POTENTIAL WAR STARTING FROM CONNECTICUT

U201492 · Mar 3, 2014

Updated posting: <broken link removed> with the theory being "there's no gun confiscation" and "Let's wait until May 7th"- in the hopes the state will resend the foolish law. It's possible- and we've made national headlines considering. FYI

Grunwald · Mar 3, 2014

Gunfixx said:
It's a no compromise firearms website.

I read the "Read Before Joining" and it has layers of PC type bs listed as rules as well.

deen_ad · Mar 3, 2014

Trailltrader said:
Updated posting: <broken link removed> with the theory being "there's no gun confiscation" and "Let's wait until May 7th"- in the hopes the state will resend the foolish law. It's possible- and we've made national headlines considering. FYI

They need to rescind the law, not resend it.

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

deen_ad · Mar 3, 2014

Riot said:
My understanding was that they only sent the notice to the people that tried registering after the deadline... which is funny because they'll probably be the first houses ever checked!

Imagine that... Knowing you'll become a felon for doing nothing more than owning a rifle or magazine and failing to register them by the deadline. Then while trying to be compliant, they only managed to put themselves in the radar more so. Makes me laugh a little.

But all those guys that registered are just as foolish. What happens when CT decides that registration wasn't enough? Guess whose houses are next on the confiscation list?

Yeah, CT can go to hell. I don't wish ill will on any CT cop, but it's definitely going to get bad before it gets better.

This is nothing more than the calm before the storm and everyone is watching.

And, here's why the people who didn't comply no longer need to!

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).[1]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

GunRightsCoalition · Mar 3, 2014

So with the above in mind what good is registration? It has no effect on those that are not supposed to have guns (according to the laws) and doesn't do anything to identify and remove guns from them. All it really does is presume that some of those that are law abiding now will be criminals later. Well, that and it sets up a way to find those that are no longer law abiding when they legislate away the rights they have now. Or in other words, it gives them a way to confiscate guns down the road by identifying who has them.

U201492 · Mar 3, 2014

deen_ad said:
They need to rescind the law, not resend it."

I know Deen. Spell check couldn't find the "recend" I wanted, and I was too lazy to look at Blacks Law Dictionary. =P

Burt Gummer · Mar 3, 2014

shootnscoot · Mar 4, 2014

You can have one lunatic go crazy, and the response is the entire state gets punished for the cowards crime. Around 300 people died from rifles in 2011 in the USA, meanwhile 45,000-60,000 were killed from 2nd hand smoke from other people. Where is the call to ban cigarettes? There is no perspective given to any of these reactionary laws, they are ruled by emotion and the eagerness to "do something", with no concern given to how misguidedly foolish the end result turns out to be.

U201492 · Mar 4, 2014

OK- can do, will do- I'll put the word out

04.03.2014, 16:03, "Rich Burgess" <[email protected]>:
> Larry,
> There is no door kicking or shooting going on here. I appreciate the thought and offer, but save yourselves the effort and expenditure until something happens. It isn't likely to be in Connecticut anyway.

> If you guys want to help out, we have a website where we accept donations and sell merchandise to support the cause. We also have a free member registry so that people can get all of our updates, newsletters, etc.

> Thanks, stay safe,
> Rich Burgess
> President
> Connecticut Carry, Inc
> Ph: 203.208.9577
> Connecticut Carry - Press Releases

cookie · Mar 4, 2014

Won't happen it is hard enough to get gun owners to vote for pro gun candidates than to support other gun owners. If you understand what would be needed to support your neighbor when the gestapo shows up and there is ten of them and one gun owner.

U201492 · Mar 4, 2014

cookie said:
Won't happen it is hard enough to get gun owners to vote for pro gun candidates than to support other gun owners. If you understand what would be needed to support your neighbor when the gestapo shows up and there is ten of them and one gun owner.

1)Obviously you have never been a felon 2)Once these 340,000 gun owners has their credit slashed, fired from their jobs when just the day before they were law abiding citizens? Look up what gun rights a felon loses- no mater how this goes down, it's going to get ugly.