https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxjuz2o9Gk#t=43

“We’re sworn to uphold the law,” Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance tells GMN Producer “Guerilla Girl Ashley.” In other words, if it comes down to it, the Constitution State po-po will go door-to-door to confiscate firearms and magazines now rendered felonious by CT’s post-Newtown civilian disarmament legislation. When Ashley asks if Lt. Vance’s oath applies to the laws that are unconstitutional, Lt. Vance argues that a law is constitutional if the Supreme Court says it is. And then says “We’re not the Gestapo.” Funny that the police officer – not the caller – evokes Godwin’s Law. Only it’s not funny. At all. Speaking of that phrase, Lt. Vance says “I don’t want to talk about the Constitution m’am. At all. Not at all.” And ends with “I’m the master.” As the Brits say, there will be tears at bedtime. [h/t Chris in CT]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

278 COMMENTS

        • Yup, I pretty much never read TTAG since the new “no dissent allowed” policy was enacted. The main reason to come is the comments, most of which are censored or deleted now.

        • Yeah this sucks. Was it really that inflammatory whatever he said? Can’t TTAG just block out the offending word(s) only?

          The comments are one of the highlights of this blog

        • I’m just about done with it as well. We will not win by playing the P.C. game. That is the anti’s territory and they have already made up their minds. I want to see them as offended as possible.

        • Just a comment, in response to Toten:
          Look, you have been a long time reader, as have I.
          You have contributed to the debate and are entitled to your opinion, of course.

          In fact, you have left and come back at least once, in a fit of pique, as I recall, so enough of the “I’m taking my football and going home” schtick. Puhleeez.

          Your allegation that most of the comments are deleted is factually untrue. Just count them- and if any new readers need to understand this faux hissy fit, and why some seem to have their panties in a permanent twist- just scroll back a couple days to the Housekeeping post that reminded everyone of the simple rules of decorum.

          Heres the bottomline, IMHO. Yeah, you are entitled to your opinion, but in the end, this blog is a private business entity- and a community of the like minded, and when you overstep the bounds of common sense, you can expect to be called on it. Its pretty loose in here; all we are suggesting is be a grown up.

          I’m reminded of some advice I heard long ago about about toxic people- if a dog wanders in off the street and pisses on your rug, you wouldn’t get too upset, as its not your dog- and you don’t need to train it. You just wouldn’t let that dog come in your house any more.

      • Do you mean that the Ct. Po-Po can dish it out by saying they are ready to come door to door for confiscation but we can not tell them to be ready to meet their makers in the attempt? Bullshite x 3. One foggy April morning, the 19th to be exact, of 1775- a pack of lobsterbacks acting against laws of the time were going to small towns and confiscating arms and powder stocks. This fine morning drew up the militia at Concord and showed them what NO ment all the way to Lexington.

    • This is absurd. I suppose Farago has gone ahead and dropped any premise of being fair and unbiased.

      In my “censored” comment above I questioned the ethics of putting words into the police spokesman’s mouth. No flaming at all. Just questioning Mr Farago’s apparent preference for sensationalism at the expense of minor things like truth and accuracy.

      I’ve slowly been getting tired of Robert’s sensationalist borderline lies, and have stopped reading any of his articles. This headline caught my attention though.

      To Nick Leghorn, Joe Grine, Chris Dumm, Dan Zimmerman, Tyler Kee, and the other excellent writers on this blog, good job. You guys are the only reason I read this blog anymore. If I were you I might want to distance myself from what has become a sham operation, but that’s just me.

      Long live dissent!

      • I don’t know Wade; I’ve posted on this site for a number of years; and I’ve spoken on a number of subjects unpopular with many people in very passionate language as in statements about being a Christian and the beliefs that come from this commitment; about those that wish to enslave us; about statists and mass murder and death supported by the Liberal/progressive/ Marxist communist/ RINO’s (you know; all the flavors of Statism.) But the thing I’ve done is do my best not to engage in adhominem attacks against people I disagree with out in the world or posters on this site. . I do my best to say what I believe is simply true backed by facts; and I’ve never been moderated; so far.

        Maybe it’s not about Robert; but maybe it’s the way you speak of things. Maybe it’s time to look in the mirror.

        • And by the way, this is not “The Truth About Guns – featuring Robert Farago,” it’s “Robert Farago’s The Truth About Guns.”

          I think the moderation policy is pretty straightforward – if you have something to say or something interesting or humorous to add to the conversation, go for it. If you are limited to personal attacks, even attack against RF for his writing style, you will be moderated. The important thing is that comments are open to all under those rules and even when a comment is deleted or moderated they do not just disappear into the ether, there is a notation that they existed but were inappropriate.

          RF is certainly entitled to make editorial comments, including veiled allusions to what the speaker meant as opposed to what he said. He is usually pretty good at including the /sarc tongue in cheek indicators. If his editorial stance bothers you and you cannot respond effectively in the comments, perhaps you really do not belong here.

      • The essential fact of the day was well expressed by the post: The CT State Police are now, according to the illustration, the Red Coats. Greenwich and Litchfield can rule over the dangerous peasants. I suppose they’ll soon bring back primogeniture and the fee tail. It’s all about the Hedge Fund operators desperate to hold on to the booty of the financialization wars.

        As for saying abrasive things, the requirements seems to be for a bit of diplomacy rather than a limit on what view you can express.

      • Personally, I like what I’m seeing in the TTAG comments. The comments have a decidely higher degree of meaningfulness. They get to the tearing apart the insane justifications of the antis without having to wade through name calling and insulting comments with no other thoughts even hinted at. I like the “armed intelligencia” actually sounding intelligent. Name calling is the last gasp for a debator with no futher ideas on how to respond. I won’t miss it.

  2. They will stick a gun in your face to take that magazine… what are you going to do about it, Serf?

    • be ready and waiting. You may be a good shot, but improvised boom is a very broad spectrum antibiotic for this type of infection.

  4. She tried to bait the officer. She made all gun owners look bad. She started off with the “Master” comments and I would of reacted the same way when someone called me a “servant” with the emphasis on being a “slave.” She should talk to the politicians not the police.

    • Are police officers not responsible for their individual actions? They will be the one’s kicking in doors (if it comes to that), not politicians. Why shouldn’t we discuss the situation with those who potentially pose the greatest immediate threat?

    • The police swear an oath to the United States Constitution – not to the politicians’ or Supreme Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.

        • Actually, nowhere in the Constitution does it restrict the power to deem something unconstitutional to the SCotUS.

        • True as far a it goes, but they are not the only ones. There’s a reson why pretty much every oath of office in the US includes some sort of fealty to the Constitution. When a young lawyer is admitted to the bar, he swears to uphold the Constitution – because as an officer of the court, he’s expected to conduct himself in accordance with that supreme law of the land.

          A President isn’t supposed to sign legislation he thinks is unconstitutional. A legislator isn’t suppposed to pass unconstittioal law. The USSC serves as check, to stop the unconsititutional actions of other public servants, but they are not the only ones charged with defending the Constitution.

        • Only in the eyes of those who have never actually read the Constitution. It is always disheartening to hear people making such indefensible comments that could so easily be avoided by simply knowing the rules the government is expected to follow.

          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”…..10th amendment.

        • You’ll pardon me for observing that SCOTUS hasn’t done a very good job. Examples: NSA spying and multiple 2A issues, Obamacare, etc.

        • UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1988
          “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 ALR 660. Also see (Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526; 10 L Ed 529; 83 S.Ct. 1314) there you go buddy

      • Bingo! Finally a grown up in the room. If you think a bunch of political appointees always gets it correct – two words- Dred Scott

      • The Supreme Court did in fact arrogate to itself the function of judicial review of legislation for constitutionality without specific Constitutional authority. (Marbury v Madison, right?) It happened early on and has never been really challenged. It’s too far ingrained in the national structure to stop now.

        • Wow, so if a scammer has been getting away with fraud for long enough, it is no longer illegal? That is a vrd way of looking at things. I guess it follows the “If the same lie is repeated long enough, it becomes truth” concept.

        • Umm, I was speaking in the vein of “as a practical matter”–judicial review of statutes as Constitutional or not has been accepted as the law of the land for a couple of centuries now. It ain’t going away any time soon.

        • Slavery in the US hasn’t been around for two centuries. It technically didn’t even last for one in the US. Its demise was coming as a matter of economics and improved technology, and was hastened by the outcome of an armed conflict over state’s rights. Very poor analogy, in other words.

          • Settlers populated the colonies for quite a while before the revolution, and kept slaves too. It got you answering and thinking as well, though not thinking much, since you still think doing something unconstitutional for long enough makes it constitutional somehow. Obviously the analogy was sufficient.

            • Those people came to the new world as Indentured Servants and not slaves. That included blacks. Later indentured black servants were by law converted to actual slaves. Brits did that BTW.

              • Actually the Dutch first brought black slaves (not indentures) to Jamestown in the early 17th century. But hey, that’s history.

        • I didn’t say it was Constitutional. I just said it ain’t going away anytime soon. Roe vs Wade is patently unconstitutional. It’s not going away any time soon either. If the anti-abortion folks (that includes me) ever “win’ in this country, it will almost certainly not be by overturning Roe. And BTW, since the United States didn’t exist as a separate political entity until what, 1783? and slavery in the US officially ended in 1865, it follows that slavery legally did not last a century in the US. And it was in the process of dying out on its own. Still a poor analogy, and since it did nothing to convince me of the “error’ of my original statement (which you substantially misinterpreted) I would hardly call it “sufficient”. Maybe you should do a little more thinking yourself.

          • Roe v Wade only guarantees right of privacy between patient and doctor, abortion being a sidebar in the overall issue. Obamacare directly violates RvW. Why is the left so screamingly silent about that?

            Point here is, once government places itself OUTSIDE the strictures of the Constitution it is no longer America’s government. It is an invading enemy, and its minions can be treated as such no matter what lies spew from their mouths or where they were born.

      • I know a number of County Sheriffs have publicly announced they won’t enforce a law that violates the Second Amendment. I hope most others in the law enforcement and military communities feel the same way, but I believe it’s best for them to withhold their views until the time comes.

      • Citation required, RF.

        I spent about 10 minutes on Yahoo Search and could find no specific wording for the Connecticut State Trooper Oath of Office. The closest I could come was a general oath in Connecticut that MIGHT be the oath they take, and it contains NO REFERENCE to The Constitution of the United States of America nor Connecticut.

      • It is ’emphatically’ the Supreme Court’s job to say what the law is. The situation was handled well by Marshall, C.J. I’m not interested in changing that. What does gall me, of course, is the fact that the Circuit Courts’ often unusual interpretations take so long to get up to the Supremes.

        It’s either SCOTUS or the legislature, and I’m not eager to have the Senate supervising the courts and, through them, the police.

        • I was borrowing “emphatically” from Marshall’s stunning and brilliant opinion in Marbury v. Madison, in relevant part…. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.”

          The Marshall court, lasting 34 years, never found need to invalidate another act of congress. I could agree that where the conflict of two laws is absent, invalidating an act of Congress should require a very clear Constitutional justification, not one drawn from the impassioned hot air produced by the day’s prevailing political party, carried away by its own extra-constitutional instincts and desires. For those desires, there’s an amendment process.

    • Shawn; I’m in complete agreement; the nerve of this serf to tell the “master” that he is actually a public servant! The serf provoked the masters just and righteous wrath.

      Bow down, serfs, to the “master”.

    • Stepping outside of just a small case of irony; the classic statist gestapo response of a public servant that believes he IS the master; or at least the minion of the true master; you know; masterhood through association.

      This is why the Founding Father spoke against having a “professional” police/military force; it breeds this type arrogance and contempt that this Lt. Vance shows in his response to his employers; you know; us.

      • I went ahead and called the Conneticutt State police 1-860-685-8190, to talk to Lt. Vance; I asked to speak to Lt. Vance and see if he still believed was the “master” or if he actually was a public servant. I left a message with the front desk telling the lady at the desk that this was the question I wanted to ask him. I was polite to her.

    • In the aftermath of all this, when people are called to account for their (in)actions, “I was only following orders” will not be an acceptable excuse for unconstitutional conduct.

  5. I feel like this is going to end very very badly… I don’t want it to, but I really think it is. Either there’s bloodshed and gun owners are demonized. Bloodshed and cops are demonized. Compliance and follow through with the loss of liberty. Non-compliance and civil disobedience tests where the line drawn in the sand. I pray for all involved and hope that the excrement doesn’t hit the fan.

    • I agree. Unless something is reversed, and quickly, things have the potential to go very badly very quickly. Stay tuned…

      • The outrageous part is that the politicians who started this all are not meeting to try to avoid the different scenarios but instead are meeting to plan how to gain the most power regardless of which way it goes. You say that’s outrageous, how can you say that? Look at their public pronouncements. Has anything been said to make you think they are trying to unwind this thing?

        • “…but instead are meeting to plan how to gain the most power regardless of which way it goes”

          I think the best question to start with is who gains the most power? Because you’re right, the plan, whatever it is, still puts them ahead or gaining something from all this. I don’t wear a tin foil hat, I just understand that people who manipulate others do it with a reason to gain. I assume it’s got something to so with power, wealth, or fame. I’ll be very glad to admit I’m wrong on all of this if it turns out differently…

        • The pols are playing a classic game of “Let’s You Punch Him in the Nose.” Things are quickly spinning out of control.

    • Look at the options here:

      A) I can let you in, let you take possessions with value in the thousands without compensation, be convicted of a felony that will prevent me from ever holding another job unless I work in food service, construction or become self employed, probably tear my family apart and possibly result in the death of my pets and traumatizing my children. I also face the possibility of fines, prison and I will never own another firearm.

      Or,

      B) I can resist to prevent you from accomplishing A, above.

      Seems pretty cut and dried to me. The CT government created this mess, now they have to live with it. I hope things don’t end badly, but I;m not optimistic. The politicians have painted themselves into a corner and they can’t back down without losing face.

    • Actually, _more_ Waco’s in the making in CT is what’s concerning me. Politicians beating the table with their shoes while yelling “I made it LAW” while Police get their MRAPs ready for some adrenaline pumping action with little oversight and accountability against citizens saying “WE elected you and DEFINE the law.”

    • hopefully we’ve all already chosen our side. People need to remember, after the first bloody showdown its very likely that they aren’t going to try and nab you at your door, they’ll ambush you on your way home from work or the market, detain you, and raid your undefended home under the guise of a search warrant , then, if you have any contraband, they’ll lock you up. Carry always, change your routes, vary your routine as much as possible and remember, they’ll know where your cell-phone is, this can be quite the achilles heel, for them.

    • Living in IL doesn’t seem as bad as it used to, seeing these other states go full retard. Sure, the FOID is kind of a pain, but other than that, I think we got it pretty good.

  10. I’d love to see this idiot be the first to attempt a violation of 4th amendment rights on a homeowner who chooses to not comply

    • Lt. Vance will not be the lead through the door.
      He will be sitting in his office cowering be cause he knows that if there is rebellion he will be adjudged.

      • Unfortunately for this clown, it won’t be so easy for him to escape to Russia as it was for his soul-brother Yanukovitch when the people get fed up and come looking for him.

  12. Ugly, ugly and uglier. Seems that the first shot will be fired in Connecticut. Let’s see.. probably around Winchester? This is a sad state of affairs.

  13. The “I’m just doing my job…” argument is total BS, always has been and forever will be.

    Much like “it’s just business.” No, it’s not just business and it’s not just a job, these are people’s families and lives we are talking about here.

    On your death bed, during your last moments, are you going to be wishing you had done “your job better”, or “did more business”.

    Or will you be wishing you had done the right thing more and been more of a righteous person?

    • I’m sure the guys unloading the cattle cars at Auschwitz were “only doing their jobs”. Didn’t save them from a short drop and a sudden stop.

    • Totally Agree..
      If Im hired to bitch slap gun owners who pose for Finger-on-trigger photos .. Im I excused from criticism and backlash because I am just doing my job?? .. Is it really my fault? or should you go after the guys signing my check?

      • Pretty much, paying someone to kill someone else, or getting paid yourself to kill someone else, are both still murder. The blood is on all hands involved.

        God, Ali, Karma, the circle of life, or whatever you believe in, it doesn’t really matter, all our actions are calculated and will one day reckoned.

        I have to believe that, otherwise, why not just be a bad person and say, ” F**k it!”

    • I feel for them, it’ll take courage to reject bad orders, courage most don’t have, that being the case, lots of guys who’d be fun to have a beer with will be pitted against other guys who’d be fun to have a beer with. This shouldn’t cause hesitation when it comes time to stand up for yourself. In most wars the guy in the cross hair isn’t evil, he’s just following orders, but for freedom to win, good men will have to drop the hammer on other good men.

      • “good men will have to drop the hammer on other good men.”

        Only we the resistance targets the enforcers. However, if the resistance targets the puppeteers…

      • I agree with whoever said following orders is no excuse. And no war is not good men dropping the hammer on other good men. War is good men hunting evil men down wherever they are.

        • To villify and demonize the enemy is the first step in a successful propaganda war. The Germans, for the most part weren’t evil, neither were the Italians, nor were the Chinese in Korea, the Grenadans, Panamanians, Iraqi (army), and so on. When you get to terrorists, well it depends, if you use violence against soft targets to further your cause, you’re probably treading the evil path. If it makes you feel better to say that the agents from XYZ agency are evil therefore their death is justified, do it, but that’s a simplistic and unrealistic way to look at things. The fact is, in their mind, they’re the good guys and they’re just doing their job for God and country, or they’re afraid to disobey orders (cowards) because they don’t want to go to jail themselves, leave their wife and family with no protector/provider, lose their pension… Not the definition of evil men, and they’re telling themselves that us wacky constitutionalists and disobedient gun owners are evil and have black intent in our hearts, and maybe they’re right on some of us, and they do that to make their job easier. That way when they go home after crashing in a door, shooting a dog, maiming/killing a gun owner, deafening his child and traumatizing his wife, they can tell themselves they did good. War is never clean, and civil war is the filthiest of all.

        • No, war has historically been good men killing each other while evil men sit back in relative safety giving orders.

        • Who was good or evil is determined by who won. Both sides invariably see themselves as the “right” side, but the winner gets to write the history books.

      • Good men need to act like good men then. The evil guys at the top would have no power if good men stopped listening to them. The young men fighting each other in the trenches of ww1 had far more in common with each other than they ever would with the overlords who put them there. There was no logical reason they should have been fighting each other. They should have been having drinks with one another, but because good men take orders they know are evil, evil wins. There will always be evil men in politics. It is a profession that attracts control freaks and sociopaths. If you stop listening to them they have no power.

      • The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. That’s an even lower standard than so-called good men allegedly reluctantly doing evil’s bidding.

        No, sir. Good men must make a choice and act. This battle is but one in the war for our country’s future. It’s the most morally unambiguous conflict since WWII.

      • Then the constitution is no longer in line with the natural laws it was supposed to codify. Rights don’t go away, they can’t be derived by consensus. There are higher laws than the constitution that we are answerable to.

        • “Natural law”… one of the most meaningless terms in the English language paired closely with “universal human rights” from the left.

          Both mean “I am above the law… unless I lose in which case I will demand all the protections of the law I can get.”

        • The term is indeed meaningless if you beleive there are no objective moral standards. I disagree with that.

        • I would also ask you, where does civil law derive its authority if there is no natural law, and fundamental inalienable rights do not exist?

      • You are familiar with the term ‘Jury Nullification’? Allow me to introduce to you a term called ‘Rifle Nullification’. Capiche?

        • Shouldn’t that have already happened with the Obamacare ruling? Apparently, we liberty-lovers are an awfully patient lot.

  15. Who wins here? And what’s the point? Lt. Vance is an obviously intelligent and capable law enforcement officer, trying earnestly to answer this woman’s questions, and then gets baited into a debate that he knows is not legitament. This woman sounds to me, very much like an ‘anti’ that is taking a ‘pro’ point to the debate to strengthen her side and create more fear and disgust with the whole gun / magazine issue.  If this were a ‘real’ situation instead of something staged, she should take the officer’s advice and talk to an attorney, and spend her time petitioning her legislators.

    • Just like the colonists petitioned George III for a redress of their grievances? How did that work out?

    • Keep that glock in your pocket or they just might take your gun to. Be ashamed you stand on the wrong side of this fight.

    • I agree with Glockinpocket-

      I listened to the whole youtube and frankly, was disappointed in GMNs approach.

      Clearly this was ambush journalism, of a particularly reprehensible kind- if what it appears to be is true:

      1. “Ashley” sounds like a man speaking in falsetto. I looked at GMN Telemedia and googled guerrilla girl ashley, and found nothing. Heres their “about” FAKEBOOK page. https://www.facebook.com/guerillamedia/info

      If that person was the host Pete Santilli, faking being someone else, and misrepresenting herself as someones spouse in CT, then that crosses the bounds of professional journalism, into something I’d expect from the trolls on the left.

      2. Robert, yes, of course the debate is worthwhile. IMHO, how we conduct ourselves reflects upon us. This may be “entertaining” like Alex Jones is like watching a car wreck in slow motion, but at some point it starts to reflect on TTAG.

      Let me use a real world example- remember that open carry rally you went to in San Antonio at the Alamo? Remember how well received that was, including Mike Van Derboegh of SipseyStreet’s speech. Up until Alex Jones got up and started raving…

      So, its your BBQ, and I support any of your decisions- but, just a vote from one news customer- GMN went over the line here.

      And for any trolls out there, pretending to be 2A rights supporters, who respond with putting words in my mouth- “so this means you are on the side of the Master”, or other nitwittery…just dont bother.

  16. So, using his logic, if the state passes a law that requires jaywalkers to be executed without trial and neither the state or U.S. supreme courts overturn that law, he’s going to start hanging people from lamp posts until the law is overturned.

    This is what happens when a society stops teaching that some things are absolutely wrong. Thank God we have some sheriffs in this country who are not “just following orders” types.

    • Good analogy. If we were all just supposed to look to SCOTUS for the approval of constitutionality of laws, then why the heck does practically EVERY civil servant at EVERY level of government take an oath to the Constitution? Every individual is a check-and-balance against tyranny. As formal as the old language it’s written in sounds to us, the Bill of Rights is not written in legalese. It’s pretty plain. The whole point of America is that any lay person can understand the law, and so doesn’t rely on government to tell him what his rights are.

      If we just rely on the federal government to dictate to us what the Constitution means, and that they get to decide what is constitutional, how are they any different than King George?

  17. The way I see it, this guy just made himself culpable in the death of the first person shot over this. The Nuremberg defense did not work there and it won’t work here.

  18. Robert, I think you’re gonna have to loosen up on the moderation or something. You’re throwing the baby out with the water.

    More thoughts on this if I can get that video to work.

    Tom

  19. Didn’t listen to the whole thing, but in the first couple minutes I have to agree that the caller is trying to bait the officer. Maybe he takes the bait later, but he doesn’t at first. In fact, I say that his comment “we haven’t crossed that bridge yet” is an eminently reasonable one. He does not in any way come off as a knuckledragger just waiting for his chance to beat on a citizen.

    I also agree people like “Ashley” make us all look bad. We can stand for principle and for our rights without being douchebags and acting like everyone who wears a badge is some kind of Stasi-in-waiting.

    • I agree with this comment in its entirety. The guy sounded entirely reasonable. “Consult an attorney,” and “we’re not there yet,” and “putting the cart before the horse.”

      And for all of you who are quoting the “I’m the master” line, that was directly in line with his earlier comments about the fact that he’s also a taxpayer, and he also works for himself, just as much as he works for this woman or any other citizen. He is sworn to uphold the law, and at this point that’s what pretty much any law enforcement officer, speaking within the bounds of his office, is going to say. When push comes to shove, and this guy is told to take away “this specific gun” from “this specific person,” you may see a change of opinion with regard to enforcing the law. This is no different than asking a police officer, “If I break the speed limit, will I get a ticket?” Virtually every one of them will tell you that you are “subject to tickets/fines” just like this guy told this woman that her titular husband would be “subject to arrest.” But when push comes to shove, does every cop give every speeder a ticket? Of course not. So I like I said elsewhere, the hysterical rhetoric in response to a canned response that he will “enforce the law” is overblown, unnecessary, and counterproductive.

      • I disagree in it’s entirety to this comment; the caller questions were legitimate; just following orders are not and will never be just reason to violate civil rights.

        Lt. Vance; under, duress, said exactly what he really believes; he is the “master:, we are the servants; and he will gladly and with a light heart enforce with lethal force any order that his “superiors” dictate to him.

        And in the end; as it has always been; and probably will always be; the only G-d given rights we will keep are those we are willing to die to protect.

        • <facepalm> Give me a fucking break. Everything you just attributed to him, save the word “master,” is a complete hyperbolic fabrication of your own mind. He did not say we are the servants, he did not say he would “gladly” do any damn thing, he did not say anything about “with a light heart,” he did not at any point use the word “lethal.”

          I understand where people are coming from, but this is a cop doing what virtually any cop would do, saying, “my job is to enforce the law.” Whether or not that enforcement actually happens is determined, in almost every instance, way out at the tip of the spear, as in my speeding ticket example above.

        • Sorry Matt in Fl, Lt. Vance does not get a break; nor you defending his very clear and unambiguous defense of and willingness to kill any one he’s ordered to in enforcing a clear and unambiguous violation of the second amendment. and his very clear and unambiguous declaration of his masterhood over us all.

          The part about a light heart, yeah, that was poetic license, more like with a dark and shriveled heart would be more accurate.

        • @Matt: The fact that the LEO is allowed to make the choice about what law to enforce and what law not to enforce is already a sign that the threshold to fascism has been crossed. If the leagal system is as such that not all laws are enforceable and that enforcement is a matter of what the enforcer wants to enforce, then the situation is already dire. At that point everybody is doing something that is against some law and any enforcer can use that to bring the hammer down on anyone he pleases. For example, are you certain you haven’t broken any laws today? I mean 100%-no-doubt-about-it-whatsoever certain. Think about that.

        • Turn it around. You are answering the phone at NSSF (or wherever) and some anti-gunner calls and starts trying to get you to say you’re all for shooting up some schools as long as it means you don’t have to go through NICS to buy your next gun. After a couple minutes of that, are you telling me you wouldn’t start poking the caller? I think any of us would, and we’d likely give them some sort of “money quote” in the process. That’s all that happened here. Yes, there are sociopaths in blue who will go right ahead and beat some guy to death for being too brown and interrupting their donut. It’s a known issue, and a serious one, however Lt Vance clearly isn’t one of those, and bullshit stunts like this aren’t helping our cause.

        • Matt, I agree with you also. I came across the video early this morning, and stopped listening when the baiting started. I could see where it was going and didn’t want to waste my time listening to goading yet again. I’m sad to say I made the right choice. That video was akin to something from MDA.

      • Matt, I agree- Lt Vance sounded reasonable and professional and tried to end the conversation politely, a couple times, quite properly suggesting the caller consult an attorney. The “master” quote was unfortunate, but understandable once he’d been engaged in an informal debate, in the context of the words used by the faux wife. Vance should have been above getting sucked into that, but as to the point of the conversation- this was grandstanding by GMN on a serious subject, and that alone discredits GMN.

        Note also that the FUD generated by this could be another tactic, including trolls on the left, to get 2A rights supporters to join another circular firing squad,
        and by anarchist wannabes to obscure what really needs to be done, put pressure on the CT govt to repeal or modify the law.

        So thanks for keeping a cool head. Bigger fish to fry.

      • The situation in CT is messed up enough as it is without this nonsense. I agree with everyone who is saying it’s like what the antis do. Being on the opposite side of the issue does not legitimize the tactic.

  22. I’ll believe it when I see it. The state LITERALLY has nothing physical to gain here and everything to lose. Peace of mind maybe?
    I can’t help but get the feeling CT is one big gun control experiment…

    • Ooh what a great point. Connecticut is traditionally a Democratic state with high taxes that people accept and several draconian laws already. If they can control it then states like New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey will follow. Once they get a lot of the money and the population under control moving forward to some of the lesser populated states will be easier. Damn, that’s a scary thought!

      • Until Sandy Hook our laws were far better than NJ or NY – no mag caps and “May Issue” was pretty much “Shall Issue” in most places. We still had the dopey but relatively toothless AW ban (based on features).

        We’re still better than NJ on buying pistols and our mag cap is 10, not 7, but it’s pretty bad – you now need a permit to buy long guns and ammo.

      • Actually, DC set the pace, that was the first test of ignoring SCOTUS and keeping the people defenseless. Congress’ little plantation on the Potomac.

    • I disagree. The very legitimacy of their governmental system is at stake here. People will finally realize “what is the point of having government pass laws if we can just ignore them?”

      • The real question is what’s the sense of having a Bill of Rights if politicians (and their appointed judicial henchmen) can just ignore it?

          • Nobody gets to ignore the Constitution. The founders foresaw situations like this. There are volumes of pithy and relevant quotes to be found. The Constitution isn’t rocket science. It’s only when people redefine the plain meaning of its words and pervert it’s spirit and intent that we end up in situations like we have in Connecticut and New York.

    • This state, or any state, is concerned with only one thing and that is power. They have been defied by citizens not turning in their weapons and now they are going to go to the wall to show who has the power. There is only one outcome from this.

      • Their talk is cheap. They ARE politicians after all.
        I don’t think (can’t really research at work) that they have the money to piss away on these door to door confiscations. It’s just not worth it, even as a power grab

  23. “We’re sworn to uphold the law”…ok, but what if that law is unjust? Men throughout history have rebelled against unjust laws, even men who were sworn to uphold said laws. Cowardice in the face of adversity is not a reason to stand by and follow orders instead of doing what is right. If some of the people in the original thirteen colonies had not stood up against unjust laws, stood up for the rights and the freedoms of everyone, including and especially those too scared to act for themselves, we would not have created the greatest country and society in world history.

  24. As a long time resident of CT, Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance has done as he has always states “following the law” — good or bad, even if he does not agree — he will follow the law.

    He may be an oath breaker as some will say, but he has been consistent over the years.

    This includes, following the previous law as well as the new law. The State PD has been more gun friendly than many local PD because in many towns especially in northern more rural areas, they are the only police and sometimes that means one state trooper and often part-time and easily 30min response times.

    This is not in the defense of state PD, Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance is a big boy and you can judge for yourself.

    The state PD has always tried to be apolitical — we can never expect them to take a side no matter how stupid the law is. They will stand behind the law and will always say “they were just following the law, or just following orders” — I do not care what you think they should do, they have always done so.

    The problem as always is, good cops and bad cops have one thing in common — the color or the law behind their actions. The good cop may allow you to slide seeing a grey area, a bad cop may use the law like a hammer and shoot first and let a judge decide who was right because after all, they have immunity. What comes into question is integrity. You can question this by looking at past cases — however, the CT State PD has had some pretty good integrity in certain cases — they are not 100% but maybe better than some others.

    Will this end in bloodshed, who knows — there are plenty here who like to stir the pot — more agitators than patriots. Until someone fires the first shot, who knows. Blood in an election year is always a bad thing for politicians.

    We all know including the State PD that database are not exactly accurate. There could be a scenario where they kick down the door and kill a few dogs and a few children only to find that person no longer has his guns because he sold them or they have the wrong address. This is a real possibility, information is never perfect. Maybe this is what needs to happen to finally wake everyone to the fact that these laws are stupid — the war on drugs has already shown us how dumb those laws can be.

    What I only hope is that stuff like this keeps people pissed off enough to vote in the primaries, vote in the general election, become politically active in more than just these forums and to donate to gun rights organizations all over the USA. There is no 22lr to buy, might as well spend it to support local gun rights groups and pro-gun politicians. While venting in these forums will may you feel good, the real work is what you do outside forums such as these.

    • Just following orders didn’t work out as a defense for a bunch of folks right after WW2 if I recall, even though everything they did was perfectly “legal” at the time.

  28. Wow, so it begins. If you had a shred of intergrity you’d resign. Baiting or not, he fell for it and outted himself.

    • He’ll get a promotion and a raise. Having wasted 30+ years in that state the plutocrats love their tyrant henchmen and the population is made up of about 70% state dependents and 25% functionally retarded folks who don’t even know where they are.

      It sucks to be in that remaining 5% that has a clue. You either, leave, live in perpetual anger or self-medicate until you kill enough brain cells to fall down into that 70% mass.

    • If he’s smart he’ll side step the whole mess and take his pension. And maybe move to Puerto Rico or somewhere far away from this crap. He served his time with Sandy Hook.

  29. The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,(7) etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs.

    – Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

  31. It makes me so sad to see what my nation has turned into. I can only say that what is America 3.0 violates all the traditions, values, and ethics that this old guy was raised on. From the Boy Scouts to the US military. From the police to the school system. From your doctor to the church down the street. The movies, sports and childhood activities. All are in wild, out of control bizarro world change. Change that is so negative and destructive it really seems to me unrecoverable. At least not for several generations.
    I remember reading “wings of eagles ” about the Ross Perot organized rescue of his employees from Iran during the revolution of the 1970’s. Famed commando “Colonel Arthur “Bull” Simons” was asked by Iranian immigration why he was coming to Iran. In his unique style he answered “I’ve never seen a revolution up close “.
    Sadly I may have lived long enough to see a culture, the American culture, collapse.

    • You’d think they’d learn from recent history. What happened when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started? People from all over the world poured in to join the fight. Think what’s going to happen in Conn. if the Stasi start killing people over their guns? 4GW baby – that’s where this is going. The end remains to be seen. BTW we get to play this movie all over again in New York come 4/15 only there’s 3 times as many gun owners here.

  33. The callers tone of voice was a put off to me… Besides.. Connecticut is already lost. We have 49 more chances to get it right. The caller is simply attempting to pick up the clean end of a turd.

    Feds-1 States-0

  34. I think the sabre rattling is usefull. The grabbers always say you can’t stand up to the goon squad & they are right. As a poster on another thread recently said, soft targets will be hit. The 3 percenter in the link sounds like an intelligent determined man(thank you). I don’t pray, I sure have my fingers crossed though for peace. To the people calling for the blood of gun owners, I call you legitimate targets, think about it.

  35. I think that this is the time for CT to import some Ukrainian patriots. They may prove helpful soon. Maybe the locals could learn a thing or two from them before Berkut…uuh, Lt. Vance and his friends come for them.

    • CT, along with the other 49 states, helped pay for them… might as well bring them over here to do some work too.

  39. We are a small firearms training firm in the North east but headquartered out of CT. a gentle word of caution. There is plenty of misinformation being circulated right now. Take your fingers off the trigger and pay attention to what’s going on. Someone, or several groups are trying to poke this hornets nest prematurity. Feel free to let me know if yo have any questions. Muzzle Front.

      • Be careful of your sources. It has been uncovered this week that there are disinformation and false flag operations orchestrated by government operatives and liberal groups. Earlier this week there was a alleged quote circulating on Twitter alleging that Governor Malloy was making threats against gun owners. I fact checked it and it turned out to be false. Please verify everything you read.

        • +1000
          GRAA has posted many phony letters and bs information and paraded them as factual. I don’t believe a damn thing they post on Facebook anymore.

    • I would very much like to hear your comments on what is “really going on.” I don’t trust the MSM for sure.

      Question: Have you spoken to cops in your jurisdiction and gotten their opinions on this law? Are THEY saying they will enforce it? Are they saying their superiors are gearing up for door-to-door and all that?
      I’m having trouble believing that all this could be coming to blows over magazines. I mean, “assault weapons” are one thing, but magazines?

      It sure would be reassuring to hear cops injecting some sanity into this by saying “This law is nuts; we are not going to go into potentially lethal situations over poorly designed legislation.”

      They are on the sharp end of this. There’s GOT to be some common sense somewhere…

    • Pretty sure CT gun owners are on their own with this one steve.. CT gun owners should try to hook up with NY and NJ citizens for a feel good,group hug..that photo of the sheep standing in line waiting for their tattooed number on their hardware did it for me… Its on to battles that can be won.

  40. This is the kind of people we have to fight. It was the same mentality that marched people into furnances during WW2!

    Anti-American????

    This guy would arrest George Washington!

    I think it is time to gear up and disappear if you live in CT. don’t wait for them to come to your house, you will have to meet them on your terms.

    Any officer that begins confiscation is domestic enemy of the United States. They should be ordered to stand down by the people of CT before this gets out of hand.

    You can threaten to confiscate but to actually do it… well that is a line you cannot cross.

  41. Lt. Vance argues that a law is constitutional if the Supreme Court says it is. And then says “We’re not the Gestapo.” Speaking of that phrase, Lt. Vance says “I don’t want to talk about the Constitution m’am. At all. Not at all.”

    “We’re not the Gestapo.”

    However, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck, the odds are pretty good that it really IS a duck.

    • Here your duck is the Gestapo, right? So I think more important than how they walk would be how they execute millions of jews. Or did you miss that part of the gestapo?

      • It’s Connecticut, Hannibal: The Portuguese and Puerto Ricans are the new Jews and Gypsies, along with the country folk.

    • Truthfully, there aren’t going to be many–if any–local and state policemen who want to talk about the constitutionality of the laws they are charged with enforcing. Nor prosecutors, nor trial-court judges, for that matter. They will all have the orientation that that kind of thing is for the higher courts to decide.

  42. Well, I managed to get the entire video to work. Very saddening, but not surprising either. Maybe Ashley baited Vance, but that’s just arguing semantics and nothing more. The fact is pretty clear that Vance, being in an awkward position and knowing it full well, reverted to type when she tried to pin him down on it. And that type was an enemy of the Constitution and an agent of the state. Now that may be well and fine for the time being but if things really do break down up there he would be wise to leave the country, because his masters in Hartford won’t really have any more sympathy with him than he would with his subjects….just as it was in WW2.

    I have heard reports that the infamous confiscation letter may have been a fabrication or entirely apocryphal, but even if true, that doesn’t discount the enormity of the crime that the Legislature and the Governor committed against their own constituents. And perhaps…..that is the real problem at hand.

    Tom

    • As to the letter being a fabrication… Lt. Vance seems familiar when the caller refers to the letter, saying “there are four choices, yes ma’am.” That seems to indicate that at least something was sent out detailing the options to those who missed the deadline.

  43. i wonder how long the gun makers will stay in ct? when they have had enough? and how many reps and state senators will get booted out of office?

  44. Funny, In ROTC and in Offeicer Basic course they taught us that you did not have to follow an illegal order and if you did because “i was told to” is not an excuse. The state police should leave the gun owners alone until the matter is ruled on by the Suprem Court.

    • Maybe they will. They don’t really seem to be champing at the bit to do mass raids just yet. We really don’t know at this point.

      • Here’s how it COULD go down…

        KNOCK, KNOCK, KNOCK.

        Homeowner: Yes?
        Cop: You got any illegal, unregistered guns in the house?
        Homeowner: Nope.
        Cop. Okey, dokey. See Ya Later.

        Back at office.

        Cop: I checked all the names on this list, and didn’t find ANY illegal, unregistered firearms or magazines.
        Supervisor: Really? How is that possible? Where’s your documentation?
        Cop: How I am going to document something that does not exist? I checked. I did not find anything.

        There are ways out of this, no matter what the politicians think or how they try to pull the strings. It will take courage and integrity for this kind of outcome, though.

        But, it is possible. (Yes, I tend to be a bit of an optimist…) It does not have to go to bloodshed.

    • You are suggesting that all laws must be ruled on by the Supreme Court before they can be enforced?

      Come on.

      • Not at all. However, an obviously inflamatory law like this which will have to be enforce with the barrel of a gun is a no brainer.

      • In all honesty, laws should go through a judicial screen before being enacted, right after going through a discussion period and vote by the people.

        • Great idea…..lets just get rid of our representatives. But your idea sounds a lot like a plea to democracy, and that never works out well.
          “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.” – Vladimir Lenin

        • The current system of lawmaking allows for legislature to pass laws against the will of their constituents, ignore constitutional limitations, and once passed are damn near impossible to repeal. I’m poking around for a better process, one that does not involve any one body, or party to get away with illegal passage of said law.

  46. This interview does not mean as much as some people seem to think. What was Vance supposed to say to a strange voice on the phone?? Was he supposed to say that he wasn’t going to obey illegal orders? That was not going to happen. Does anyone expect him to start barring his soul and talk about morals and revolution and his internal conflicts (if any) and risk his job and pension with a stranger on the phone? That was never going to happen. This phone call was a setup and releasing it is just rabble rousing.

    Vance was very professional and he tried to walk the line until of course he got pissed off and said that he was the master. I did not think that was reflective of how he necessarily views the police to citizen relationship. I took it more as, “Lady, when the officers are on the scene you will do whatever they say. I don’t care if you like the law or not. Take it up with the courts.”

    Vance may be a pothead revolutionary, he may be a stone cold baby and dog killer, there is no way to know.

    One thing we know is that he has been getting lots of these calls as he mentions this was his third call on the subject today.

    Another thing we know is that the politicians of CT, for assorted poor reasons, have given the people and the LEOs of CT a turd sandwich to share. The response to this turd sandwich remains to be seen. But, whether they are citizens or LEOs, people don’t generally appreciate a turd sandwich.

    • All well and good but it isn’t like Vance should have been blindsided by any of this. You can’t convince me there’s no way he could have anticipated these types of calls. Given the time frame of this legislation if off the cuff responses is the best he can come up with what the hell is he going to do if his political “master” says go get their guns?

      • I did not have the sense that he was unprepared. I thought he gave the only answer he could give. What else could he have said? His only mistake was getting angry and saying that he was the master but for now, I attribute that crack to him being fed up with the phone call.

        I just hope people of CT remember who gave them this turd sandwich come November and vote the bums out and repeal the law, but the chances of that do seem slim, however there is light at the end of the tunnel because of all the women that are supposedly getting into the shooting sports. This could be a revival of the mainstream acceptance of the shooting sports. I am holding on to this hope cause I really do not want to think about scenarios with 4 am house to house raids, screaming children, dead dogs and people, dead LEOs.

        The situation is ripe for behind the scenes agitators to make the situation go to revolution for their own unrelated reasons. We can’t let that happen.

        • “The situation is ripe for behind the scenes agitators to make the situation go to revolution for their own unrelated reasons. We can’t let that happen.”

          This should be at the forefront of everyone’s thought process. As much as I would love to see a fast wake up spread like wildfire through the nation, it needs to be a peaceful one first and foremost. Violence usually gets the opposite effect than intended when used offensively at the onset. Violence is only justifiable in defense.

    • Actually Chris; Lt. Vance could have said he would not enforce unconstitutional gun laws like all the Sherriff departments;(except for one) here in Mew Mexico did recently. Many other Sheriff Departments around the country have done the same.

  47. OK I listened to most of it. An activist looking to drum up support/passion/whatever for her cause arguing with a bureaucrat looking primarily to cover his backside who gets frustrated and pops off. I think the best word to describe it is “unproductive”. Not trying to diminish the seriousness of the issue, but I think we all know that if ordered to do a raid, most cops will follow orders. Lon Horiuchi was such a social conservative he home-schooled his kids and worried about being assigned to protect abortion clinics. He didn’t hesitate to murder Vicki Weaver when ordered to do so. Some few cops may balk, some may quit, some may be sick that day, whatever, but there will be enough to do what they are being told to do. That goes all the way up the line from the actual door-busters to their desk-bound superiors. So what new revelation does this video exchange bring us?

  49. Personally I think its time for one of the gun orgs in CT to take the fight to the Govt. The political party line is wavering in CT and it’s time to press the advantage.

    A Kokesh style rally of 10K or more, with “banned” rifles slung in peaceful demonstration. Here we are, come and take them.

    The state police can then decide what side of the line in the sand they want to stand on. Either stand with the patriots defending the constitution, or stand on the side of tyrants trying to usurp it.

    Let each officer decide if they will go home, and tell their spouses and children, today I chose to be a traitor, today I turned my back on my oath, and my country. Tomorrow I may die at the hand of a patriot, and I want you to know I died a traitor.

  50. So no one actually said that they were going door to door to confiscate guns. Hysterical article writing, if you ask me.

    • Well its not like it hasn’t happened elsewhere recently – remember New Orleans after Katrina? Besides the facists mouthpiece media is calling for arrests and confiscation so you have to figure the state propaganda machine is publicizing policy right? Very seldom does one side in a conflict hide their intentions. You just have to be able to believe what they indicate they are going to do. Arrest. Confiscate. How much clearer can they be?

  52. If you pay attention to the graphics in the video, it becomes clear the audio was intended to be inflammatory and create fear by evoking “answers” to Ashley’s questions that would convince people in CT that Law Enforcement would indeed be raiding them for refusal to comply with this onerous Law. If you look at the whole presentation objectively, it is a piece of pure propaganda, and does not actually settle, answer or resolve anything. It does play upon fear and paranoia, leaving the viewer to indulge his/her emotions as he/she sees fit. So, I call “Bogus Propagandizing” and therefore not to be taken seriously on its own merits (or lack thereof).

    This may be as likely to backfire on the creators of this particular agitprop because it can be used in negative ways against the very people it was intended to stir up. That remains to be seen.

    I regularly speak against the agitprop offered by the anti-gun groups here on TTAG, and I will as readily speak against what I see as spurious propaganda from the pro-gun side. This video qualifies in gold.

    This does not mean I don’t think it possible there will be raids on arms owners who refuse to comply with this Law, but the State of CT has other options that do not necessitate escalation to immediate violence. I expect those avenues will be tried before the State of CT actually puts “boots on the ground” to go out and seize illegal guns and magazines.

    Besides, if you are a non-complying arms owner, where are you going to make use of that “illegal” arm or “high capacity” magazine? Take it out of your home to a Shooting Range? Go out and wander around with it on Public Lands? So, if it stays in your arms storage safe or cabinet forever because you dare not take it out in public, are you not effectively denied its use? Certainly, there will be people who will take these items out into public view and some will get arrested being caught “red-handed”.

    The reality is the State of Ct needs do nothing except maintain an assurance they will arrest and prosecute you for non-compliance, make a few arrests, maybe even raid a few households that look like low-hanging fruit, possibly shoot a resistor or two, and they will keep everyone else’ heads down.

    If the State of CT is serious about confiscation, the next thing you will hear from them is they “fear” these “illegal guns and magazines” will be stolen from the non-complying arms owners for patent criminal use, so it has become necessary to actively search-out and seize these “illegal” items. If that happens, then it is time to get seriously paranoid and prepare to be raided.

    • It will likely start with letter, like those that NYC used recently.

      All firearms bought retail in CT in the last couple of decades are registered at the state and town level. There’s a form called a DPS-3 that includes the model number / description. State employees will start by combing throught those and then checking them against the list of guns which were double-registered in 2013. They will then send letters to folks who bought “AWs” but did not register them. You”ll be asked for proof that you’ve sold or disabled your “AW”, and then MAYBE they will offer you an amnesty to turn it in. A little later they’ll pull some raids on folks who fail to respond – start with people with large collections in rural areas where there aren’t many influential people living. They’ll want lots of scary black guns for the Courant photographers.

      • Question, though, because I cannot remember. Is “assault weapons” in this registration law based on features? If so, how can they tell from the DPS-3 that a given rifle has those features?

        Also, the law applies registration to magazines. No DPS-3 needed upon purchase of a magazine, right? So, how is that going to be enforced?

        Seems like at the very least a an “equal under the law” and “selective enforcement” problem.

    • Geez, just listen to yourself;
      “The reality is the State of Ct needs do nothing except maintain an assurance they will arrest and prosecute you for non-compliance, make a few arrests, maybe even raid a few households that look like low-hanging fruit, possibly shoot a resistor or two, and they will keep everyone else’ heads down.”

      What you are describing is a full on police state; authoritarian, dictatorial; “Shoot a resistor or two and they will keep everyone else’s head down.”

      Of course; this is exactly what it is.

      • Yep, I heard myself, but I am saying the State of CT isn’t going to want to go there immediately because Police State Tactics are infeasible/indefensible, so they will do something like Anon in CT describes above. There are lots of things CT can try to force compliance and effectively deny arms owners the use of the affected arms/magazines, but a few “raids” are probably inevitable…”law of averages” dictates…

  53. “I was just following orders”. Remember the Nuremberg Trials? Glad I don’t live in Connecticut. Illinois still sucks.

  54. Scary. This is the mindset of plenty of officers, but hopefully not the majority.

    Think this woman is being kind of a brat, though. “We’re the masters?” Really? She expects him to respond well to this?

  55. I’d be careful about recoding the cops. Connecticut is a two party consent state, which means, for the purpose of keeping this short, that both parties of a telephone conversation must consent to it being recorded.
    Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-570d(b)
    is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
    I wish the person good luck on this one. I doubt Lt. Paul Vance is going to simply “overlook” this transgression. If I was TTAG, I’d confer with counsel about the possible legal consequences of having it posted up.

    • I believe if the person doing the recording is in a 2 party consent state, then there would be an issue.

      Otherwise not so much.

      And this should be taken with as much a grain of salt as you comment because clearly neither of us are a lawyer.

      • You don’t have to be a lawyer to read and comprehend a statute. And by the way, I have assisted legal counsel many times on on gun restoration issues. I did the research and instructed and prepped a lawyer on the first case ever in Washington State on a “particular type” of gun rights restoration case and won.
        So, I’m I’m not new to the ice rink.
        With this being said, Lt. Vance is being recorded in Connecticut, Connecticut statues would LIKELY apply.

        • What happens if the caller was on a blocked number from out of state? The recording took place out of Conn jurisdiction.

  56. Time for mass civil disobedience. There are some great products out there if you want to protect and bury a gun for indefinite periods and recover them when needed in good as new condition. CT gun owners, time to stock up.

  59. They are to uphold the Constitution….many crimes have been commited because people were just “following orders”… What if it becomes illegal to practice certain religions? To speak freely? For freedom of press? What if the new laws passed trample on other rights? Will the police blindly follow orders or protect the Constitution to which they swore an oath.

    I hope these CT gun owners are ready to make their stand…near 250 years ago our ancestors stood at a bridge when the “police” came…will the Constitution State folk have the same courage?

    • will the Constitution State folk have the same courage?

      Not if the cops show up on the same day that the new BMWs go on sale.

  61. I have just recently finished reading ‘1984’ again and I cannot believe how many parallels there are to the current state of affairs. This guy is a great example. “Lt. Vance argues that a law is constitutional if the Supreme Court says it is.” That rings of the same kind of logic ‘Big Brother’ uses to enslave the masses. If the party says it is, then it always has been. Yet if they are ever wrong, they were never wrong, they have always been right.
    This trooper and the men following him need to search their souls and decide if they are just going to follow orders or if they will think for themselves, possibly be fired, and stand up for the document they have sworn to uphold.
    Another unfortunate revolution to this and other stories across the country, is that the ground work has already been laid for law enforcement to use the potential, possibility, that a home owner has a firearm to illegally enter said home and do whatever they feel they must. No probable cause, not even articulable suspicion, simply a gun sticker on your car, or a NICS record from years ago. That’s all they will need to execute there searches and take your property and your freedom.
    Now the real kicker to my long winded rant. Are you guilty of murder if one were to open fire on the thugs breaking down the door to illegally take your property and potentially your freedom or even your life (yes, life). If I were to enter any of your homes without your consent by gunpoint, and attempt to take any of your belongings, I hope i would be met with some form of high velocity lead interception (insert your caliber). If a State Trooper entering your home at gunpoint, attempting to take your property unjustly, that is without a warrant, or the like, is he not too committing the same crime I have? Note the key word here is unjustly. Simply because a court says it is legal, does not mean it is. If say later, the gun confiscation were deemed wholly illegal would one have a knockdown airtight lawsuit? Would any acts perpetrated during the commission of an illegal search be then justified?
    Remember, there is the law of men, there is the law of nature, and there is the law of god. We are stuck somewhere is the middle trying to juggle all three into one comprehensible guideline. I hope at least to of them will prevail, and soon.

  63. I just wanna know how many “law enforcers” the state has, if everyone fights back, pretty quick they’re gonna run outta storm troopers to go door to door.. Can anyone say night of broken glass, don’t know it ask a Jew about Krystal naught

  64. The situation is akin to that in “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” There, LTC Nicholson (Sir Alec Guiness) orders his fellow POWs to build a really good bridge for the Japanese to keep up the morale of the prisoners. It’s only at the end that he realizes that he has entirely lost sight of the fact that the main, overarching mission of every soldier is to win the war and that he has blindly given aid to the enemy. In CT, the officer keeps repeating the “we will enforce the statute” mantra while he fails to notice that by doing so he is violating the state and federal constitutions.

  66. When the people start to shoot to protect themselves I will join in. Will the war to protect the constitution and our country start there in CT?

  67. Vance keeps referring the caller back to an attorney…There will come a point where the lawyers wont matter anymore, and legal fighting will turn to fighting fighting….

  68. BOHICK! CT gun owners (and their friends countrywide, BE READY.

    It looks like this could get really nasty, really soon. [Shakes head sadly].

  69. According to the Framers of the Constitution, we have an obligation to disobey illegal laws. Since the law violates the 2nd Amendment it is unlawful.

  70. The tactic used on April 18, 1775 was to swarm the oncoming gun-grabbing enforcers from all directions. Worked pretty well on that day. Would work again tomorrow…especially if enhanced by Twitter.

  74. Never heard of this so called “gun rights” group making their little YT agitiprop video. They clearly appear, to me at least, to be antis stirring sh*t with this stick. Lt Vance did his service and state NO good at all in this, he in fact made himself and his service look like nazis, blindly following orders that are clearly un-Constitutional. That said, stop listening to all these yahoos on youtube, twitter, facebook and all the other “social media” crap. They can not be verified as legitimate and therefore are NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

  75. Imagine the police forcing their way into your home to look for guns. To my recollection, house to house searches are new to the US unless their is a serial killer on the loose. Most of the time a crime has to be committed and a search warrant issued. The Obama FCC tried to compromise Freedom of the Press last week by assigning a Government Agent to every News Room. I guess it’s true: ‘Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.’

    • So what crime did those citizens commit for their houses to be searched after the marathon bombing? I seriously doubt warrants were issued either.

    • FCC is still going to do that. And yes, “liberals” are the ones who round people up for reeducation and execution. Every. Single. Time.

  76. It seems to me, if authorities are able to identify residents who did not register their weapons and/or magazines, that they, in reality, have a de facto registry, with no need for another. It also seems to me that Connecticut’s law may violate clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. constitution.

    • Yes, it is called record of sale, irregardless of any background check. If you have a “pink slip” on a weapon you purchased you are in the government’s records. It has been that way for a long time. That is PRECISELY why antis have been screeching about stopping private sales. No record.

      Look at it as car sales. I can’t sell you a car without government, municipal, county, state and Federal knowing about it AND taking a cut from both of us. It is none of government’s gawdamned business what people sale and buy between themselves, and yet there they are, stealing money in every direction. And people just take it.

    • Oh, magazines? Almost forgot them. Don’t know about CT, here in PA you just get a register receipt, no listing of what the item is, at least all I have bought. Individual stores may be different. So I unless each is listed separately on a sales slip I don’t see how they would know who has what on them.

  78. Without being pro or anti towards any group, does the women’s voice on the recording sound altered. Could it be a man trying to sound like a woman?

    Also, since the Lt Vance was not told he was being recorded is the recording legal? Is the “woman”: on the tape opening up herself to arrest?

  79. If they ever try that shit in FL, they better be prepared to have a lot of shot officers, including the one(s) who show up at my door. 12 ga 00 buck WILL go through my front door with plenty of poop left to drop someone on the other side.

  80. The best way to get back at CT – Take all your business and leave the state.. I understand its a hard move but come to Texas… Less taxes, better weather – you can restart your business without being gutted- can keep your guns and family safe..If the country gets out of control we can succeed..These Progressives are going get you killed..Unless you like your state being run by clueless special ed kids??

  81. Hey Vance. Despite being a federal agent, I would disobey and resign my post if i were directed to enforce a law i know to be unconstitutional.

    What the hell is the matter with you? Do you believe you are a supreme authority? YOU are making the rest of us look bad. You are an embarrasment to the badge and the oath you swore to uphold.

    My word of caution. We all serve the public and that public is much larger in terms of numbers. Now, do the math. If the public were to ever turn on us we will be the ones on the losing side. You need to apologize (as though you ever have) and resign.

Comments are closed.