“The new head of the [Connecticut] state police, Dora Schriro, says she knows her troopers will live up to their oath to serve and protect,” nbcconnecticut.com reports, without mentioning their oath to the United States Constitution. “She wants to make very clear that the talk of confiscation is nonsense. ‘There’s no plan in place nor has there been any execution of a plan where we would, for example, go door-to-door and be actively involved in the confiscation of weapons,’ says Schriro, who took over as Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection at the end of January.” So . . . what? Meanwhile, CT’s new long gun background check law goes into effect on April Fool’s Day. It could cause a months long delay in private sales. What was that about a right delayed?
I think she meant, “to serve their unions and to protect their pensions.”
So true…
So then what’s the point of the law?
I love how the law is the law is the law until it isnt. Well, if it isnt strike it from the books. Laws that lay dormant are very dangerous for everyone. Either enforce it or repeal it.
I may get static for this, but I completely agree. We are a nation of laws not men (if Eric Holder is indeed a man). It’s not Holder’s or Herring’s or Schirro’s duty to make policy, but to enforce it. If a law sucks, repeal it, don’t refuse to enforce it.
That said, sometimes the first step to repeal is popular agitation, a la Gavin Newsom. That’s why CT gun owners should resist and make it difficult or unpopular for Schirro to enforce these laws. Then the dominos will fall, as they are doing in gay and plural marriage.
So if they passed a law that you had to do something distasteful, you would do it, but CERTAINLY try to change it?
I hope your morality is more core to your being than that.
Read my second paragraph again.
The main point of the law was to stop the new sales – future generations won’t be able to buy common arms their parents and grandparents could. That’s what the gun control crowd was really after and they very much got it.
+1
The AR-15 and rifles like it are the big profit makers for gun stores. Remove the traffic in that sector, and it becomes harder and harder to make a gun store profitable. So as a consequence gun stores will have to shut down…one by one. This is the strategy.
I know of one we lost in CT, whose business was centered around the MSR/Black Rifle, I’m sure there are others. There are a couple that I’m surprised have managed to stay open.
In Virginia the speed limit is 55 here on the highway, but no one follows it. If you go 55 you are a safety hazard so you really can’t. So you can be pulled over at almost any time, basically living under King’s law. The law is just there as an excuse, everyone breaks it, you are driving under their indulgence. This law is the same thing. Government has no power over the law abiding, so lawmakers try to make everyone a criminal.
If you treat the speed limit like what it is, an upper limit not a lower limit, then there is little opportunity for the King’s men to pull you over. And that “going slow is more of a hazard” reasoning is nothing more than rationalizing your current behaviour. The problem isn’t people that follow the speed limits, it’s the people who think they’re so important that they must get ‘there’ before you do. Oh and people that don’t know how to merge properly. And people that think southerners can’t drive in snow and then proceed to crash while driving on our version of snow (i.e. ice).
You are just incorrect. The biggest cause of accidents related to speed isn’t going fast, it’s going ‘different.’ If everyone is going one speed, slow or fast, there’s little problem for reasons that should be obvious. It’s when people break up the pattern that conflict arises. This could be someone merging improperly or someone going much slower than traffic causing a backup in one lane and everyone shooting over to the other (even worse when the idiot is in the passing lane). The Autobahn has a good safety record because the police spend more time going after the people who don’t follow the flow (again, being in the wrong lane) rather than enforcing an arbitrary limit.
And if they were planning raids to confiscate weapons…would they really openly tell us???
Comment moderated. No ad hominem attacks allowed.
I am generally not remember what I said that required moderation. My apologies. I’m just curious what I said so I know for the future.
No, no, Jake’s comment was moderated–you’re OK
“There’s no plan in place nor has there been any execution of a plan where we would, for example, go door-to-door and be actively involved in the confiscation of weapons.”
Translated into English, this roughly means:
“We don’t have a plan written down, but we are definitely planning. We haven’t actively executed any written plan yet, but we’ll come up with something … written or not. We might not go door-to-door as a a part of a written plan, but we’ll use any pretext to go door-to-door … frankly we’re hoping for any kind of incident which would allow us to claim ‘exigent circumstances’. Or maybe we just won’t go door-to-door, or we’ll call it something else. I mean if we raid two houses on every block in town, and confiscate weapons, that’s not really ‘door-to-door’ now, is it? Maybe we’ll go in through the window, and that way we can avoid all this talk of doors altogether”
Also: “If you like your freedom, you can keep your freedom. Period.”
I support common sense door control. To keep wolves like her and her chronies locked up safely behind them.
Maybe TTAG should encourage the local papers to print the home addresses of all of the police officers b/c we know that’s where guns are located? It is for the children (TM). And the patriots who will need to know where to liberate the po-po’s personal arsenals.
Wonder how safe the state police will “feel” knowing their families will be behind enemy lines when the jihad begins.
Fair is fair.
There’s no exemption for LEOs in the registration scheme?
Actually that’s a great question… Surely LEOs department patrol rifles and hi-cap magazines should be protected (sarc), but what about an officer’s personal AR?
I realize you are joking here Dirk, but this comment goes beyond bad taste.
Very poor form, and I disavow it, as just one long-time commenter here: Thats not how we roll.
Yes, I’m sure that would help gun owners. (/sarc)
A law that will not be vigorously enforced is Prima facie, a very bad law.
At the end of the video the reporter says “if you have a problem, you will be getting a letter from the commissioner sometime this week.”
Is that for people who tried to register late? People who didn’t register but have a record of purchase?
Can TTAG get a copy of that letter?
I wonder exactly what mailing list they will use for the letters?
I said it prior. This door to door stuff won’t happen. There are a multitude of ways for the government to sweeze folks. Remember it was some accountant in the tax department that put Al Capone in prison.
There plans are not to knock on doors but use some type of scheme to confusticate firearms. She’s got something up her sleeve.
Amy Schumer in 30 years.
FTW!
Nah, she’ll still have her eyebrows unlike Schriro.
The game plan, IMO, has nothing to do with confiscation. The logistical demands alone would shut down Conneticutts LE agencies. Who’s going to catalogue serial numbers, file the papers, document the charges, etc, on tens of thousands of guns and magazines?
No, the plan wasn’t about hardware. It’s about “cultural software”. With everyone in possession of an AR or standard cap mags either hiding them , or for those who did register, gun shy of being harassed, newbies won’t be exposed to positive examples of cool firearms. The banned guns become a cultural taboo, which means in twenty years CT will look like NYC. Rabid hoplophobia becomes the new cultural norm, and the RKBA dies on the vine.
Eventually, new voters think nothing of opposing gun rights, and the only folks with the “objectionable hardware” are old codgers unable to pass on their collections. The antis don’t need to go door to door to collect anything, not when time will do it for them.
There has to be a full court press by manufacturers, pro 2A groups, and enthusiasts to get youngsters and their parents involved with firearms. We know we have the advantage because shooting firearms is a hell of a lot funner then getting another lecture on global warming from Gore Inc. Got to “get into the faces” of the school systems and sue whoever it takes to get equal time on school property to extol the virtues of firearms education. If a school provides free space/time to leftist causes then you sue them to allow presentations on firearms. This needs to be an alliance of manufacturers, pro 2A groups, and responsible retired and certified old folks for mentors.
Every day we don’t do this is another day that the leftist education system is indoctrinating another bunch of kids against firearms.
This is why .22lr ammo got scarce:
The most common caliber used to introduce new (young) shooters to the sport.
Actually, they can, just not legally. You know, like the Resistance did in WW II.
And kids will know about guns from maybe, The Internet, movies, TV, games, the Armed Forces…
@ST. I unfortunately agree. It’s the exact same thing that has happened to MGs. They don’t need to confiscate just let time do that for them. Once they become taboo no one will stand to defend them.
I believe that there will be some form of confiscation, but not door-to-door as that can have disastrous consequences –both in PR and in blood–and they know it.
The state has a list of gun owners who tried to register and failed. I think that the state believes that they MUST confiscate from known owners of “Illegal guns” otherwise all gun owners will consider all CT gun laws to be bark and no bite
I believe that the state will use to courts instead and the court will demand that they turn in their weapon. When that doesn’t happen we are back to square one with door-to-door, but this time with a court order.
See: “I believe that there will be some form of confiscation, but not door-to-door as that can have disastrous consequences –both in PR and in blood–and they know it.” And: “…When that doesn’t happen we are back to square one with door-to-door, but this time with a court order.”
Circular argument with a built-in logical contradiction.
So they don’t go door to door or attempt to confiscate in anyway; good for the people who didn’t register but a big FU to the ones who did. It tells the public and those who registered they didn’t need to follow the law to begin with. Yadda yadda yadda, increased contempt from the public at large on both sides of the gun control fence. Also, I had the lobster bisque.
They do go door to door or confiscate in some other way; the people who registered are unaffected directly but extremely angry, a PR and media sh!t storm begins. Possible violence.
They are pretty much screwed either way, but don’t construe me to be sympathetic. I’m glad the consequences of legislature’s actions are becoming clearer and clearer. Especially the part where they are never the ones caught in the cross fire or with a catch-22.
… and didn’t Hitler tell Chamberlain that he had no intention of invading the rest of Europe?
They don’t have the man power to go door to door. The CT law will be enforced on a “when its in front of the cops face” just like every law. Maybe a targeted sting every once and a while.
I think you’ve got it right.
THAT makes the most sense in realistic terms.
‘There’s no plan in place nor has there been any execution of a plan where we would, for example, go door-to-door and be actively involved in the confiscation of weapons,’ says Schriro.
I put this right up there in the “truthfulness” category with “If you like your doctor and your health care plan, you can keep them. Period.”
How can you tell a statist is lying? Their lips are moving.
They are stalling/buying time. They know damn well they kicked the hornets nest.
If they actually thought they had an advantage, the warrants would have already been submitted for signature.
This is how tyrants act when they’re scared. Stall for time, lie, and save face.
Update on Ms.Schriro the commissiioner who asserted that there would be no door to door confiscation. I noticed that the March 17 posted cases from the Ninth Circuit included two death penalty claims wherein “Dora Schriro” was the defendant. She was formerly head of the prison system in Arizona where the case originated. She has a history of “controversy” and possible incompetence if not outright deception. Here is an excerpt from an article detailing some of her past justice system problems:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/09/city_jails_get.php
Schriro has courted controversy in her prior jobs. Back in 2004, a federal judge in Missouri refused to admit sworn testimony from her, saying she and other correction officials can’t be trusted to tell the truth because of previous misleading statements under oath in a lawsuit filed by an inmate, according to a report in the Riverfront Times of St. Louis.
The judge, Carol Jackson, said the defendants, including Schriro, had “demonstrated unreliability.” “It is beyond dispute that defendants’ affidavits contained false statements,” she wrote.
Not sure this person is completely trustworthy when she says what law enforcement will or won’t do.
“There have not been any law enforcement efforts by the State Police involving a door-to-door style campaign to confiscate guns, despite rumors to the contrary.”
Note she says “have not been”… not “nor will there be” any door to door confiscations. Similar to her earlier declarations that the illegally obtained letter to prohibited weapon owners “has not been mailed. Not a one.” What she forgot to say was, “Yes. That is an accurate draft of the letter we will be sending shortly.”
“This law will be enforced by state law enforcement in the same manner and using the same discretion as would apply to every other criminal law.”
Wouldn’t that mean that if law enforcement knows (due to your sending in your registration information late), or has reasonable cause to believe that you have an illegal item (similar to other illegal substances) that they could get a search warrant(s) to allow entry into any or all such addresses? I think it would have been really easy for her to make a clear statement that there would not be at any time in the future such confiscations, if she had wanted to say that. Obviously she made no attempt to rule out such actions, and given her past history of lying, even under oath, I’m guessing door to door confiscations are under consideration
WOW! Great catch Puna…
READ that VILLAGE VOICE article…
Wonder if the voters of CT really understand how poorly served they are….
I feel doubly bad for the State Police- who are put in a bad position by the Legislature and the Governor, especially with this “new” hire…
My advice to gun owners- chillax. The prog-tards are doubling down on stupid all by themselves.
More popcorn, pls.
What is more likely to happen is when the police respond to a call and they find an illegal weapon in your possession be it your home or vehicle you will be arrested at that time. It will be not much difference than if there’s a warrant in your name.
As an example my idiot nephew had a warrant out for him in Arizona. I’m not sure what but it had something to do with child support payments. He had skipped state to avoid arrest. Dumbass was on his way to Disneyland and was pulled over for speeding. Family had to use vacation money to bail him out.
So the moral of the story is if you live in Connecticut don’t call the police to your residence if you shoot an intruder with your AR-15 or get caught speeding with the AR-15 in your vehicle.
“…or get caught speeding” with or without an AR-15 in your car, because when they run your plates at the beginning of the stop the “TILT” lights will come on, just like they did for that poor Floridian in Maryland earlier this year.
The big trouble with laws like this is someone has to actually be CHARGED under tbis statute before they have enough standing to actually challenge it should they have the want/time/resources to do so.
They can write whatever BS tbey want and apply it only those things tbey choose, right up to that point of someone gaining standing. The law no matter how bad it is can continue to live until someone gets overzealous and tries to enforce it.
Patience, little one. It is inevitable.
Women rarely enter law enforcement to protect and serve.
…..until after the 2014 elections”
She needs to be the 1st one at EVERY door…maybe they’d re-think it then…
I am not law enforcement so I do not know what oath LEOs generally swear on becoming official officers, but I tried a Yahoo search of Connecticut official oaths and I cannot find any for the Connecticut State Police. Can anyone provide the actual text of this oath where they are swearing to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America?
Dora the Confiscata.
+1000 DIRK…posting home addresses is a great start. “Choose ye this day who you will serve”. “I was just following orders”.
Public officials in CT have their home address publicly available already. This is the case from the municipalities up to the state and legislative level. I’m not sure if it applies beyond elected officials though.
They won’t do any overt grandstanding because of the public relations fallout. So they will get sneaky. Falsified drug raids. Paid-off snitches. Escalated traffic stops. Home safety inspections. Whatever it will take.
Comments are closed.