Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 672
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The part on transfers is stooopid too. My wife could let someone engage in target practice with her scary gun at a licensed range, but not here in our yard where we actually use it. If someo

More on what the word possession means. So sharing the combination to our safe, my wife has possession of my guns and I have possession of hers, even before I touch one of them. People who

Poor Tom. Poser poser poser. For viable civil disobedience, you need to lead your 80% to jail. Did you read about the layers of civil disobedience in Wiki? The article shames us, decent citizens

Posted Images

A person may or may not have “inherited” an “assault weapon” that, more than likely was used in an actual military assault at some point in a previous “war” that involved American troops.  The transfer from the previous owner, who was a relative of that person, was never recorded, if it did occur.  In light of the discussions in this thread, were any laws broken in the transfer, if it did occur?

Asking for a Friday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

Quote

...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.

 

17 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

without knowing who owns guns gun removal is ineffectual policy.


Yes, that's why there are scores of thousands of felons in possession of now-banned tools up in CT, and have been for years.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

Quote

...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.

I wonder if five years is a reasonable period to wait before gun owners surrender their property or face felony charges?

Cory Booker sure as hell isn't saying.

Quote

...

Harlow asked Booker if he supports Swalwell's buy-back program, which would impose harsh penalties, including jail time, on those who refuse to sell the government their guns. When asked directly if he supports such penalties, Booker refused to answer.

"When I was mayor of the city of Newark, again I have a record on dealing with gun violence. We did a lot of gun buy-backs and even other creative ideas," he recalled, promising similar proposals if he becomes president. "The critical thing is I think most Americans agree that these weapons of war should not be on our streets."

Unsatisfied, Harlow pressed him, "But would you prosecute people? Do you support the government buying them back and if not potentially people could go to jail if they don't want to sell them back? Yes or no."

Once again Booker refused to answer the question.

"Again, we should have a law that bans these weapons and we should have a reasonable period in which these people can turn in these weapons," the presidential candidate said. "Right now we have a nation that allows in streets and communities weapons that should not exist."

...

 

 

I think the reporter just doesn't understand and so asked the wrong question.

"Buybacks" have nothing to do with gun bans and confiscation programs, none of which offer compensation for the property that is surrendered.

The compensation is: you don't go to jail for continuing to own your property.

There's no way someone like Cory Booker is going to step forward and advocate changing that pattern. Who wants to deal with questions of how much the compensation will cost, when confiscation is so much cheaper?

He's among the best TeamD has to offer on our other stupid prohibition program but can't see why his favored one is just as flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

1000 down 300M to go...


Well, you do have to make possession of them illegal first.

But that hurdle was overcome years ago in CT.

And yet, the scores of thousands of felons remain in possession of their tools.

Must be frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t remember posting in this thread recently but now that I’m here it’s a great reminder that registering guns and enacting strict controls is a good first step on the path to gunz grabbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I don’t remember posting in this thread recently but now that I’m here it’s a great reminder that registering guns and enacting strict controls is a good first step on the path to gunz grabbing.

Yes, that's exactly why compliance rates are so low.

But the failures of prohibition programs always just result in calls for more strict prohibition programs, so I'm sure the grabby faithful will react that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/23/2017 at 5:49 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The section of law in question:
 

Quote

 

(1)  Beginning  on  the  date  that  is  90  days  after the  date  of  enactment  of  the  Assault  Weapons  Ban  of 2017,  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  who  is  not  licensed  under  this  chapter  to  transfer  a  grandfathered semiautomatic  assault  weapon  to  any  other  person  who  is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed  manufacturer,  or  licensed  dealer  has  first  taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

(2)  Paragraph  (1)  shall  not  apply  to  a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting  in  a  licensed  target  facility  or  established range if—

(A)  the  grandfathered  semiautomatic  assault weapon  is,  at  all  times,  kept  within  the  premises  of the target facility or range; and

(B)  the  transferee  is  not  known  to  be  prohibited  from  possessing  or  receiving  a  grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘transfer’—

(A) shall include a sale, gift, or loan; and

(B)  does  not  include  temporary  custody  of  the grandfathered   semiautomatic   assault   weapon   for  purposes  of  examination  or  evaluation  by  a  prospective transferee.

 

The noted exemptions imply that "transfer" includes temporary transfers of possession, which is why the NRA made her use that term in her bill. Or something.

Paragraph 2 suggests to me that "a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting" here in my back yard would not be exempt and would therefore require a background check because this is not a licensed range.

.

45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Responsible gun owners should be demonstrating that they are concerned about safety in their neighbors and their community, and making whatever gun regulations -work-.

I could make the above regulation work by driving to town for a background check prior to handing someone my wife's squirrel gun in my yard.

But the fact that we've shot here for decades, since I was a little boy, and no neighbor or community member has done anything except come over to participate kind of indicates they really don't share your concern.

We can and do shoot safely here, even transferring assault weapons to friends and letting them shoot, without endangering anyone.

What would be wrong with amending the section of law to read:
 

Quote

 

(2)  Paragraph  (1)  shall  not  apply  to  a  temporary transfer  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in target  shooting  in  a  licensed  target  facility  or  established range or private property where shooting is legal if—


 

If passed, that would also be "whatever" gun regulation, but quite a bit more likely to be obeyed because really, driving to town for a background check on a person I've known for decades is just pointless carbon footprint building of the kind I prefer not to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 9:22 PM, Fakenews said:

I don’t remember posting in this thread recently but now that I’m here it’s a great reminder that registering guns and enacting strict controls is a good first step on the path to gunz grabbing.

Hey Badlat Jr., Did you sell that Glock of yours? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Hey Badlat Jr., Did you sell that Glock of yours? 

One why are you quoting me from 2 weeks ago? Are you slow or just recently dropped on your head?

Two definitely not related to bad lat. I’m no ones sock.

Three what glock?  I don’t own a gun because I’m not a fearful person.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

One why are you quoting me from 2 weeks ago? Are you slow or just recently dropped on your head?

Two definitely not related to bad lat. I’m no ones sock.

Three what glock?  I don’t own a gun because I’m not a fearful person.

I love come to Jesus moments!

Have you ever posted under the handle of Bull Gator?  Simple yes or no, otherwise, you have no footing to challenge others.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

One why are you quoting me from 2 weeks ago? Are you slow or just recently dropped on your head?

Two definitely not related to bad lat. I’m no ones sock.

Three what glock?  I don’t own a gun because I’m not a fearful person.

 

 

1. Your posts don't typically require fast response as they are usually tripe.

2. Didn't imply you were his sock, I stated that you were secondary to him in that he sold his gun and then became a big gun grabber, after he sold his SCAR without a background check. In your previous form on these pages you once claimed to own a Glock, what happened to it? Did you sell it to someone without a background check?

3. Perhaps you should have a better memory of the BS you have spewed here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

Quote

...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.

This:

13 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

I wonder how suspension of some of the BoR will go over in California?

It will go the same way as everywhere, Shock, bewilderment, acceptance. There may be a few hardcore reactionaries, but in the end, they will get in line too, because they have no answer themselves for all the violence, and they know as well as anyone that it cannot continue.


Is way funnier here, where about 20% of those affected signed up for the confiscation program.

That's actually very high compared to places like Cali and New Jersey that are trying to implement immediate confiscation. Estimates range around 3% compliance in those places.

There are a few hardcore grabbers who will do what badlat did and become assault weapon dealers but most will continue to have "boating accidents" like they do up in Canada.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Importunate Tom said:

This:


Is way funnier here, where about 20% of those affected signed up for the confiscation program.

That's actually very high compared to places like Cali and New Jersey that are trying to implement immediate confiscation. Estimates range around 3% compliance in those places.

There are a few hardcore grabbers who will do what badlat did and become assault weapon dealers but most will continue to have "boating accidents" like they do up in Canada.

 

I have a friend who is a documentary filmmaker, I wonder if I put him in contact, if you wouldn't mind being the subject matter when strict gun law comes to a neighborhood near you? The rest of us would be glued to the screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to put this back on topic but the latest shooter used a handgun with large capacity magazines of which he had several. Just want to make sure that everybody is ok with guys walking around with .45s with +20 rounds at a time. 

Best news - those mags are cheap - Fathers day coming up!

edit: oops, forgot to add sending T&Ps

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Sorry to put this back on topic but the latest shooter used a handgun with large capacity magazines of which he had several. Just want to make sure that everybody is ok with guys walking around with .45s with +20 rounds at a time. 

Best news - those mags are cheap - Fathers day coming up!

And a suppressor. It made the sound diffuse and hard to tell where it was coming from.  This contributed to making it harder for law enforcement  to locate the perp and probably led to some victims getting in the way of deadly fire not knowing where to run

It it makes the OP and Tom feel better, I do not want laws to register these things but rather to ban them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Sorry to put this back on topic but the latest shooter used a handgun with large capacity magazines of which he had several. Just want to make sure that everybody is ok with guys walking around with .45s with +20 rounds at a time.  

Best news - those mags are cheap - Fathers day coming up!

edit: oops, forgot to add sending T&Ps

Just want to make sure that everyone knows that caliber and magazine capacity are not relevant. ANY semiauto pistol with a threaded barrel is an assault weapon.

On 6/6/2018 at 6:29 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The part of my shopping list related to handguns says this:

Quote

 

(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
...
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

(i) A threaded barrel.

(ii) A second pistol grip.

(iii) A barrel shroud.

(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

To answer your question, I'm a lot more OK with owning such things than I would be with any SOLution I can think up.

But maybe you can surprise me. I assume you're not OK with ownership of such magazines? What SOLution would be OK to solve that problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fakenews said:

And a suppressor. It made the sound diffuse and hard to tell where it was coming from.  This contributed to making it harder for law enforcement  to locate the perp and probably led to some victims getting in the way of deadly fire not knowing where to run

It it makes the OP and Tom feel better, I do not want laws to register these things but rather to ban them.

I still think

On 11/9/2018 at 3:34 AM, Importunate Tom said:

We should be able to buy a suppressor at a store just like we were New Zealanders or something.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

 

To answer your question, I'm a lot more OK with owning such things than I would be with any SOLution I can think up.

 

Since there is no solution perhaps you can see why I don't engage you?  Perhaps you could surprise me.   My idea: Be Like Oprah - You get a gun, and You get a gun and You get a gun, Everybody gets a gun! Oprah The Equalizer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 7:06 PM, Fakenews said:

And a suppressor. It made the sound diffuse and hard to tell where it was coming from.  This contributed to making it harder for law enforcement  to locate the perp and probably led to some victims getting in the way of deadly fire not knowing where to run

It it makes the OP and Tom feel better, I do not want laws to register these things but rather to ban them.

Quick reference guide:

When Bull Gator and Donald Trump are on the same page, turn the page.
 

Quote

 

Q    The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon.  Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t like them at all.

 

Completely predictable, like his power grab to ban bump stocka. You can take the New Yawkah out of New Yawk but good luck taking the grabby instinct out of the New Yawkah.

I don't think you understand how sound works, but even somewhat dampened sound comes from a direction. I've mentioned previously how well a suppressor works at eliminating the supersonic CRACK that fast bullets make. The answer is: not at all because that sound is generated after it leaves the barrel.

On 10/6/2017 at 5:33 AM, Importunate Tom said:

More like a jackhammer.

Quote

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, d'ranger said:
On 6/3/2019 at 4:21 AM, Importunate Tom said:

 

To answer your question, I'm a lot more OK with owning such things than I would be with any SOLution I can think up.

 

Since there is no solution perhaps you can see why I don't engage you?  Perhaps you could surprise me. 

I did ask if you had a new SOLution.

Lacking one, we can discuss the currently-enacted SOLutions: bans and confiscation programs.

They're failing miserably in places like California and New Jersey, possibly due to the fact that "you must like murder so give us your property now" isn't ever going to be a persuasive argument. Compliance rates are near zero.

It's working slightly better where badlat's advice is followed:

On 6/2/2019 at 4:40 PM, badlatitude said:

I would make gun ownership terminate at death.


That's the rule under which Billy Backstay's scary magazine is destined for confiscation upon his death. Estimates are that about 15-20% of the owners of banned items have signed up to have them confiscated upon death as he did.

But that leaves the majority, numbering scores of thousands, as felons in possession.

Apologies for engaging with you. I know from hard experience that pointing out the failures and dangers of prohibition programs is offensive and takes a looong time to work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

I don't think you understand how sound works, but even somewhat dampened sound comes from a direction. I've mentioned previously how well a suppressor works at eliminating the supersonic CRACK that fast bullets make. The answer is: not at all because that sound is generated after it leaves the barrel.

That's all true, except when the bullet starts out subsonic to begin with.  All .45 handguns are Subsonic as are all or most dogball rounds out of a 5" or less handgun.  

Sadly gaytor is correct that it does make the origin of the sound more difficult to discern even with a supersonic round.  What gaytor misses however, is that the sale and ownership of suppressors are HIGHLY HIGHLY regulated.  It takes a good year to get approved for one after going through a year or more waiting period, an extensive Fed and local BGC, 10 prints, pictures, etc.  So the entire waiting period, BGC, registration, etc. still do not prevent someone from murdering people if they so choose to.  I still maintain that prohibitionists anti-dead kid enthusiasts would get FAR more bang for their buck by repealing or heavily infringing on the 4th Amendment.  Think about it, if the NSA could read this latest shooters texts, emails, listen in on phone calls, etc - they likely could have prevented this latest mass shooting as there would have been some sign of it coming.  But no..... we accept dead kids as a price to pay for our privacy right to not have the gov't snoop into our effects and things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

I did ask if you had a new SOLution.

Lacking one, we can discuss the currently-enacted SOLutions: bans and confiscation programs.

They're failing miserably in places like California and New Jersey, possibly due to the fact that "you must like murder so give us your property now" isn't ever going to be a persuasive argument. Compliance rates are near zero.

It's working slightly better where badlat's advice is followed:


That's the rule under which Billy Backstay's scary magazine is destined for confiscation upon his death. Estimates are that about 15-20% of the owners of banned items have signed up to have them confiscated upon death as he did.

But that leaves the majority, numbering scores of thousands, as felons in possession.

Apologies for engaging with you. I know from hard experience that pointing out the failures and dangers of prohibition programs is offensive and takes a looong time to work.

 

I will always respect the opinion of a dinosaur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Apologies for engaging with you. I know from hard experience that pointing out the failures and dangers of prohibition programs is offensive and takes a looong time to work.

 

Finishing with an apology and an insult.       and scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is this  new fresh hell? Our newresident gun nut who’s been spewing crap about guns here for years and who has a severe mental illness doesn’t in fact know anything about guns?  He thinks rounds exiting  a . 45 caliber handgun are SUPERSONIC?

And we’re supposed to pay attention to him.

No thank you next..

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, d'ranger said:
23 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Apologies for engaging with you. I know from hard experience that pointing out the failures and dangers of prohibition programs is offensive and takes a looong time to work.

 

Finishing with an apology and an insult.       and scene.

There was an apology but an observation about how people react when I say bad things about prohibition programs is not an insult. An insult would look more like this:

On 3/26/2018 at 4:58 AM, Importunate Tom said:

I'm just still in agreement with this post, except the part calling me a liar for noting that all the "assault weapon" bans include our dogballs's.

On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

Dear Clueless Tom - I don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything More Dogballs.  That you use it makes you just as big a disingenuous fucktard as Jack.  


And yes, D'Ranger, when you go out of your way to call me a liar for telling the truth, you might just see that post a few more times.

But I still agree with you that our TeamD Senators are unreasonable for including squirrel guns in the censored caliber in their ban on "military style" weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
23 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

I don't think you understand how sound works, but even somewhat dampened sound comes from a direction. I've mentioned previously how well a suppressor works at eliminating the supersonic CRACK that fast bullets make. The answer is: not at all because that sound is generated after it leaves the barrel.

That's all true, except when the bullet starts out subsonic to begin with.  All .45 handguns are Subsonic as are all or most dogball rounds out of a 5" or less handgun.

Yeah my wife has a 1911 and its slow action cracks me up because I'm used to the snappier feel of my Glock.

But Bull Gator just wants to talk about the scary AR15's so I thought I'd point out that "fast bullets" make a lot of noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 5:34 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Sadly gaytor is correct that it does make the origin of the sound more difficult to discern even with a supersonic round.

And it makes subsonic rounds as subtle as a siren
 

Quote

 

So-called silencers, a.k.a. suppressors, do not eliminate "the sound of gunfire." On average, they reduce the noise generated by a .45 ACP pistol (the kind used in Friday's attack) from around 157 decibels to something like 127 decibels, which is still louder than a siren or a thunderclap. It's not surprising, then, that "most law enforcement experts say" the Virginia Beach shooter's suppressor "likely had no bearing on his ability to kill so many people in so little time," as the Associated Press noted.

The perpetrator of last week's attack also used "extended magazines," although police have not specified their capacity.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

True.  I run a suppressor on my AR-15 and it is NOT quiet at all.  Certainly better than unsuppressed, but not drastically so.  I can shoot without Ear pro with most other calibers -- even .308 - and its comfortable without muffs (although I still wear foamies just to be safe).  But not an AR.  Its FUCKING LOUD!

A handgun with .45 or subsonic 9mm ammo with a can on is shockingly quiet!  Its almost hollywood quiet.  Almost. 

If you think 127 decibels is shockingly quiet it might be time for hearing aids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who knows anything about guns (not Tom) knows the the question is not the decibel level of the suppressed shot but rather the ambient sound relative to the shots.  (In the case of a mass shooting much louder). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Good news, Billy!

Your Mini 14 is specifically exempted from the latest gun confiscation bill in the US House.

It's not a "weapon of war" like my wife's squirrel shooter, which is targeted for confiscation under that proposal. The scary adjustable stock again.

And yes, threaded barrels are still the mark of a weapon of war on plinking handguns like this one:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Gun Collection Confiscated From Crime Victim

At least, that's how some of my elk on a gun nut forum I frequent are viewing this story.

The thing is,
 

Quote

 

Brown, who has a family law practice in Stamford, had six pistols stolen from him sometime in October and one of those guns turned up on a Bridgeport suspect in mid-March. Conklin said Bridgeport police and an inspector from the Golden Hill courthouse in Bridgeport told Brown in May to report the guns stolen, but he did not do it until Monday, the day before Moore allegedly fired on Cooper.

...

According to Brown’s four-page arrest affidavit, the attorney played fast and loose with his armory. He said after he began dating and having a sexual relationship last year with a 30-year-old woman he met while visiting Harry O’s, one of Stamford’s three strip clubs, the woman began visiting his home with a duffel bag and the guns began disappearing.

Barnett told the police he believes that she has the guns and that she is a Bloods gang member from Bridgeport, the affidavit said.

While he has a gun safe, he told police that while cleaning and working on the guns, he would leave his pistols on the kitchen table when the woman was visiting. When he left to run errands, he noticed the guns were missing upon his return. Brown said that he was trying to investigate what happened to the guns himself. He said he ended up giving the woman a cell phone, but mistakenly did not remove some banking information and that was used to take $250 out of one of his bank accounts, the affidavit said.

Brown also said he was concerned about telling police about the guns because he believed that the man who was caught with his gun in Bridgeport, the woman he met at Harry O’s and her sister’s boyfriend are gang members and believes they were involved in the drive-by shooting death of 12-year-old Clinton Howell last December in Bridgeport and other deaths, the affidavit said.

As well as his state permit to carry a gun being revoked with Brown’s arrest, police seized another 19 pistols and long guns in his possession, Conklin said.

...

 

The Monday in question there is last Monday, July 8th, which is a LOT more than the 72 hours that CT residents have to report a gun stolen.

The reporting requirement seems like a reasonable rule to me and this case shows why. I can't imagine having guns stolen and NOT reporting it. OTOH, I can't imagine having them stolen by a stripper who seems to have gang connections, and who brings a duffel bag to my house for that purpose, so maybe there's a relationship. Or remaining silent after I'm pretty sure my stolen guns were used in a drive-by.

I have no problem with his guns being confiscated and hope he lost his law license too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I got my CCW permit 7 years ago, the instructor at the range, said that we should all register, any firearms owned with the CT state police, and/or our local PD.  When I got letters from both PD's, as required for my permit, they had no interest in receiving this information.  So, the only thing I have registered is the 20 round magazine for the Mini-14, none of my other 7 long guns are.  Still have not purchased a handgun, maybe never will, but will keep my permit active, just in case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billy backstay said:

When I got my CCW permit 7 years ago, the instructor at the range, said that we should all register, any firearms owned with the CT state police, and/or our local PD.  When I got letters from both PD's, as required for my permit, they had no interest in receiving this information.  So, the only thing I have registered is the 20 round magazine for the Mini-14, none of my other 7 long guns are.  Still have not purchased a handgun, maybe never will, but will keep my permit active, just in case.

Even so, if you happen to start dating a stripper who you think has gang connections and she shows up with a duffel bag and guns disappear, you should probably report this before you also suspect one was used in a stupid drug war drive-by.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Even so, if you happen to start dating a stripper who you think has gang connections and she shows up with a duffel bag and guns disappear, you should probably report this before you also suspect one was used in a stupid drug war drive-by.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, Tom, but the likelihood of me dating a stripper, is about as much you conducting a drug war, just sayin'.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sure you could date at stripper for $20 a song.......  :lol:

 

No mate; hookers and blow, is much 1980's passe by now!

So Missus BB finally acquiesced to putting the lovely glass fronted, wood gun cabinet, with the long guns, in a corner of the dining area of our large L-shaped living-dining room.  But she refuses to let me mount my beautiful antique, Damascus steel, black powder,  side by side, double barreled shottie,  on the wall in the same public space in our home, so it has to be relegated to the 3rd bedroom/my office, where nobody will appreciate it. The kids were toddlers years ago, when a former client sold it to me, and she made me remove the firing pins back then, even though only an idiot would try to fire a modern cartridge in a Damascus barrel, and I  have no interest in self-loading black powder, except into a small deck cannon......  My office also displays an 1859 Wallings map of Middlesex County that identifies the owner of every structure in the county then.  It's beautiful piece of art, and I had it conserved years ago, so it is in much better condition than the exact same 4x6 maps displayed in the Town Halls of two nearby towns..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
18 hours ago, Jules said:
On 8/13/2019 at 10:28 PM, AJ Oliver said:

Just to remind y'all, gunz are for cowards . .

Exactly.  Emasculate ownership.  "Guns are for pussies."  "Real men don't need guns."

Better than waiting for Congress to take action.


Look out, Billy! The grabbers are coming for your penis.

And Kamala's too!

On 4/28/2019 at 6:34 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:


Look out, Billy! The grabbers are coming for your penis.

And Kamala's too!

 

 

Well, if Kamala owns a handgun, maybe it's time for me also? What do you recommend, Tom?  Glock, or ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Well, if Kamala owns a handgun, maybe it's time for me also? What do you recommend, Tom?  Glock, or ???

I have a Glock 27 and they're about as reliable as gravity but it does fall under the definition of an "assault" weapon put forth by DiFi and the Presidential Contenders.

Your Mini 14 falls outside that definition because it's so much less like something a soldier would carry than my Glock.

If you want to continue the practice of owning guns that are not "assault" weapons, maybe a revolver? Mine's a stainless S&W in .38/.357 and I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall under any definition of "assault" weapon yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 4:36 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

I have a Glock 27 and they're about as reliable as gravity but it does fall under the definition of an "assault" weapon put forth by DiFi and the Presidential Contenders.

Your Mini 14 falls outside that definition because it's so much less like something a soldier would carry than my Glock.

If you want to continue the practice of owning guns that are not "assault" weapons, maybe a revolver? Mine's a stainless S&W in .38/.357 and I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall under any definition of "assault" weapon yet.

tell us more, do the dogballs hang in boxers or briefs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds reasonable -

Mandatory Gun Insurance? San Jose Mayor Says It's Part Of The Solution

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/08/20/gun-insurance-san-jose-mayor

Excerpt -

Less than a month after a mass shooting in California, San Jose is considering a proposal that would make it the first city in the U.S. to require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

Sounds reasonable -

Mandatory Gun Insurance? San Jose Mayor Says It's Part Of The Solution

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/08/20/gun-insurance-san-jose-mayor

Excerpt -

Less than a month after a mass shooting in California, San Jose is considering a proposal that would make it the first city in the U.S. to require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

California keeps on finding ways to cause "boating accidents" and that's likely to cause some more. Tragic how firearms find their way overboard, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repastinate Tom said:

California keeps on finding ways to cause "boating accidents" and that's likely to cause some more. Tragic how firearms find their way overboard, isn't it?

 

You are a boating accident fan, and proud of it.  (You conspire for others to hide their battle gun problem.)

You choose to peddle a gun-hider lie, true to form. You delight in corroding to civic values in general, but I find that Libertarians are not just into shitty citizenship, but they also peddle dark money, and blythe carnage, without skipping a beat. What a package... Roger Stone with gunz.

 

Think about it. After we hide the guns, from dwelling to dwelling, somewhere, we either sneak around with them after the kids are in bed, or we just kinda train the kids to lie about them. All our  kids can keep secrets, right? No burden or conflict there, as they tell fibs about AW's then cringe down in their regularly programmed active shooter drills...

It would be fun to do a search for how many times per month you use this boating accident gag (as if it is clever at all). At least it's not race-baiting. Or tools. Or flowers. Or more proliferation. You have a certain style, fella.

love those dogballs, out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 2/16/2014 at 8:57 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

The Hartford Courant's Valentine Letter To CT Gun Scofflaws

 

 

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

Some things never change. Among them, the Hartford Courant publishing the work of delusional grabbers.

 

Quote

 

...Today, one can walk into a gun shop and purchase, for instance, a dogballs, .38 or .44-caliber handgun. Most firearms are built to accommodate one size round only. Here’s what would happen if the manufacture of today’s standard-size rounds were outlawed, and .21, .37, or .43-caliber rounds took their place: Eventually, gun owners would run out of the old ammo, and their weapons would become paperweights.

We’d have the opportunity for a national gun policy do-over. New, tougher gun registration and ownership policies, some already favored by NRA membership, would be enacted in conjunction with the changeover in rounds calibration. Fresh attention could be paid to newer, research-vetted strategies, such as the universal adoption of smart-gun technology and limiting the size of rounds available to civilians. Police and military would keep their current firearms and ammuntion, manufactured and distributed under strictest control.

To use the recalibrated rounds, people would have to purchase new weapons to fire them. Many would object. Why should a law-abiding citizen spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars to replace one’s gun collection?...

 

I guess they realized that the scores of thousands of felons created in 2014 really aren't going to sign up to have their property confiscated, so they hatched an even wackier plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2013 at 5:41 PM, billy backstay said:

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????

What do you need a 20 round banana clip for? Hunting? Defending your own home? If you are such a poor shot that you need 20 rounds then "God bless you".

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Marty6 said:

What do you need a 20 round banana clip for? Hunting? Defending your own home? If you are such a poor shot that you need 20 rounds then "God bless you".

 

It's just one gun in my small collection.  Rarely used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

how I love this place

 

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 7/17/2019 at 12:56 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sure you could date at stripper for $20 a song.......  :lol:

 how I love this place

Where’s @LB 15 when you need him??

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 1:31 PM, billy backstay said:

 

It's just one gun in my small collection.  Rarely used.

Well, then you should take your large collection to a shooting range and train with it. Because if you need 20 round magazines you are a hilarious ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marty6 said:

Well, then you should take your large collection to a shooting range and train with it. Because if you need 20 round magazines you are a hilarious ;)

 

It's just a collection, like art, or whatever floats your boat.  When I am able to retire, and have some free time, I will target shoot with them all.  Until then, I have a full time job, and a second job dealing with 16 rental properties within a 75 mile radius, so I don't have a lot of free time just yet.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
51 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 My wife's gun still is (illegal), as is handing it to a friend to plink in our yard.

The big transfer lawsuit was over in twenty minutes, including the cordiality. There was no standing for litigation.

You are a liar on this one, and a serial liar too. There was no "transfer" plaintiff in all the land, when  the SAF needed one in court. The judge apologized to Gottlieb that the system was unable to litigate for a crime, if the plaintiff could present no record of arrest for that crime.

Dogballs, these are the mean streets of gun rights, dammit. Be like Jane Fonda, just go to jail a few timnes for your earnest and sincere beliefs. You are the perfect test case if you can get someone arrested for transfers on your property. And this arrest would spell opportunity for your incarceration, which is the very Viagra of actual civil disobedience. Go for it. MLK went to the slam fifteen times, IIRC.

 

Don't you ever feel the need for creds?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

The ammosexuals are still at it I see.  

Has a gun thread ever died a natural death on PA? It's astonishing how they keep rising from the dust months or years later, risen from the undead as Tomballs strokes his precious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Billy will be glad to know...

Right. Not very glad. billy informed us that he has put you on ignore. :wacko:

He was one of your toolz, you did him up proudly for the stoopid law thread. But now he goes into the butthurt files, with d'ranger, on the ghost database.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few interesting statistics: There are roughly as many legal guns in America as there are people, around 300 million of each. Half of those guns are owned by 3% of the total number of legal gun owners.

What the fuck are you all so scared of ? 

I'm sure most gunlickers don't live in areas where they might be killed by Bears, Mountain Lions, Crips, Bloods, MS13 or sinister master hitmen from foreign places. 

Nobody's planning to invade you, and the British aren't coming back for another go. Fucking grow up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

Right. Not very glad. billy informed us that he has put you on ignore. :wacko:

He was one of your toolz, you did him up proudly for the stoopid law thread. But now he goes into the butthurt files, with d'ranger, on the ghost database.

 

Not so!  I only have a couple of nasty sock trolls on ignore, and Tom's not one of them....

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Not so!  I only have a couple of nasty sock trolls on ignore, and Tom's not one of them....

Glad to hear it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Heh. Unless you want a full time job, don't start trying to correct things Joe makes up about me.

I don't need to make anything up. Since your bits are accepted around here, I'm gonna put your bits in the bright lights. We have five years of loud, documented race-baiting to replay, for our enjoyment.

Quote

This is Tom Ray's brain, the day after Dylann Roof. 

Quote

 

linky Posted June 19, 2015

(Tom here June 18)) Motives matter, bgytr. A state Senator was killed, which could be a political assassination. He was also a pastor, which could be a religious assassination. Or it could be something else. I hope they catch him.

 

(Joe here) Tom, what was up with your fascination with Rev. Mosteller, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?

My sixth inquiry.

 

(Tom': a thread transfer to This Non Violent Stuff thread)

 

Quote

 

 let's go there: FULL RACE-BAITER for EIGHTY DAYS  with our host Tom "dogballs" Ray

         A Tom journey, from MLK on March 25th, to Dylan Roof June 17, 2015

 

This is fun. The punch line is the five years of behavior since then. Our celebration of Dylann Roof Day is gonna be an extravaganza, and my community deserves the hoopla IMO. If race-baiting is okay in twelve repeated flavors, let's just go big with it.  :(  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Dozens Line Up To Speak Out On Ammunition Excise Tax
...

Quote


The bill’s author, Rep. Jillian Gilchrest of West Hartford, testified before her fellow lawmakers on the finance committee, Thursday.

“Why should the 84% of Connecticut residents who chose not to own guns have to pay the same for gun violence as the 16% who take all the risk by owning them?” she asked.

...

She was peppered with questions about why she seemed to be targeting gun owners instead of all taxpayers.

“Most criminal acts actually take place with a firearm which was once legally purchased.  And so, yes law-abiding gun owners should pay a little more,” she answered.

...

 

So the justification is more of the usual "people who have not committed any crimes involving guns are responsible for crimes involving guns."

A slight variation on the usual "you must like dead kids so we will take your property."

One of those speaking out against the tax suggested enforcing laws on the books. He should be careful what he wishes for in the case of CT, where there are scores of thousands of people in possession of naughty guns that can make them eligible for a felony conviction. In a state with a prison population just over 20k, that could easily lead to tripling the prison population. Likely to get both expensive and nasty, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Connecticutt is careful with its legislation, they do their homeworkk. It is a model of success in the appeals courts.

2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

... there are scores of thousands of people in possession of naughty guns that can make them eligible for a felony conviction.

Let's see, you are lofty, superior, and highbrow, but you encourage lawbreaking by AW outlaws...and you race-bait a lot,

Those individuals in CT made their own choices, and most are hiding several AW's (based on NSSF figures presented within  Kolbe). . These are other lowbrow types, who are exposed to serious consequences, as mainstream society in CT goes a separate direction.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Dozens Line Up To Speak Out On Ammunition Excise Tax
 

A slight variation on the usual "you must like dead kids so we will take your property." 

 

Ooh, we find bitterness emerging. Let me soften up the edges:

Tom, your elk never discuss or manage the increasing damage being done, so the adults have concluded that the over-the-top battle gun bits need to go. And yeah, since your version of history is a PR myth (fabricated by Libertarians of record), some re-education based on vetted history is gonna be in order.

Above, you phrase it crudely, by double dipping/exploiting "dead kids", and you got the butthurt, but you finally seem to get the drift here, that you are pariahs. That you are  leeching off of, and percolating into, a society that doesn't want your philosophy, your behavior, and your outcome. Laws are passed to contain your elk, get used to it while butthurt.

 

Who are you? Is this you, below?

Quote

"people who have not committed any crimes involving guns "

No. This is not you, cuz boating accidents.

Have it both ways much? You are Tom Ray, and you are the giddy, pernicious leader of lawbreakers in six states. You loudly plan your own personal AW hiding. You are a sketchy guy, leading other sketchy guys. And hmmm, meanwhile, you can't successfully negotiate your own race-baiter impulses.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

From the GA arsenal thread:

1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

4 of my 6 rifles were collected when Real Estate clients simply wanted their deceased fathers, or out of state Landlords property, removed from the house.

Making that illegal is one of the more stupid aspects of the topic law IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
On 12/11/2016 at 6:57 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

 

That's right. The law says that such a tube magazine is not a large capacity magazine.

 

You're ignoring what ELSE the law says. It says that a semiauto rimfire holding more than 10 rounds is an assault weapon. There's no exception in that part for .22's.

 

The law says assault weapons OR standard capacity magazines are banned. That means either one is banned.

 

I don't know how to make this more simple for you.

On 10/22/2020 at 7:47 AM, jocal505 said:

You began the dogballs bit with the claim that Washington State was banning the Marlin Model 60, based on the word rimfire. Yet the same legislation expressly allowed them, describing them as a.22 caliber magazine type.


Magazines still are not guns, Joe.

But then, despite the blurb under your screen name, you're not moderate, informed, nor a gunowner.

Why did you destroy your assault weapon again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 9:13 AM, Quotidian Tom said:


Magazines still are not guns, Joe.

But then, despite the blurb under your screen name, you're not moderate, informed, nor a gunowner.

Why did you destroy your assault weapon again?

To be a liar today is a choice, Tom Ray.  I am quite moderate. And I am more informed on the gun issue than you, because I read what I want.. I will alter the third part as a non-gunowner, proudly, the moment I find out how to do it.

 

 

You thread-bumped my post from elsewhere. Here is the problem. Tom.: you are wearing out your welcome. We are approaching the four-year anniversary of the dogballs problem, the ordinary .22 hysteria. Zzzzzzz.

We may need a new thread, to collect, and feature, the dogballs phenomena stupidity.

 

 Yo, STFU unless you like this thread title: (COMING SOON) POLITICAL ANARCHY CELEBRATES FOUR YEARS OF DOGBALLS;)

 

Quote

(Post 2525, Debate over Assault Weapons thread)

You (meaning Tom Ray) began the dogballs bullshit on Dec, 9, 2016. This was the year before Kolbe removed any constitutional protection for AW's, in 2017. Your behavior deteriorated after Kolbe.

 

Kolbe lead directly to (ahem) four years of the dogballs brightline. You took yourself out, in 2016...and you are impressed with yourself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Why did you destroy your assault weapon again?

White noise. ^^^

You're the one who claims I owned a battlefield gun. Scalia made it pretty clear that Heller rejects battle guns, as such, for public consumption. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 8 months later...
On 5/24/2019 at 6:09 AM, Excoded Tom said:

.

I could make the above regulation work by driving to town for a background check prior to handing someone my wife's squirrel gun in my yard.

But the fact that we've shot here for decades, since I was a little boy, and no neighbor or community member has done anything except come over to participate kind of indicates they really don't share your concern.

We can and do shoot safely here, even transferring assault weapons to friends and letting them shoot, without endangering anyone.

What would be wrong with amending the section of law to read:
 

If passed, that would also be "whatever" gun regulation, but quite a bit more likely to be obeyed because really, driving to town for a background check on a person I've known for decades is just pointless carbon footprint building of the kind I prefer not to do.

TLDR....

 

California came up with a "Definition" for "Assault Rifles", and then instituted a law that said they had to be registered with the state by a certain date.  The state then set up a on-line registration form.  By design, you couldn't register your gun by the required time limit, making you a "Felon" for not registering your gun!  The Ninth Circuit saw this, and severely admonished former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (Uncle Joe's secretary of Health and Human Services) for his FAILURE!  The Ninth Circuit also upheld that possession of magazines greater than 10 rounds that were possessed BEFORE the restriction went into place was not a crime!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...