Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's a no compromise firearms website.
They need to rescind the law, not resend it.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
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.
Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHaynes 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.
They need to rescind the law, not resend it."
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.