The Hartford Courant newspaper's urban bunker, Hartford, CT (courtesy wikipedia.org)

“Connecticut has a gun problem,” Hartford, Connecticut’s courant.com declares. Roger that. “Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.” Wait. What? Is the Courant calling for Governor Malloy to start a civil war? Because that’s what will happen if the State Police start confiscating now-illegal unregistered modern sporting rifles. Oh sure, thousands of now-felonious CT gun owners will capitulate in the face of force. But tens of thousands won’t. And a percentage of these will defend their rifles with their life. Maybe that’s why the Courant is recommending that . . .

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

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

In other words, the gun owners will comply if they are given one final warning before confiscation begins. And begin it shall.

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

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

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

Is that a threat to end civil disobedience by force of arms from the oldest continuously-published newspaper in the United States, the The Constitution State’s largest dead tree daily rag? Yes. (Although you may not be surprised to hear that the the Times Mirror (the Los Angeles Times‘ parent company) bought the Courant in 1979.) And if the Courant is talking war you can bet Governor Malloy’s boys are doing the same.

The statists who enacted this law better let sleeping dogs lie. Or they will have to face the consequences, too. That’s not a threat. It’s a prediction.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

198 COMMENTS

  1. In an election year? Ha. The Courant, as per usual, is delusional. If the Republicans can put up even a slightly reasonable candidate (i.e. not Foley) they have a real shot at Governor given that the last election was a squeaker.

    That being said, Malloy has already lost my vote, I’ll write in Daffy Duck if I have to.

  3. I agree that trying to enforce the law at this point will be the harbinger of civil war (though “war” denotes a scale which I don’t think we’ll see). I do NOT want to see a civil war kick off over gun rights, but at the same time a part of me wants to see them try to enforce the law, see the people’s reaction, and quit beating around the bush on the issue of RKBA.

    • Disarmament was the cause of the disgraceful Wounded Knee Massacre. The left will welcome the armed rebellion that they have been provoking for decades in order to eliminate the Constitutionalists and small government citizens. It won’t be us fighting just the US armed forces, foreign governments will gladly aid in the enslavement of the last quasi free country on earth. All the above is needed for the ultimate goal, the global redistribution (theft) of wealth.

      • Then I suggest, Sammy, we all unite against this shredding of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution in general. If the Native Americans had stayed unified, the outcome might have been a little different. If we can be united, there is a huge possibility we could overcome. I mean, this is our country, dammit! We have to stop believing the politicians have the power, as they want us to believe. This is still a country of armed citizens.

    • “I do NOT want to see a civil war kick off over gun rights”

      That’s precisely what set off the Revolution.

      • A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
        1. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
        From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
        ——————————
        In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
        From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
        ——————————
        Germany established gun control in 1938 and
        from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who wereunable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
        ——————————
        China established gun control in 1935.
        From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
        ——————————
        Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
        From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
        —- ————- ————-
        Uganda established gun control in 1970.
        From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
        ——————————
        Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
        From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people,unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
        —————————–
        Defenseless people rounded up and exterminatedin the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
        ——————————
        You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
        Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
        Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late !Gun registration just makes it easy for the FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, IRS agents to come and confiscate your weapons.
        FEMA
        was never intended to help disaster victims (super storm Sandy victims), DHS was never intended to protect American citizens, and the
        16,000 new IRS agents authorized by Obamacare are all there to plunder and tyrannize American citizens.
        There are FEMA concentration camps throughout the USA, complete with gas chambers, watch towers, razor
        wire fencing, railroad tracks ready and waiting for all dissenters of the plutocratic, communistic, socialistic, Satanic, corporatist,
        oligarchic tyranny of the New World Order, the one world Satanic totalitarian military police state dictatorship, Agenda 21 of the United Nations.
        The American people are literally financing our own enslavement and destruction by paying the IRS’s extortion money.

      • Yes, it is what kicked off the Revolution. And I really hope I never have to see it kick off another one. No one will win a civil war. No one.

        • Define “win”. I’ll be happy if 90% of us die to kill 100% of them. At the end of the day, all it takes is a lone survivor to piss on their corpses.

        • Didn’t the patriots win the Revolution which was basically a colonial civil war? Jefferson suggested a revolution every 20 years to preserve freedom. How about no civil war and we just pass into slavery?

        • this war will be fought not on the frontier or on some distant battlefield, but amongst us, among our homes. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes and the innocent will die with the rest of us.

  4. “Felonies cannot go unenforced.” Wait. What? Is the Courant calling for Governor Malloy to start a civil war?

    How would there be a civil war, if Malloys felony infringement on the 2nd Amendment is punished with his ejection from office via recall? 😉

  5. “The bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law.”

    I wonder if they ever made the same kind of call regarding the Executive Branch of the Federal Government…no, wait, I don’t wonder.

    • I wonder if the “reporters” are willing to stack up with the SWAT teams that would be used to enforce this law? Oh, that’s right, risking the lives of others for a progressive upotia is okay. After all, there are only so many seats at the table.

      • The “journalists” have already jumped on the tyranny bandwagon, they forgave Obama for spying on them and have doubled down on the coup that has taken place.

      • Stop blaming weed!

        Don’t you realize that getting you to hate stoners is just a divide-and-conquer tactic that the anticonstitutionialists are using to recruit your help in shitting all over the Constitution? Weed does NOT make a person stupid the way alcohol or grabberism does, it merely makes you feel good. Those who support the insane war on drugs have exactly the same mentality as the grabbers, just with a different McGuffin.

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

      If you attempt to enforce unconstitutional law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

  6. Ardent 2A supporters have known that the real end-game is confiscation, but it’s always gratifying to have the enemy just come out and say it.

    “Nobody’s trying to take your guns. We’re just looking for common sense reform”

    Until they’re not. And then they want to come to your house, take your means to self-defense away, and lock you up for having the audacity to believe you lived in a country protected by a Bill of Rights.

    And folks in the middle wonder why the pro-2A crowd isn’t fond of the term ‘compromise’.

        • I’ve always been against flag burning laws, simply because it’s (presumably) the property of the person in question, and theirs to do with as they wish.

        • I think that’s been the SCOTUS opinion as well. Seems they’ve struck down a number of laws against flag desecration.

          I do view flag burning as a method of disposal as a matter of respect, call me patriotic. There are a lot of good things that have been done under that banner.

        • That’s a great point. Maybe even the greatest point. While I think Americans, under the covers, are much like most of the other humans in the world, there is nevertheless some kind of cultural kink to us that has always made me proud. No Englishman would say that, nor a good German or most other Europeans. Maybe some of the ex-Eastern Bloc nations. I can image that out of the mouth of a Ukrainian or a Pole.

          Tell me I can’t and you ensure that now I have to, even when I would not have considered it before. That little tidbit, KCK, is going to stick with me. Well commented.

  7. Oh sure, thousands of now-felonious CT gun owners will capitulate in the face of force. But tens of thousands won’t. They will defend their rifles with their life. Blood will be shed.

    Tens of thousands? Color me skeptical. Dozens, to be sure. Possibly hundreds…but I simply don’t see 50,000 CT guns owners being willing to kill or be killed to protect their right to own a modern sporting rifle.

    • so true, Americans will continue to roll over and take this abuse until it is to late to stop it. there will be no civil war II because life is still to good and when life in America is not so good, most of America will be disarmed.

      • I want to laugh when I see post after post on far-right message boards such as Free Republic proclaiming that Civil War II is just around the corner. It didn’t happen after Waco, it didn’t happen after Ruby Ridge, and it won’t happen the next time the Federal government murders citizens in a high-profile case.

        • Hal J.,

          I believe nothing happened after Waco or Ruby Ridge because the masses had no idea what really happened. All we saw was the mainstream news propaganda. The game changer today is ready access to alternative information sources via the Internet.

          It wouldn’t be so easy to sanitize such an operation today. In fact the only reason I now know what really happened in Waco and Ruby Ridge is because I was able to access and evaluate several sources of information via the Internet.

        • The game changer today is ready access to alternative information sources via the Internet.

          And the net change will be that a lot of people will talk about the next government massacre on the internet and work themselves into a tizzy as they pontificate about it. Beyond that…not much.

          Just my humble opinion, of course.

        • Both Waco and Ruby Ridge involved only a small group of people. When it involves up to 350,000 residents of Connecticut as well as every supporter of the U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment in the entire United States there will no doubt thrust us into a full blown Civil War. It sounds scary but quite possible. Consider which side you are on. Will you support the side of the tyrant traitors or will you like so many soldiers of every war America has ever fought uphold and defend the Constitution with our very lives if need be? I for one am passionate about these matters. I will abide by the Constitution until my last breath.

          In the words of Patrick Henry,
          Is peace so dear or freedom so sweet as to be purchased for the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God. For I know not what course others may take but as for me Give me Liberty or Give me Death!

    • Not just rifles, but also 2,000,000 ‘large capacity magazines’… that’s a lot more angry people…

      Remember it only took III% the first time…

    • Remember this?
      “Late on the night of April 18th, 1775 British troops departed Boston for Concord and Lexington “IN PURSUIT OF COLONIAL ARMS”.”

      Now over 238 years later the government of Connecticut is in the first stage of their pursuit of the arms of Connecticut citizens, in violation of the U.S. and State constitutions.
      The government would not come marching into a town to confiscate guns, as they did in 1775. They will single out individuals, then send in a Special Team “with a warrant” to take the firearms from their owners one at a time.

      Are we on the possible verge of a second revolution?

      Could it come to the point that the Connecticut citizens would start a MILITIA to quickly react, when the state comes for the arms of individuals? What if Connecticut firearm owners started a well-regulated militia that could be activated just as fast as volunteer firemen? Then hundreds militiamen would show up on the scene within minutes. It would be within reason for them to encourage “government forces” to walk away, in lieu escalating the situation.

      Are Connecticut firearm owners going capitulate and give up their firearms as they did in Europe and were slaughtered by Third Reich or are they going to stand strong, like their forefathers, against a tyrannical government?

      I this what our country has come to?

      • “Then hundreds militiamen would show up on the scene within minutes.”

        Weill they call themselves something clever like “the 60-second Men?” 😉

  9. Malloy is a dirtball one of the Obamas henchmen! there’s picking a fight that they cannot win, who’s going to raise up again stump United States military and National Guard I doubt very seriously whatever Mar boots against United States citizens, it’s a freaking out rage that this b******* continues on and on and on and on give us a break the Constitution protects us! like the Great Lake Charleston Heston said come on boys you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold hands you some bitches!

  10. I honestly wouldn’t defend my rifle with deadly force because I have a family to look after. But man, I’d make their lives a living hell trying to find it.

    • I understand and respect your decision. But remember, we live in a large and diverse nation. There are many people who do hold protecting natural rights above their lives precisely for their families. Or there are people who do not have families, or have not as much to lose. A line must br drawn in the sand one day, where will it be for you? Your 2A rights? 1A rights? 5A rights? Once you let the government trample on one because “of your family”, the others are soon to follow.

      • Agreed. It is a personal decision and each must make it. I am a huge history nut and the American Revolution to me is a very, very special thing in the development of not just our country, but of freedom from tyranny around the globe. The cry for freedom from oppression is more widespread globally than perhaps ever before in the history of man.

        I have often wondered about those patriots that did the impossible and what personal decisions they made. As much as I have been fascinated by it, I could never have imagined having to face the same decisions in my lifetime. Are we there yet? I don’t personally think so. But we are close enough that there are no doubt millions of people who are starting to ask the question: how far can I be pushed before I say no more?

        Consider, in one example, the explosion in CCW across this country. 30, or even 20, years ago I could NEVER have imagined where we would be. So many people making personal decisions for THEMSELVES and their families to take personal responsibility for their safety. That means something on a sociological level. I do not think it is because the country is full of right-wing nut jobs (to quote the MSM) but because people are sick of being left in the lurch by those we entrusted to protect us. Where will it all lead? I don’t know or I’d have won the lottery last Saturday, but we are living in interesting times and many personal choices of historic consequence are getting closer and closer.

        • “…because people are sick of being left in the lurch by those we entrusted to protect us.”

          You mean those who we pay quite handsomely for their entire lives and equip lavishly to underperform and in some cases assault us.

          Not all, but enough to notice.

    • Which brings up the interesting point – if they can tell from their “background check database” that you bought a nasty, evil rifle, aren’t you already registered? This would only be a re-registration to admit to them that you still own the thing.

      Question – does your name on their background check database, which I believe only indicates INTENT to purchase, not actual purchase, give them probable cause for a warrant to search your residence for that alleged rifle?

      • The sad reality of the US today is that all an LEO has to do is convince a judge to sign a warrant is provide hearsay from a “confidential informant” (which everyone winks about because they are basically made up). The 4th Amendment may be even taking a worse beating than the 2nd, all in the interests of public safety against the scourge of drugs, violence, national security, etc.

        All an LEO has to do is decide who they want to target and develop a backstory sufficient to get that warrant, which doesn’t take much as there is at least one judge in every city in this country who wants the cops to love him/her and will sign anything they place in front of them. And there is never any accountability back to the judge – never any at all – when it all goes south and some innocent person is killed by the cops in a bad raid.

      • So wouldn’t either registering and being prosecuted for failing to re-register be a Fifth Amendment type violation? Seems to me like re-registering would be self-incrimination if they know who you are already. I don’t know.

      • The Connecticut background check form is only filled out when a transfer is made. So they know when you purchased that firearm from a dealer. Luckily long guns haven’t had to be registered up until recently.

      • The NCIC must destroy all record (besides a simple count) of background check requests within 24 hours. If they do not, they are in violation of federal law.

    • Good thing there were better men around in the late 1700’s. Men with families, businesses, land, fortunes — but who had the strength of character and wisdom to know that individual self-preservation is not our highest purpose. Such men risked and laid down their lives for principals so that future generations (like you) could experience liberty and all it’s blessings.

      Pathetic.

      • Don’t forget all the slaves they held. You may have a legal right to call someone pathetic on the internet for worrying about their family but you’ve no moral right.

        • Yep, all the slaves they held. Of course, at the time, slavery was as old as mankind itself. And those same men, while being slaveholders, spent much time considering the concept of, and in many cases advocating, the end of slavery.

      • The trouble with today’s government is our elected representatives are NOT businessmen, do not value land, gain fortune working for government, push paper instead of principles, risk nothing and impose taxes in every conceivable manor.

        • Yep. I’d like to think “…Of the people,” was intended to represent people from all walks of life, not a majority of lifetime lawyers and lawmakers, with the occasional businessman, doctor, engineer, or (God forbid!) layman sprinkled in for the sake of diversity.

          Alas, people who do real work for a living can’t succeed in politics because they try to spend time addressing problems and researching real solutions, as opposed to pandering and/or misleading the electorate 24/7. I couldn’t keep my job if my sole purpose every day was to keep my job. I’m expected to generate value to my company. Politicians only generate waste for the most part.

    • Would you rather they grow up without a father or without freedom? You aren’t going to last forever anyway.

      • “You aren’t going to last forever anyway”

        You could use that as justification to do nothing as well. Because it doesn’t matter, I’m going to die anyways.

        Of course I believe that I will last forever, and my eternal satisfaction in this life is linked to my impact on the world. God doesn’t really care about my right to keep and bear arms, even though the degree to which I allow the defense of that right to dictate my priorities is pretty high. His utmost care is the redemption of the world He created, and if I (with much weeping and gnashing of teeth) give up my guns but spend another 50 years reaching people in His name, that’s much better than dying for a temporal right.

        That said, it is much easier to reach a free people who are self-determining than an oppressed people who are under the foot of tyranny. So to that end, I will defend the Bill of Rights in its entirety as far as I am able. Yes, unto death if it comes to that, but frankly we aren’t even close yet.

        • I share your worldview, and have struggled with where I would draw the line myself an how far I would go. This book was helpful and takes a strong and exhaustive view of what the Bible says concerning self-defense.
          http://keepyourarms.com/

    • Whoa, this one blew up. And only one person called me pathetic…I’m OK with that.

      I consider the grade of the slope. They would be coming for one type of gun, not all of them, and by and large we’re far from the degree of instability and unrest that justifies armed revolt in my humble opinion. Not to mention we aren’t talking about what is essentially a foreign imperial government ruling over my local affairs because I’m a colonist. I find comparisons to the American Revolution to be the very definition of apples to oranges.

      I take the abridgment of my rights incredibly seriously, but again, even if they took my “assault weapons” I’d still have guns to fight another day. And like I said, they can’t confiscate what they can’t find. But please, don’t infer that because I’m not going to reenact Ruby Ridge on my doorstep that I’m not willing to fight for my rights and my freedom were it to come to that. I just don’t see confiscation of one type of firearm as cause to turn my wife into a widow. A serious infringement on our guaranteed natural rights, yes, and that’s why I’m very active in promoting those rights and making my voice heard in their defense. But at the present time, they aren’t in the kind of jeopardy to die over. Especially considering the upward swing of the popular opinion on gun rights…I’d be a fool indeed to die today over a measure that could be rescinded legislatively in a matter of years.

      • I wanted to add the disclaimer that this is entirely a hypothetical exercise for me. I don’t own a single rifle, let alone a scary black rifle, and I live in Michigan. Not that I don’t want a rifle…it just so happens I was bitten by the shotgun bug first, then got some handguns for carry. Haven’t committed on a rifle yet, but one day all will be made right.

  11. The most felonious government in history calling its citizens felons. Bet if you look back, the Courant sided with the Tories the first time.

  13. Well the way MD was able to get what they wanted was all the agreeing folks after 30 days got a voter card. Then moved on to the next state. I am sure some would open there home to us for this very good cause. All you need is a letter stating your a renter. Just saying

  14. Found left on the editing room floor at the Courant: “unless connected liberals commit them”

    The original line read “Felonies cannot go unenforced, unless connected liberals commit them” Sorry Connecticut, DC and New York beat you to the selective enforcement podium. You’ll have to settle for bronze.

    • Nope, the Formerly Free State of Maryland beat you to it for the Bronze. “Best legislature money can buy. Remember Spiro Agnew!”

  15. “Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.”

    Background checks = registration = confiscation.

    It’s nice of them to finally admit it. In writing.

    • Background checks = registration = confiscation.

      To be fair…in this case, registration hasn’t led to confiscation (yet), assuming one was willing to register one’s rifles & magazines by the deadline. I fully expect registered rifles & magazines to be outlawed in CT in the next few years, mind you. Even then, it could be argued that it wouldn’t be confiscation, as the weapons in question could be transferred out of state, as was the case recently in NY.

    • I don’t think they realize that the NICS database can’t be used for that, because such records are required by law to be destroyed. So if they haven’t been destroyed it would be a scandal larger than the NSA scandal (to some).

      As far as I can tell, CT just uses the national system, so they are unlikely to have a state level database of owner information.

      • CT requires prospective owners of handguns and long guns to acquire a permit first. They know who has guns.

        And, this: “There is a de facto registry of the sale (including the serial numbers) of handguns and long guns purchased in state that is maintained by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP).”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut

        • They require that now, I am not sure how many rifles that are newly classified as ‘assault weapons’ had to have purchase permits obtained in order to buy them. As far as I can tell, none of them did.

      • I agree with your statement about NICS, but even if they retained the data there’s nothing there but the fact that you went through a background check. It doesn’t mean you actually purchased anything. It won’t stop them from trying, but it’ll be easier to hold out against…

        “Seriously Agent Smith, I changed my mind and walked right out.”

        • OK, calm down.

          You have to realize this about NICS checks. The overwhelming majority are done to validate access to classified information, the ability to handle money, the ability to be a cop, and the ability to safely watch children (as in day care) among other things. Gun-related background checks are a trivially small part of all the NICS checks done.

          Someone wanting to winnow out gun-related checks would literally be trying to drink from a fire hose.

  16. How are they going to enforce it? Do they have a list of people that have unregistered ‘assault weapons’?

    I wonder how many people in CT recently purchased hammerhead grips or those really odd-looking pistol-grip-stocks.

    I wonder how many of those that did have them sitting in the boxes, unopened.

    • Regarding unregistered “assault weapons”: If you were foolish or frightened enough to register your evil black rifle, what is the process for un-registering same? What if you sell it or drop it accidentally into Chesapeake Bay?

  17. One problem (among many) is that while the Courant is frothing over enforcement by any means, you are just as guilty as rabidly saying “bring it”. No constructive dialogue, no reason. And this is exactly the hard-core radical view that dissuades those non-committal people (daresay voters) that we need persuade and help protect our freedoms.

    CT residents should maintain their civil disobedience and legal efforts. While the Courant calls for war, we shouldn’t be as eager for blood. I actually published this today on the issue; Thoughts of Citizens in Connecticut Revolt Against Gun Control
    http://sheepdogusa.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/thoughts-of-citizens-in-connecticut-revolt-against-gun-control/

    • You’ll never protect your freedoms, because they’re already lost. Asking the nice man declaring war on you to restore them won’t do jack. If you want your freedom, you’ll have to fight for it.

      • Using the legislative and judicial systems to repeal and overturn these laws is fighting for freedom, and the battle is no less honorable for the fact that words are used instead of bullets. Make no mistake, the government was winning this battle for nearly a century. They took miles of ground on this battlefield with virtually no opposition. However, for about the last 20 years gun owners have begun taking it back a few feet at a time. There is a long way to go, but at least we’re finally moving in the correct direction.

    • I agree with you.

      If the authoritaria–err.. authorities, do come after them some of these people will exercise their right to self-defense. But let’s hope that it doesn’t get to that point.

      In the mean time, sue, sue, sue.

      • Which is why the are outfits like the NRA and such at the national and state levels. The pen is truly mightier than the sword.

  18. And in the true liberal type of “tolerance” they are not allowing any comments related to this story in their piece of crap Pravda. I’m so glad I moved out of there

  20. A strange reaction. It is typical for registration compliance rates to fall short of 100 percent, just as it is typical for this fact to be quietly understood by all concerned — http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian

    The sad thing is that they still achieve civillian disarmament in practice – it’s hard to target-shoot with a gun buried in one’s backyard or pass the tradition to the next generation – but in this unusually acute case of self-righeousness they don’t seem content with what they have already wrought in CT.

    My advice to the governor of CT: Take a cue from other governments that were there before you, produce a “study” sharply revising the non-compliance rate to a much smaller number and leave the unregistered guns alone when they are not used in real crimes.

    • “The sad thing is that they still achieve civillian disarmament in practice – it’s hard to target-shoot with a gun buried in one’s backyard or pass the tradition to the next generation…”

      Obviously there’s no way to know for sure, but my theory is that this is the only reason why we saw 50,000 guns registered. It makes a certain amount of sense to register one of your “assault weapons”, if for no other reason than to continue to be able to practice without worrying that someone will report you to the police. The fact is, if you practice even semi-frequently a pretty good number of people know that you own a gun, but probably not too many can reliably distinguish between two AR style rifles with any amount of certainty. I would suspect that for every one registered gun (the one most likely to be traced back to the owner), there’s at least one hidden gun in most households.

    • “it’s hard to target-shoot with a gun buried in one’s backyard or pass the tradition to the next generation…”

      Maybe the most important tradition to pass on is defiance of the tyranny trying to take away your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights?

      You can teach the next generation to target shoot with weapons they have not seen fit to demonize (yet).

  21. “tens of thousands won’t. They will defend their rifles with their life.”

    Hardly. If it came down to it, they would play nice turn in thier guns. People here like to talk big, but I do not beleive that all nit an insignifigant minority would be willing to risk thiers and thier family’s safety over keeping thier guns.

    I know a huge part of this website’s success is appealing to the type of gun owner who feels they have gained power by possessing firearms, as well as know better than the average person for choosing to own them. You cater to highly Idealized folks, which results In an extreamly loyal fanbase. It is a good strategy, making your readers feel that by simply reading this website that they are better Informed than everyone else, but it has reached the point where you are making downright silly statementa like above to feed their egos.

    • Most of them wouldn’t have to defend their rifles with their lives anyway, they could simply remove the pistol grip and the rifle would no longer be a ‘scary black assault weapon’ under the law. There are other things they can replace the grip with that make the rifle slightly less silly-looking then just leaving it off, but otherwise don’t significantly impede functionality.

      • What “Molon Labe” about that? Per the beleif system perpetuated here thier rights are being trampled, yet they comply. I don’t see anyone here ignoring the “blatantly unconstitutional” NFA.

        • Oh, there are people that ignore the NFA, I’m fairly sure of it. But nobody is going to speak up about it as people are arrested and imprisoned for doing often enough. I haven’t seen any that have challenged it on 2nd amendment grounds tho. For whatever reason.

        • Anyone with machining or even mechanical knowledge CAN ignore the NFA…just because they don’t march in a parade about it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

  22. 2A rights aside(and that is a big aside) I view this as unlawful confiscation of property. The day I turn over a firearm, a TV, gold, silver, a washing machine or any other product I lawfully purchased to the government without just compensation will be the day someone will have to arrest me. Unlawful confiscation of private property by the Government is reaching epidemic proportions in this country.

    • Ah, but they’re technically not confiscating guns…yet. All you have to do is move your property out of the state in question and they’re happy.

      For now.

      • A horse by another color. My father watched to evolution of gun laws in the United States. He grew up in NYC in the 50’s and 60’s; he moved to Chicago in the late 70’s. He has seen every trick and the book and he never registered his guns when he did live in Chicago proper(he no longer lives in Chicago proper). Its all a scheme which leads to one thing and one thing only.

        • Its all a scheme which leads to one thing and one thing only.

          Complete civilian disarmament is their endgame strategy, granted. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen draconian gun control referred to as a “good start” on leftist message boards.

        • Which makes it really hard to avail yourself of the ownership of that property, doesn’t it?

          Sure it does…which is, of course, the point.

    • Except that it’s ‘legal’ to confiscate property which is used, owned, or connected with commiting a crime. It’s not the same as the government just saying “You did nothing wrong, but this is mine now.” They’re saying “you may sell this property; keep it and register it; or be committing a crime with it, thereby making it justifiable to confiscate.”
      Still a bunch of horse manure.

      • It has only become a “crime” due to recent Unconstitutional laws being enacted. That doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to follow it. No court is obligated to enforce it either. Thus the Connecticut government can do nothing about it. At least not without their own peril. And yes it is a bunch of horse manure. I know many will say that my comments are without fact. All I say to that is GROW A SPINE AND GAIN SOME TESTICULAR FORTITUDE. Every soldier who ever fought in all the wars sacrificed so much in defense of our Constitution. We will be damned if it will be in vain. If a person wants to live without guns or other disputed Constitutional rights they can feel free to go live in whatever country they choose. Plain and simple. If anyone wants to work to deny Americans their God Given rights they are a traitor and unworthy to be called an American. They shall be treated as such. Sic semper tyrannis!

    • “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.”
      Disobey is a verb, implying action. One must make a conscious, active decision in order to disobey. To consider someone a felon, worthy of five years’ prison time and the loss of certain inalienable rights for life, for merely not keeping up with the news is anathema to the very idea of freedom. Shame on this journalist and the publication.

  23. Has the time for burying the legally purchased property come to CT? Will they ( You Know Who They Are) start confiscation even though “that’s not what this is about”.

  25. Is there any legal standing to the legal reasoning that under the “Equal protection” clause that not doing something (registering) in Wisconsin and not doing something in CT Is unequal and makes you a felon and a subsequent loss of other rights.
    RKBA is national/federal right, yet CT can take that right away not only in the primary case of your AR but also in the resulting fact that you become a felon and also loose the right to possess even otherwise legal firearms.
    Sorry if I use logic that might make sense.

  26. “Background check databases?” You mean they keep the info we’re told they destroy? And if they have these databases, then isn’t that already a form of registration? I’m confused.

    • Technically I believe the law against registration says that the Federal government is not allowed to keep registration lists. That’s how so many states are allowed to get away with it.

      • Only the feds passed a law that applies only to the feds prohibiting them from keeping registration.

        I would argue, however, that under the Fourth Amendment and associated right to privacy, I don’t have to register anything with any government. Such a case has never reached the Supreme Court, however.

  27. If they can check registration to determine what you own, then what possible legal rational is there for requiring addition registration?

    The only reason would be to harass firearm owners and put a burden upon them, without legal basis, which is unconstitutional.

  28. From the Courant’s editorial; “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.” What the Courant’s editorial team fails to realize is that there any number of Connecticut citizens quite well prepared to “face the consequences”. If the Courant wants to go around flicking lit matches as they stumble about the powder magazine in the dark, that certainly is their right. They should be aware however that the Law of Unintended Consequences is often merciless and heartless and rarely gives consideration to collateral damage.

    As it is the right and duty of every service member to disobey and illegal order, so it is the right and duty of every citizen to disobey an unconstitutional law.

    • Maybe the offices of the courant should be introduced to that most beloved baby of glorious revolutions, the Molotov cocktail? Fight fire with fire, and all that.

      Or would graffiti be better, since that’s an acceptable form of art according to liberals?

  29. I don’t see this going bad too often on purpose. The reality is that most people have an awful lot to lose, and not nearly as much to gain by resisting. But there will always be people for which that is not the case, and that’s where a dangerous situation could arise. What would be more concerning is if the administration decided to serve no-knock warrants to confiscate firearms and charge the owners. If that happens, it’s just a matter of time before some SWAT team doesn’t announce themselves properly, and a homeowner defends themselves with deadly force.

    I don’t see this playing out. The fact is that the residents of CT were not given the opportunity to comment on this legislation, it was pushed through NY SAFE-style with an emergency provision . . . several months after Newtown. Had this gone through a normal legislative process it would not have passed. And now the administration and the legislature have painted themselves into a corner politically, because they’ve created an unenforceable law. If they DO try to charge people, many politicians are going to lose their office come the next election cycle, and the law may not survive judicial scrutiny at that level. They know this, and it will be a huge embarrassment for all involved. If they don’t, they have to live up to the fact they created a law that isn’t being followed and they don’t want to enforce. With Big Green heading out the door in NY, and CT facing the weakest economic recovery in the nation, and several smaller manufacturers already having left the state, you’d better believe believe everyone is doing the political math.

  31. “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.” — Hartford Courant

    Why yes, yes that is correct … the politicians, government bureaucrats, and law enforcement officers who act in violation of our Supreme Law of the Land, our United States Constitution, should be prepared to face the consequences.

  32. Hey, slavery and wife beating were legal laws once before, does that mean those laws were right?
    Oh, yeah, by the way, if the Hartford Courant is so adamant that people who disobey the law should be punished, why aren’t they going after many members of our government???

  33. Rather than spend tax dollars on chasing down recently-minted felons of a malum prohibitum law, maybe the police’s time would be better spent by continuing to chase down, you know, actual criminals?

  34. The elected elite have time and money they will continue to take OUR rights away little by little. No give on our part will ever satiate their desire to have power over US. The decisions WE make now will dictate the lives WE and the generations that will come after US will live. Who’s boot will WE place on our necks?

    • An editorial is the opinion of the paper’s owners. A letter to the editor is just one persons opinion.

  36. “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  37. I moved out of CT on Dec. 31 2012 and haven’t looked back. CT is essential NYC Metro area, so you can imagine the political and social climate. This article may be editorial, but you can bet that it is NOT the opinion of only one person.

    And my friends that still live in CT? Not one of them stood in those lines to register their guns. And they did it on purpose. So the Courant can go take a flying leap.

  38. “When ______ are outlawed, only _______ will have guns”

    Cough saw this one coming cough cough 😡

    and so it begins.

    • Here’s something to think about; From Edward Abbey (in the book Abbey’s Road, 1979) “The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an “equalizer.” Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed–but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.

      If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rules. Only the government–and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.”

      Amen Brother Ed.

  39. I’m tired hearing everyone talk about the impending doom facing gun owners, conservatives and other “non-libral” groups. Listen, if you believe you will be in a situation where you need to engage in battle then stop talking and actually get ready for it. The truth is, most of you wouldn’t have a clue what to do in such a situation, most of you don’t know what it is like to be at war, and that is exactly how it should be. But if the day comes when you need to protect you and yours, are you ready? It’s not enough to have guns fully legal and every citizen armed, if people are to arm themselves then they need to be trained. You need to think like an intelligent person and be trained to handle what is put in your path. The safety of others, your family, even this country, depends on having people who’re smart and armed, not one or the other. I’ve seen too many stupid people buying guns because they think it will save them from anything. You need to know what you’re doing before you are in a situation. This rant my stump a few, but I promise you I am nothing, but pro-gun. But I’m not as worried about losing my guns, as I am seeing people in America become weak and comfortable. In regards to the article at hand… I agree with you all.

    • Mike Vanderboegh is one of the two guys (the other was David Codrea) that broke Fast and Furious wide open (it started with his post about Brian Terry’s murder, and he was instrumental in putting ATF whistleblowers in touch with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions), and he’s also the founder the the III’er (Three Percenter) movement. This latest letter is more indicative of his general body of work than the Fast and Furious stuff, that is, he’s more of an extreme right-wing incendiary personality than he is a hard-hitting reporter. That said, his role in that and all that came after it give him a decent amount of credibility.

  42. If they DO pass an extension, and anyone does register during the extension, expect CTGov to find the extension was improper and all weapons registered during the extension period therefore contraband.

      • Yep. It’s sorta like the parent who is threatening their kid but doesn’t know what to do saying “You need to quit this! I’m counting to 5! 1! 2! 3! 4! 4.5! 4.75!…”

        They’re on the way to end up like Canada’s failed scheme.

  43. Another question is whether police officers would enforce this illegal attempt to subvert both the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 15, First Article of their state’s constitution. They have all taken an oath to protect and defend those documents. Plus, I would imagine that more than a few members of the law enforcement community own AR15s themselves and have not bowed their knees to Baal.

    • I know of more than a few who haven’t registered theirs. They have no plans on stacking on anyones door for this farce of a law. If I had to guess they will be providing warning to the patriots who need it…

  45. I moved out of CT, and took my evil black rifles (all made in CT) and my magazines with me,
    I wonder if the CT State Police will be trying to find them thinking they are still in CT.
    Have to fight them in the courts, might need to have a test case though.

  46. I agree that laws should be enforced and crimes should be punished. That’s precisely why the state should take care not to use the power of criminal law to make political statements, as was the case with CT’s new gun control law. When the rubber meets the road you have to ask yourself whether demonizing the NRA and gun owners is really worth turning a bunch of peaceful citizens into paper criminals, and possibly creating far more violence in the process than it ever prevented.

  47. So they want to use the background check database to figure out who hasn’t registered firearms….And they wonder why we are against universal background checks! CT gun owners unite! If a police officer comes to confiscate your firearm, they are in violation of the US Constitution and are no longer a police officer but a common criminal. DEFEND YOUR HOMES AND YOUR COUNTRY!

  48. if memory serves it was said that the background checks would not and could not be used for any other purpose and that they would not be stored anywhere long term
    guess that was just another lie from the anti-gun crowd

    • That’s the problem. No matter how innocently the information is compiled, and even if the promises of those advocating for it are absolutely 100% genuine, that it will never be used for confiscation, etc., once the information is compiled, there’s no going back. After the list is made by those possibly perfectly innocent and well-meaning people, someone will come along and find a way to use it for ill. Human beings can and will rationalize anything, given enough time and proper motivation. All they have to do is find the right trigger to get permission to do so. That’s the problem.

      • as a professional database administrator I can assure you that data does not sit, unused on its originating system only nor will access to it be limited in any way for any purpose.

        I have never seen it happen in my 20+ years in the field and based on what I have experienced over the years in terms of corruption from the offices above me I will never see it.

        Rest assured the data is widely available and they will use it however they deem necessary.

    • Possibly there is indeed no database, but the Courant is unaware of how things work.

      They’re certainly unaware of quite a bit…

  51. The smell of a civil uprising to squash tyranny has been brewing for years into a fine simmer.

    It’s just going to take one idiotic, and typical liberal, stunt to ignite a new civil war wherein law-abiding citizens are forced to defend themselves against the tyranny of Obama and Dems everywhere.

    Make no mistake, it will happen. Obama, et al, are counting on it to happen. In their desire to install martial law and the new elitist-state, and the new slavery, they need it to happen and therefore must keep pressing the tolerant down in order to make them combust.

  53. “The Statists who enacted this law better let sleeping dogs lie. Or they will have to face the consequences, too. That’s not a threat. It’s a statement of fact.”

    Fixed. 😉

  54. I doubt they would enforce this. If THOUSANDS did roll over and comply after not registering…where is all their trial money gonna come from? How is the state going to afford ALL those trials and ALL those who are going to jail?
    Oh wait you’re right…they cant. This looks more like waving a stick around as opposed to an actual threat.

    • Non-compliance is made much easier when the lead time for your court date for said non-compliance is measured in decades.

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

    How much do you want to wager that the paper is pro no questions asked amnesty for illegal immigrants?

  56. The newspaper suggests law enforcement use of current lists of gun owners recorded through prior “Background Checks” of gun purchases to find those not complying with the new registration requirements. This seems to me that the paper believes a registration of gun owners already exists via background checks/purchase records. So, the new CT Assault Weapon and Magazine registration requirement is a layered registration on top of the former list created by the capitulation to a backgound check.

    If the firearms can be tracked by the background check as the paper suggests, isnt that already “Registration”? The State of CT knows who has them, so the new registration is simply another scheme to further tighten the noose of confiscation. Registration only has a single purpose, disarming you. I have been here, I grew up in California.

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

    I wonder why progressives don’t say this when it comes to illegal immigration? Of course it’s perfectly fine to break the law when it benefits them. Or how they say get over Obama care, it’s the law of the land. Being the law of the land doesn’t stop them from attempting to change the 2A or any other law they don’t agree with.

  58. The CT law declares that previously purchased legal rifles are now illegal to own (without registration/permission). That is “ex-post facto” – which is illegal under the constitution.

    So they are committing not one, but two treasonous act against the constitution! Bring it on.

    • Yup. And I bought all my weed in 1920, been saving it in the freezer for a good time, officer.

      People act like the Constitution doesn’t have the force of law, it is just a guiding document. Or as Captain Barbosa put it, more like guidelines than actual rules.

      • “People act like the Constitution doesn’t have the force of law, it is just a guiding document. Or as Captain Barbosa put it, more like guidelines than actual rules.”

        My take on it is they see Da Gubmint as this huge lumbering Godzilla-like behemoth that can ravage cities on a whim, except for these 10 little things he’s “not allowed” to do but is doing anyway and resistance is futile, to coin a phrase. ;-).

    • Unfortunately your definition is incorrect. An ex-post-facto situation arises when you are punished for a previously legal act; the law here does not punish anyone for buying the rifle, but for failing to register or dispose of it (in the present).

  59. Funny the Newspaper wants to use the 1st Amendment but does not want people to beable to use the 2nd Amendment .

  60. Unconstitutional Official Acts

    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    Jon Roland:

    Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

    All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one’s life.

    Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

    Notice it states NO ONE IS BOUND TO OBEY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND NO COURT IS BOUND TO ENFORCE IT. PERIOD!

    In other words NO they do NOT need to register their guns.

    Clearly the Connecticut Government and the Hartford Courant are not all that savvy on Constitutional Law.

  63. Julius Streicher was exexuted at Nuremburg for publishing an anti-Jew newspaper. Maybe these “reporters” should be held to the same standard as Julius for their anti-liberty agenda which is a war against this nation.

  65. “Approximately 30 miles from Manhattan… the Bridgeport-Stamford metropolitan area (CT) has the highest density of high-income households in the nation”

    “On a state-by-state basis, Connecticut has the third highest concentration of the uber wealthy”.

    Hmm, how interesting. The place where the financial assholes from New York hide out wants to ban combat weapons.

    Somebody getting scared? 😀

  67. Malloy’s laws are not truly compromises. It’s a slow chipping away of our gun rights. A true compromise would be to give them assault rifle registration in exchange for a true castle law and a true stand your ground law. I cringed when he claimed these new gun laws were a by-partisan compromise.

Comments are closed.