportions......

 

Oh, hi Rick. Tell us some more, the one about the garage prowler that got away last summer. How, unfortunately, neither of you was armed. What you coulda done, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites