- Messages
- 153
- Reactions
- 175
The only way to allow your son to use your firearms without a background check (fee) if he is 18 or older is if the firearm is a bona fide gift.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
594 doesn't apply to loaners
- Thread Starter scott_see
- Start date
The only way to allow your son to use your firearms without a background check (fee) if he is 18 or older is if the firearm is a bona fide gift.
- Messages
- 3,924
- Reactions
- 2,827
I don't give a rat's a.ss about 594. Won't change how I do things one bit.
Still I say business as usual and Nullify the damn thing.
Besides isn't property within a family home considered community property and
ownership equally between family members...............People can come up with so many BS scenarios it becomes insane totally,
JUST NULLIFY THE DAMNED THING AND YOU ALL KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
Besides isn't property within a family home considered community property and
ownership equally between family members...............People can come up with so many BS scenarios it becomes insane totally,
JUST NULLIFY THE DAMNED THING AND YOU ALL KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
Last Edited:
How citizens of the Constitution State must resist lawless gun control | GOA News
<broken link removed>
How citizens of the Constitution State must resist lawless gun control
Created: Wednesday, 23 April 2014 18:56
Written by Larry Pratt
An Open Letter to the People of Connecticut:How citizens of the Constitution State must resist lawless gun control
"He may be the first person charged under [the] Conn. gun registration law," reported The Blaze on April 16, 2014. "But why did police take 'several' of his legal guns for 'safe keeping'?"
For most of us, the saddest day of 2012 was December 14 — the date of the tragic murder of 26 persons at Sandy Hook Elementary School — in a "gun free" zone.
While a full understanding of the actions of the 20-year old sociopath murderer that day may never be achieved, his uncle reported that he had been prescribed Fanapt, an anti-psychotic medicine known for inducing aggressive behavior.1
This is not surprising in the least. One study by British psychiatrist David Healy found that 90 percent of all school shootings in the last decade have been linked to powerful psychotropic drugs.2 And, schools are generally undefended "gun free" zones.
That day in December was also a defining day for the people of Connecticut, as it separated the state's politicians from its statesmen. The politicians denied the people's right to keep and bear arms, taking advantage of a tragedy to further restrict gun freedom. The statesmen stood against a virulent media to defend the protections of our written Constitution.
Although official police reports from the school were suspiciously inconsistent, obviously a firearm of some type was used, and that is where anti-gun Connecticut politicians focused their attention.3
Connecticut General Assembly
Fortunately, the U.S. Congress has thus far been blocked in its efforts to pass unconstitutional new gun laws since Newtown.4 But the State of Connecticut was a different story.
In 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed the "Connecticut Compromise," which unified the convention around a two-house legislative system. By contrast, in 2013, members of the Connecticut General Assembly in Hartford became dividers, not unifiers, enacting draconian anti-gun laws which are literally ripping apart the Connecticut body politic.
These anti-gun laws include a prohibition against the ownership of semi-automatic rifles, and even some types of shotguns, as well as magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds. Rifles owned on the date the law was enacted were required to be registered for citizens to be able to retain possession. Violation of the law is a felony.
Connecticut's anti-gun Governor was eager to sign the bill the day after it passed the General Assembly.
In enacting these anti-firearms laws, the Connecticut executive and legislative branches of government have violated both the federal Constitution's Second Amendment and the Connecticut Constitution's guarantee that "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Will officials confiscate firearms from non-complying gun owners?
As many as 300,000 law-abiding gun owners have failed to comply with Connecticut's updated gun registration requirements. The new registry is an update of older registration requirements that were in place at the time of the tragic shooting.
The state's largest newspaper, the Hartford Courant, has now called for the arrest of the 300,000 non-complying gun owners.
"The bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law," the paper opined back in February. "If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences."5
And at least one top aide in the Governor's administration, Michael P. Lawler, has indicated that the state will punish those who missed the registration deadline.6
Already, the first Connecticut gun owner has been arrested — and his "assault rifle" confiscated — after he allegedly shot a squirrel in his yard. Not only did police seize the rifle (and many magazines) from 65-year old James Toigo, they also confiscated several of his legally registered firearms.7
Connecticut state officials simply no longer respect the biblical principle that we are endowed by our Creator with certain "unalienable rights," enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, including the right to self-defense and the right to protect our life and liberty against threat by criminals — or by lawless government officials.
In short, Connecticut has jettisoned the Declaration's requirement of the "consent of the governed."
Federal District & Appellate Courts
A courageous group of gun owners in Connecticut, led by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), acted quickly to present this grievance to a court, challenging these repressive laws as a violation of the Second Amendment. On January 30, the U.S. District Court in Connecticut dismissed CCDL's challenge, which has prompted the CCDL to appeal its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Gun Owners of America will be filing an important brief in support of the citizens of Connecticut, as we have done in defense of the citizens of New Jersey, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and in other cases where the Second Amendment has been at risk.
We hope that eventually the federal courts will apply the Second Amendment's original pre-existing principles, as recognized by the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago decisions, but the citizens of Connecticut need to understand how we must all enter the battle against tyranny that is on the march.
Citizen Defense of the Constitution
To date, we have observed a near-total failure of the Connecticut government to obey the restrictions placed on it by the people in the U.S. Constitution. The General Assembly has failed. The Governor has failed. The federal district judge has failed.
We can hope that the next time members of the General Assembly are up for election, November 2014, Connecticut citizens will oust lawless legislators and get these unconstitutional laws repealed.
We can also hope that at the national level, the American people will elect U.S. Senators who will block the confirmation of anti-gun judges and, later, elect a President who will appoint pro-gun ones.
But hoping is not enough. Anti-gun laws have been enacted and could be enforced at any time.
How, in the meantime, should a citizen of Connecticut respond to lawless laws? Some pro-gun groups are encouraging widespread resistance to the reporting required under the new law.
Indeed, it appears that only a small percentage of Connecticut residents are registering their rifles and magazines, understanding that, historically, registration leads to confiscation, and confiscation leads to slavery.8
Resistance tells the government that it does not have your consent.
Still, those who do not register their weapons run the risk of indictment and conviction by tyrannical Connecticut government officials. The crisis is upon us, as prosecutors are already bringing charges for violations of these unconstitutional laws.
That is where Connecticut citizens must swing into action. There is an important next step in the strategy that will require the involvement of every person in Connecticut who respects the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions — whether he is a gun owner or not.
It is known as Trial by Jury.
Role of Jurors and Jury Nullification
No one who asserts his right to trial by jury can be convicted unless a jury cooperates with the prosecution.
And that role is not limited to the factual issue of deciding who may have done what. It includes refusing to convict where the government prosecutes someone for violating an unconstitutional law.
Jurors are not told that they have that right; and if they ask, they will be told they do not have it. However, this is where a Connecticut citizen must act as a citizen who knows the historic purpose and role of the jury — to protect his fellow citizens from the burden of defending against an illegal prosecution.
Fortunately, unless a defendant plea bargains his case — or waives his right to a jury trial and chooses to be tried by a judge — he will be tried by a jury of his peers. Indeed, more than 550,000 individuals are randomly selected each year and called to serve as jurors in Connecticut, with about 110,000 actually serving as jurors.9
Jurors have a vitally important role to play in a constitutional republic — which is a central, final check against arbitrary power. Since they are not told of that role by judges, they must learn it before they are ever called to jury duty.
The ultimate power that the government has over citizens is the power of the sword — the power to arrest, prosecute, convict, and sentence lawbreakers. What if the law that the defendant is accused of breaking is unconstitutional? The jury has the power to stop such an injustice. Vesting this power in citizens was no an accident of history.
In a constitutional republic, interpretation of the Constitution is too important a responsibility to be left to the lawyers, even if they serve in the role of judges.
Indeed, the origin of jury nullification in the United States is often traced to the prosecution of John Peter Zenger for seditious libel against officials in the colonial government in New York. His crime was to have criticized the government without its prior approval.
At Zenger's trial in 1735, he asserted that his criticisms were true, but the judge instructed the jury that truth was no defense, that Zenger admitted his guilt, and that they should find Zenger guilty. The jury paid little heed to the judge, acquitting Zenger after only minutes of deliberation.10
Inherent in the right to trial by jury is the jury's right to determine the law as well as the facts. Sadly, a government that seeks ever greater power over citizens has sought to erode the jury's authority.
In the distant past, jurors were told the truth; they were told they had the right to nullify a prosecution for an unconstitutional law. But since then, the government determined they need not be told. And then the government determined that they could not be told.
Today, most judges tell juries that their only role is to determine the facts, and the judges "instruct" them as to what the law is.
Hogwash!
As in the Zenger case, a modern juror has the power, and responsibility, to acquit a defendant if he believes the law the defendant is charged with violating is unconstitutional.
Jury nullification is certainly not an antiquated notion. In fact, it is making an important comeback in the states. For example, in 2012, New Hampshire enacted HB 146 which formalizes the jury's right to nullify. It provides that "n all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."11 Connecticut should have a law like that as well.
At this perilous time, the duty of every liberty-loving Connecticut citizen is to embrace the responsibilities of a citizen, taking up the mantle of defending his fellow citizens and the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions, against attack from a lawless government.
<broken link removed>
How citizens of the Constitution State must resist lawless gun control
Created: Wednesday, 23 April 2014 18:56
Written by Larry Pratt
An Open Letter to the People of Connecticut:How citizens of the Constitution State must resist lawless gun control
"He may be the first person charged under [the] Conn. gun registration law," reported The Blaze on April 16, 2014. "But why did police take 'several' of his legal guns for 'safe keeping'?"
For most of us, the saddest day of 2012 was December 14 — the date of the tragic murder of 26 persons at Sandy Hook Elementary School — in a "gun free" zone.
While a full understanding of the actions of the 20-year old sociopath murderer that day may never be achieved, his uncle reported that he had been prescribed Fanapt, an anti-psychotic medicine known for inducing aggressive behavior.1
This is not surprising in the least. One study by British psychiatrist David Healy found that 90 percent of all school shootings in the last decade have been linked to powerful psychotropic drugs.2 And, schools are generally undefended "gun free" zones.
That day in December was also a defining day for the people of Connecticut, as it separated the state's politicians from its statesmen. The politicians denied the people's right to keep and bear arms, taking advantage of a tragedy to further restrict gun freedom. The statesmen stood against a virulent media to defend the protections of our written Constitution.
Although official police reports from the school were suspiciously inconsistent, obviously a firearm of some type was used, and that is where anti-gun Connecticut politicians focused their attention.3
Connecticut General Assembly
Fortunately, the U.S. Congress has thus far been blocked in its efforts to pass unconstitutional new gun laws since Newtown.4 But the State of Connecticut was a different story.
These anti-gun laws include a prohibition against the ownership of semi-automatic rifles, and even some types of shotguns, as well as magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds. Rifles owned on the date the law was enacted were required to be registered for citizens to be able to retain possession. Violation of the law is a felony.
Connecticut's anti-gun Governor was eager to sign the bill the day after it passed the General Assembly.
In enacting these anti-firearms laws, the Connecticut executive and legislative branches of government have violated both the federal Constitution's Second Amendment and the Connecticut Constitution's guarantee that "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Will officials confiscate firearms from non-complying gun owners?
As many as 300,000 law-abiding gun owners have failed to comply with Connecticut's updated gun registration requirements. The new registry is an update of older registration requirements that were in place at the time of the tragic shooting.
The state's largest newspaper, the Hartford Courant, has now called for the arrest of the 300,000 non-complying gun owners.
"The bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law," the paper opined back in February. "If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences."5
Already, the first Connecticut gun owner has been arrested — and his "assault rifle" confiscated — after he allegedly shot a squirrel in his yard. Not only did police seize the rifle (and many magazines) from 65-year old James Toigo, they also confiscated several of his legally registered firearms.7
Connecticut state officials simply no longer respect the biblical principle that we are endowed by our Creator with certain "unalienable rights," enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, including the right to self-defense and the right to protect our life and liberty against threat by criminals — or by lawless government officials.
In short, Connecticut has jettisoned the Declaration's requirement of the "consent of the governed."
Federal District & Appellate Courts
A courageous group of gun owners in Connecticut, led by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), acted quickly to present this grievance to a court, challenging these repressive laws as a violation of the Second Amendment. On January 30, the U.S. District Court in Connecticut dismissed CCDL's challenge, which has prompted the CCDL to appeal its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Gun Owners of America will be filing an important brief in support of the citizens of Connecticut, as we have done in defense of the citizens of New Jersey, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and in other cases where the Second Amendment has been at risk.
We hope that eventually the federal courts will apply the Second Amendment's original pre-existing principles, as recognized by the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago decisions, but the citizens of Connecticut need to understand how we must all enter the battle against tyranny that is on the march.
Citizen Defense of the Constitution
To date, we have observed a near-total failure of the Connecticut government to obey the restrictions placed on it by the people in the U.S. Constitution. The General Assembly has failed. The Governor has failed. The federal district judge has failed.
We can hope that the next time members of the General Assembly are up for election, November 2014, Connecticut citizens will oust lawless legislators and get these unconstitutional laws repealed.
We can also hope that at the national level, the American people will elect U.S. Senators who will block the confirmation of anti-gun judges and, later, elect a President who will appoint pro-gun ones.
But hoping is not enough. Anti-gun laws have been enacted and could be enforced at any time.
How, in the meantime, should a citizen of Connecticut respond to lawless laws? Some pro-gun groups are encouraging widespread resistance to the reporting required under the new law.
Indeed, it appears that only a small percentage of Connecticut residents are registering their rifles and magazines, understanding that, historically, registration leads to confiscation, and confiscation leads to slavery.8
Resistance tells the government that it does not have your consent.
Still, those who do not register their weapons run the risk of indictment and conviction by tyrannical Connecticut government officials. The crisis is upon us, as prosecutors are already bringing charges for violations of these unconstitutional laws.
That is where Connecticut citizens must swing into action. There is an important next step in the strategy that will require the involvement of every person in Connecticut who respects the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions — whether he is a gun owner or not.
It is known as Trial by Jury.
Role of Jurors and Jury Nullification
No one who asserts his right to trial by jury can be convicted unless a jury cooperates with the prosecution.
And that role is not limited to the factual issue of deciding who may have done what. It includes refusing to convict where the government prosecutes someone for violating an unconstitutional law.
Jurors are not told that they have that right; and if they ask, they will be told they do not have it. However, this is where a Connecticut citizen must act as a citizen who knows the historic purpose and role of the jury — to protect his fellow citizens from the burden of defending against an illegal prosecution.
Fortunately, unless a defendant plea bargains his case — or waives his right to a jury trial and chooses to be tried by a judge — he will be tried by a jury of his peers. Indeed, more than 550,000 individuals are randomly selected each year and called to serve as jurors in Connecticut, with about 110,000 actually serving as jurors.9
Jurors have a vitally important role to play in a constitutional republic — which is a central, final check against arbitrary power. Since they are not told of that role by judges, they must learn it before they are ever called to jury duty.
The ultimate power that the government has over citizens is the power of the sword — the power to arrest, prosecute, convict, and sentence lawbreakers. What if the law that the defendant is accused of breaking is unconstitutional? The jury has the power to stop such an injustice. Vesting this power in citizens was no an accident of history.
In a constitutional republic, interpretation of the Constitution is too important a responsibility to be left to the lawyers, even if they serve in the role of judges.
Indeed, the origin of jury nullification in the United States is often traced to the prosecution of John Peter Zenger for seditious libel against officials in the colonial government in New York. His crime was to have criticized the government without its prior approval.
At Zenger's trial in 1735, he asserted that his criticisms were true, but the judge instructed the jury that truth was no defense, that Zenger admitted his guilt, and that they should find Zenger guilty. The jury paid little heed to the judge, acquitting Zenger after only minutes of deliberation.10
Inherent in the right to trial by jury is the jury's right to determine the law as well as the facts. Sadly, a government that seeks ever greater power over citizens has sought to erode the jury's authority.
In the distant past, jurors were told the truth; they were told they had the right to nullify a prosecution for an unconstitutional law. But since then, the government determined they need not be told. And then the government determined that they could not be told.
Today, most judges tell juries that their only role is to determine the facts, and the judges "instruct" them as to what the law is.
Hogwash!
As in the Zenger case, a modern juror has the power, and responsibility, to acquit a defendant if he believes the law the defendant is charged with violating is unconstitutional.
Jury nullification is certainly not an antiquated notion. In fact, it is making an important comeback in the states. For example, in 2012, New Hampshire enacted HB 146 which formalizes the jury's right to nullify. It provides that "n all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."11 Connecticut should have a law like that as well.
At this perilous time, the duty of every liberty-loving Connecticut citizen is to embrace the responsibilities of a citizen, taking up the mantle of defending his fellow citizens and the U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions, against attack from a lawless government.
- Messages
- 37
- Reactions
- 12
No. That is NOT a good flow chart. It might as well be a joke. For instance, where in the bill does it say ANYTHING about someone simply knowing where your firearms are or having access to them (hint: it doesn't). That thing needs to come offline.
One other: established gun registry/database.
Yea, I don't like it either.
- Messages
- 1,509
- Reactions
- 1,931
A few other things that 594 wont apply to: just off the top of my head.
It wont apply to angry young psychos that steal a gun and go shoot 5 friends at school.
It wont apply to a criminal stealing a gun, and using it in a crime, or selling to another criminal.
It wont apply to a criminal at all, in any way shape or form.
It wont apply to angry young psychos that steal a gun and go shoot 5 friends at school.
It wont apply to a criminal stealing a gun, and using it in a crime, or selling to another criminal.
It wont apply to a criminal at all, in any way shape or form.
- Messages
- 37,261
- Reactions
- 128,566
Garg, CLEARLY you're just another homophobic racist that's bitterly clinging to your guns and religion, and you also hate women.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 1,509
- Reactions
- 1,931
Clearly.... LOL maybe, except the woman partGarg, CLEARLY you're just another homophobic racist that's bitterly clinging to your guns and religion, and you also hate women.
- Messages
- 410
- Reactions
- 187
Could you bring me up to speed on how that works, please? I keep hearing the term, but haven't heard much about the process or the ramifications.
Take example from Connecticut. They refused to recognize the bad law that was forced upon them. They stood by the US Constitution and basically told the leftists to shove their registration law. All stood strong except for a small group of fools. There is nothing the state could do short of declare figurative war and they will not do that. There is not enough manpower to bring several hundred thousand citizens to task over what was a bad law to begin with. Simply put they organized and all stated they will not comply. The leftists just run around mumbling to themselves and slobbering and drooling in fits now and that about sums it up.
The lessons of the founders are actually still alive back there.
- Messages
- 410
- Reactions
- 187
Who is "they" and could you provide more context or a link?
- Messages
- 37,261
- Reactions
- 128,566
Read.
It is up this page, the entire summation of what "they" did, "they" defined, will reveal itself. That is about all the explain game I will play. Research it. Its in this thread.
In case you have not figured it out. They as referenced = gun owning citizens of Connecticut and hopefully soon the Gun owning citizens of Washington. Are the ones who can nullify a bad law, by sheer numbers.
Alchemist magicians should know that.
- Messages
- 410
- Reactions
- 187
Duly spanked. Still some amniotic fluid behind my ears. I keep scrubbing; but it ain't coming off.
I had to blow through that quickly this morning before I headed off to work, and lost many of the points noted.
The article brought up a New Hampshire bill, HB 146 which formalized the right to nullify. Does anyone happen to know what WA state law is in that regard (in addition, historically, if judges have/can tell juries they have no right to nullify?)
I've always considered it an honor to be called for jury duty, but have never gotten past the pool. I hope none of you have ever tried to skip out for anything other than a really good reason. Does anyone know what percentage of conservatives and liberals actually report for jury duty? (I'm trying to examine the odds.)
I had to blow through that quickly this morning before I headed off to work, and lost many of the points noted.
The article brought up a New Hampshire bill, HB 146 which formalized the right to nullify. Does anyone happen to know what WA state law is in that regard (in addition, historically, if judges have/can tell juries they have no right to nullify?)
I've always considered it an honor to be called for jury duty, but have never gotten past the pool. I hope none of you have ever tried to skip out for anything other than a really good reason. Does anyone know what percentage of conservatives and liberals actually report for jury duty? (I'm trying to examine the odds.)
- Messages
- 12,585
- Reactions
- 28,719
Well, it IS standard practice for prosecutors to strike jurors who believe in nullification...
- Messages
- 871
- Reactions
- 503
Is nullification something the prosecutors ask prospective jurors about?
- Messages
- 12,585
- Reactions
- 28,719
Depends on how aware of it the individual ambulance-chaser is and how much talk about it's going around the community at time of trial. It HAS happened before... it's not necessarily Every Time, but it's often enough to be considered part of their normal bag of dirty tricks.
Similar threads
