One more chance for gun owners

[mwrguy]

Time to put up or shut up, law abiders!

One more chance for gun owners

Monday, February 24, 2014



When state officials decided to accept some gun registrations and magazine declarations that arrived after a Jan. 4 deadline, they also had to deal with those applications that didn’t make the cut.

The state now holds signed and notarized letters saying those late applicants own rifles and magazines illegally.

But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/politics_and_government/one-more-chance-for-gun-owners/article_2d8f816a-9d93-11e3-b18e-0019bb2963f4.html

[Keefer]

1. And if they DON'T?

Then what?

[rrneck]

2. The next election. nt

[mwrguy]

5. Felons can't vote

LOL it just gets better and better

[rrneck]

8. What makes you think they are

actually going to create thousands of felons. And if they do, each and every one of their friends and family certainty will.

[gejohnston]

9. only in a few states

CT isn't one of them
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/15/nyregion/felons-gain-voting-rights-in-connecticut.html
You really didn't think about this, did you?

[mwrguy]

11. Mea Culpa

The ones that aren't actually in jail can vote.

Big deal. They are a minority of voters, and a majority approves of the assault weapons law.

[gejohnston]

14. Actually no,

Like the NY SAFE Act, it was passed in the middle of the night unread. The majority of the politicians supported it, not the majority of the people. See Colorado.

[Keefer]

10. Tell that to

Attorney General Holder. He wants felons to get their right to vote back.

[pipoman]

17. so do I

It is recent history that they don't...pay your debt, get your rights back at some point.

[Eleanors38]

38. Ummm. A prohi's dream: Punishment, "the sweetest of moral pleasures."

[mwrguy]

3. Notarized confession + Google maps + squad cars =

quick ride to jail, or cold dead hands, their choice

All those surplus MRAPs will finally come in handy.

[gejohnston]

6. After that will be a Republican landslide even in CT

after people see people getting blown away over victimless crimes. Bad idea.

[clffrdjk]

18. So what you are saying

Is that I should never let my guns be registered because you are willing to start a civil war to grab them given half an opportunity. And that somehow makes me the bad guy.

[appal_jack]

20. Wow. Advocating state-sponsored terror against Americans for a victimless 'crime.'

Wow. Advocating state-sponsored terror against Americans for a victimless 'crime.'

This position of yours is insanity. It's also unconstitutional. It also will drive away otherwise sympathetic voters from the Democratic camp.

Nice job, keyboard commando.

-app

[mwrguy]

21. Enforcing a democratically passed law is terror?

Settle down, Hannity. Don't the vapors.

[clffrdjk]

24. So this law was passed by referendum?

[appal_jack]

26. 'MRAPs' and 'cold dead hands' are your words, not mine.

'MRAPs' and 'cold dead hands' are your words, not mine. You are living in a fascist fantasy world, and the 'Hannity' moniker suits you quite well, I'd say.

Once you wipe-up the spooge from your little MRAP keyboard kommando dream and catch your breath, I hope that you can think about what you have advocated a little more clearly.

-app

[Keefer]

36. All those

"voter ID" laws were all "democratically passed" too.

[Eleanors38]

39. Umm, umm, umm. I can smell the chemicals.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. And if Arizona's "Gay Jim Crow" law passes, you'll be cool with that too?

Because it will have been "democratically passed", and all that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014735917

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/22/george-takei-boycott-arizona-if-governor-signs-gay-jim-crow-law/

[gejohnston]

58. at the risk of being nit picky

it isn't really Jim Crow, even though the bill is as despicable. AFAIK, there isn't a penalty for not discriminating. Jim Crow laws mandated discrimination.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Good point

[gejohnston]

4. prosecute over 300K people

with penalties stiffer than a pedophile would get for what is really an absurd victimless crime? It would actually crush the system and the backlash against the CT state government would be huge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=137601
I have a better idea, let's round up all of the bong owners in the suburbs of Chicago, Newark, Camden, NOLA, and Oakland. They actually contribute to gun violence more than these guys. How? By providing the gangs money to fight over. Oh, and the growers that booby trap and pollute national parks, and will nonchalantly blow any wayward hiker while hoping prohibition never ends so they can keep their profits high and their taxes non existent.

[mwrguy]

7. Prosecute the living shit out of 100 people

The other 299,900 will get the message.

[NYC_SKP]

12. The 299,900 will, with others, vote the traitors and fools out of office.

I'm sick of this prelude to confiscation.

[gejohnston]

13. this is where I get

the idea that gun control advocates are not really liberals. Faux liberals maybe, but not real liberals. Think about it, Bloomberg is a right wing authoritarian that has disdain for all of the BoR, and the head of MDA is a former Monsanto PR executive.
This "message" won't be what you think it will be. One, crime will not go down. Two, elections are won by the middle.
Your outlook is why every kid in school and prospective citizen should lern all of the writings of Paine, Locke, and Democracy in America.

[rrneck]

15. Fundamentalists tend to be authoritarians. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. I would have expected better of people whose label starts with the word "fun." n/t

[rrneck]

59. It's fun for them.

It's surprising how many assholes really enjoy being assholes.

[proudretiredvet]

16. I foresee a lot of boating accidents from that neck of the woods.

Honest officer it was over there someplace in the deep water.

[bossy22]

19. it will be interesting to see what CT does next

the authorities are in a real bind in this one

[clffrdjk]

22. Well looking at Canada

My guess is. Spend10x's the amount of money they planed.
Offer numerous grace periods and still have abysmal compliance.
Have zero reduction in crime.
A near zero number of crimes solved using the registration.

Oops forgot to add end up funding the NRA for the next 10 years (only 5 if they repeal it before it goes to court) after their loss in court.

[bossy22]

28. canada is actually interesting example

The LE agencies there didn't make a significant effort to enforce the registration laws there. IIRC in the beginning of the long gun registration program there was a proposal to go essentially "gun owner by gun owner" and checking to see if they registered their weapons- it was never tried because the estimated costs were way too high and there wasn't enough manpower to actually accomplish it

[mwrguy]

23. They can't afford to be seen as weak on this.

imho

[bossy22]

25. but can they actually afford to be strong on this?

See, I'm trying to look at this objectively without interjecting my personal beliefs about the law or what should happen. While it's extremely important for a governmental body to be able to enforce all of its laws I'm not sure that there are enough LE resources in CT to do so in this case. For example, there are less than 1300 CT state police officers- how many would be required to go door to door looking for guns? I don't see the CT state police having large amounts of idle resources at their disposal- I believe like most public safety departments they have been asked to do more with less over the past 5 years.

So whether or not you believe strongly in gun control you have to sit back and look to see if it is truly worth it. How many people are you willing to send to jail? How much money are you willing to spend? These items (and others) aren't unlimited and will require trade offs. Do you take money from education and funnel it to LE efforts to confiscate weapons? These things have to all be worked out and in the end it might not be worth it.

[hack89]

34. They can't afford to be seen as too strong on this

The first questions people will ask is why massive police raids to arrest non-violent gun owners but not for rounding up violent criminals. It will go downhill from there, especially since it is absolutely guaranteed that the police will end up killing someone in the process.

[bossy22]

35. all it will take would be one botched raid

[Eleanors38]

40. To prohis: "Oh! The prospect! Conflict, pain, punishment. Ummmm."

[Lurks Often]

45. They'll look even weaker when LEO's refuse to enforce the law

So what's your bright idea when both individual LEO's and town police departments refuse to enforce the law?

Damn sure not all of them will comply and given police unions, you won't be able to fire them either

[Niceguy1]

27. bad idea

Enforcing this would be a huge setback and give the repblicans a majority

[Jenoch]

29. If they are willing to allow the people

to get rid of their guns after the dur date, why are they not willing to just register them? These gun owners are attempting to follow the law.

If my state required gun registration, I would follow the law with a frw guns and store the rest with people I know from another state. Of course gun rehistration would not pass in the Minnesota legislature. There would probably be more outrage from Democrats than from Republicans.

[sarisataka]

30. Too bad the rest of the article is unavailable

without subscribing. Regular CT news doesn't mention much.

If true, this will put lie to so many assurances from the GC side e.g. no one is talking about confiscation, lists will not be used to round up guns and owners, you have nothing to fear if you register...

I must point out these dangerous felons that it was suggested face apparently imprisonment w/out trial or summary execution were actually trying to comply with the law but missed a paperwork deadline. I hate to see what is in store for the ones who didn't try to register...

[SkatmanRoth]

32. Registration will never lead to confiscation

But my my what a difference an arbitrary few days makes in enforcing a gun registration law. And what a short step it would be to the bureaucrats making a minor change in interpreting the existing law so that previously 'legal' guns instantly transform into 'illegal' guns.

[Eleanors38]

41. ...So says the Man behind the curtain. nt

[ileus]

33. Just when I thought we couldn't get more regressive on human rights.

Hopefully everyone has relocated their firearms to safe quarters out of the reach of the regressives.


I will volunteer safe keeping for any firearm from my Northern oppressed brothers.

[chompers]

37. Hear hear...

Let me know if your safe gets full.

[FreeSpirit123]

42. one option

http://storeguns.com/mono-vaults

[armueller2001]

57. If it's time to bury your guns

then it's time to dig them up.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. So much for the myth of the

Constitution-abiding gun grabber.

[LittleBlue]

46. They overreached and it backfired

Watch this law either not be enforced or be repealed. What a stupid law.

[spin]

47. What do you suggest Connecticut do to those gun owners who do not comply? ...

Tens of thousands of Connecticut residents refuse to register guns under new law
Published time: February 12, 2014 21:52
Edited time: February 14, 2014 11:49

Tens of thousands of Connecticut residents could soon be considered felons by the state if they continue to ignore restrictive new gun control laws passed last year shortly after an armed rampage at an area elementary school left more than two dozen dead.

***snip***

If the state has received 50,000 registrations by now, Haar wrote, then that could represent as little as 15 percent of the assault weapons now classified by the state as warranting new paperwork under last April’s law.

“No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” Harr wrote.

“And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies,” he added.
http://rt.com/usa/connecticut-gun-law-registration-791/

[sarisataka]

49. Answered in post 3

quick ride to jail, or cold dead hands, their choice

[spin]

50. So you would find room for 20,000 citizens in the prisons in Connecticut. ...

Plus you would devote an enormous amount of police time and work to the effort and tie up the court system for years in order to confiscate the firearms these previously honest citizens owned and send them to jail. You would not even be opposed to killing these gun owners according to your post.

Notarized confession + Google maps + squad cars = quick ride to jail, or cold dead hands, their choice

All those surplus MRAPs will finally come in handy.

An effort to do this would give the conservative press and Fox News an opportunity to paint the Democratic Party as the party of gun confiscation. They would be more than happy to point out that the police were being used to arrest gun owners who had committed no violence with their weapons while allowing the criminal element to rape and pillage at will.

All across the nation gun owners would be infuriated and good Democrats would be unfairly associated with the gun confiscation effort in Connecticut and would lose many seats at the local and national level.

The NRA currently has only five million members but 80 million people own firearms in our nation. Still it is considered to be extremely powerful. Any effort to confiscate firearms and jail owners in Connecticut could easily double or triple NRA membership. Many gun owners would be more than willing to contribute to the NRA-ILA. Imagine how powerful this organization would become if this happened.

It is also conceivable that some police officers would lose their lives and other police officers would oppose the effort as they would not be willing to risk their lives for little reason.

If that is your answer to my question, I fear that it is largely unworkable.

At the most the state should impose a stiff fine on anyone who refused to register their firearms until they chose to do so.

[sarisataka]

52. i was pointing out the OP's answer

I find this whole process to be very revealing of pro-GC intentions.

Sorry for any confusion if I made it seem I agree in any way with the OP or the proposed actions...

[spin]

54. No problem. (n/t)

[sarisataka]

53. I was pointing out the OP's answer

I find this whole process to be very revealing of pro-GC intentions.

Sorry for any confusion if I made it seem I agree in any way with the OP or the proposed actions...

[hack89]

55. Sorry - wasn't paying attention. Nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. just a few questions

- You're thinking those folks that sent the notarized letters are habitual criminals that would be expected to kill or threaten others with their guns? That would be the benefit to prosecuting them; preventing such violence. That's what the pro-control group often says.

- Where there's a will, there's a weapon. The Soviet Union battled capitalism for decades and lost; will Connecticut do better?

- Any chance there's a cop or politician or relative of either in that collection? How's that playing out?

[mwrguy]

61. Look what got mailed out to CT gun owners

I guess they should have followed law.

[gejohnston]

62. actually, the ones that got that notice

made a good faith effort to do so.

[Straw Man]

63. Correct.

actually, the ones that got that notice

made a good faith effort to do so.

Their applications were received after the deadline. Now they risk being punished for their attempt to comply. I dare say it's not a strategy that is going to encourage compliance. Post Office misplaced your application form? No gun for you.

[sarisataka]

64. And there goes any hope...

for any registration to pass or be complied with. All of the CG assurances are proven to be empty promises.

Are you excited for your first MRAP sighting?

[clffrdjk]

65. Actually it appears they would have been better off to ignore the law.

By trying to comply but doing so late all they have managed to do is give people like you the opportunity to fire up the MRAPS and make some cold dead hands.

Or am I miss-reading post #3?

[Lurks Often]

66. Did you bother to look at the date on the letter?

It is dated January 2, 2014 BEFORE any letter dropped in the mailbox on 12/31/2013 could have been delivered. There have been NO reliable reports of anyone actually receiving a letter yet.

Because the post offices closed at noon on 12/31/13, the State of CT is already considering a compromise to allow letters that were notarized prior to 1/1/14 or received by the post office by 1/2/2014 to be accepted.

http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-15/news/hc-guns-malloy-compromise-0215-20140214_1_post-office-applications-malloy

The state of CT may also consider legislation to extend the registration period according to the link above.

Massive non-compliance to the law, if the numbers are to be believed, means this has been nothing short of a political disaster for the Malloy administration and some state legislators.