President Obama to Spike the Gun Control Football in CT

 

Want a visit from the Leader of the Free World himself? Simple. You don’t even have to write a seven figure check. All you have to do is violate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners in your state. This week it was Colorado. Next week: Connecticut. The peripatetic CinC will peacock his way through the now-ironically named Constitution State on Monday to push his civilian disarmament efforts. Somehow the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation offices were left off of the Prez’s itinerary. Their take after the jump . . .

President Obama will be in Connecticut on Monday at an invitation-only event to celebrate passage by the state’s General Assembly this week of what is being called the toughest package of gun-control legislation in the country. His visit is a public relations tactic and comes as momentum for new federal laws seems to be grinding toward a halt on Capitol Hill.

While much is being said concerning the bipartisanship and reputed thoroughness of the information-finding process to inform the lawmaking, in fact the complicated legislative package was brought to the floor of both chambers having been negotiated behind closed doors, without a public hearing and with hardly any time for legislators to even read the 139 pages of language, as NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane pointed out in op-ed commentary in today’s Hartford Courant. Connecticut’s firearms and component manufacturers now face the decision of whether to move all or part of their operations to one of several more regulation-friendly states that are inviting them to set up shop.

As readers of this report know, in the aftermath of the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, NSSF and its member companies based in Connecticut and western Massachusetts were active both at the General Assembly and in the media arguing for practical measures to reduce violence and the criminal misuse of firearms and against ineffective solutions such as a ban on modern sporting rifles and arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.

In a statement released following the governor’s emotional bill-signing ceremony on Thursday, NSSF pointed out the first of what could be many problems with the now enacted law, namely that the procedure spelled out for conducting the so-called “universal background check” for private party firearms transfers contradicted provisions of federal law. Court action to overturn the law is virtually certain.

Pro-Second Amendment advocates, sportsmen and even employees of firearms manufacturers nearly always outnumbered gun-control enthusiasts in assembles at the state capitol complex in Hartford. The latest such gathering organized by NSSF, NRA, Connecticut concealed carry and sportsmen’s’ organizations brought in hundreds to stand witness to the final floor votes in both chambers of the General Assembly.

comments

  1. avatar 2nd Amendment Rules says:

    I bet he had all of these cops disarmed in fear that one of them might decide to uphold his oath to protect and preserve the US Constitution!

    1. avatar NS says:

      grow up

      1. avatar The Smiling Swordsman says:

        +1

      2. avatar 2nd Amendment Rules says:

        “Grow Up”???

        Obama is a TRAITOR!

        Liberals are trying to overthrow part of the US Constitution (2nd amendment) and that is TREASON!

        1. avatar Ben in UT says:

          No it’s not. I hate gun control laws, but they’re simply part of the legislative process, just like any other law. If the legislature wants to pass a law, the court can determine the constitutionality.

          Treason is a defined by Oran’s dictionary of law as “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].”

          Gun control laws do nothing and are infringements on natural liberty, but they’re hardly treasonous.

        2. avatar Ben says:

          On the other hand,

          tyr·an·ny [tir-uh-nee]
          1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.
          2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
          3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
          4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
          5. undue severity or harshness.

        3. avatar Totenglocke says:

          If the legislature wants to pass a law, the court can determine the constitutionality

          Only if you get enough money.

          Seriously Ben, you can’t really think that it’s OK to allow unconstitutional laws and then after they’ve already violated your rights try to get them overturned. Bills should be reviewed for Constitutionality before they are allowed to be signed into law.

        4. avatar Mark N. says:

          Seriously, Toten, a law is not unconstitutional until a court of competent jurisdiction declares it to be so. And although there is a certain argument in favor of construing constitutionality before a law takes effect, first it would be impractical, as it would take years for any law to take effect after legal challenges are exhausted, second there’re are not enough judges to accomplish the work, and third, courts are only empowered to decide actual disputes, not to issue opinions on hypothetical matters. So that just ain’t gonna happen.

          And not meaning to be condescending or anything, but what qualifies to opine that a particular piece of legislation, which I doubt you have read or analyzed, is unconstitutional? Are you a lawyer, a judge, a constitutional law scholar? You are of course entitled to an opinion, just like everyone else, but it is not you or me or probably most of the other readers of this blog who will make that call.

        5. avatar NS says:

          yeah, you dont know the definition of treason. I abhor gun control, but you dont get to call everything you dont like treasonous. comments like yours make our side look stupid and paranoid. its completely unproductive. with so many excellent pro gun arguments in our toolbox to win the debate, yours isnt one of them.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, by disarming the American public, he is providing aid and comfort to any force that would seek to invade the mainland USA. Remember why Yamamoto declined to draw up invasion plans for the mainland in 1942? Because “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”. By removing that protection, Obama is making this country easier to invade, which constitutes aid to our enemies, which constitutes high treason. Oh and deliberately violating the CotUS may not be treason, but it is insurrection.

        1. avatar csmallo says:

          Provide evidence that it was on Obama’s orders.

        2. avatar SkyMan77 says:

          Hey csmallo… The burden of proof is on you… Why don’t you prove Jesse wrong instead…

      3. avatar Pat says:

        NS, lighten up, Francis. Most people with half a brain want to off that jugg eared SOB. I dont, only because I dont want a martyr’s face on the coins in my pocket a few years later.

    2. avatar Watchmen lewis says:

      that my friend would be the correct thing to do in such situation

      and its not jut liberals

    3. avatar csmallo says:

      Disarming cops is one of the first steps toward a safer America.

      1. avatar Ben in UT says:

        My reply is to Totenglocke above; it wouldn’t let me post it in the proper place.

        In response to your question, no, I don’t think it’s okay. I believe that these laws are blatantly unconstitutional and think that laws absolutely need to be reviewed for constitutionality before even being considered.

        That being said, I work in a Republican congressional office and the people who call in lambasting the president for treason are the same ones saying he’s been groomed by the Bilderbergers and was born in Kenya.

        It just makes us all look uneducated and immature, which is silly. We have the facts and history on our side. We don’t need to misuse very specific legal terms like treason.

  2. avatar William Burke says:

    HOLD THE PHONE! You mean he gets to spike the ball on his own forty-yard line? Now THAT’S privilege….

    1. avatar bernard says:

      lucky for us, that means the ball is still in play.

  3. avatar gloomhound says:

    We are doomed. We are some of the last free men this country shall ever see. Weep for our children.

    1. avatar Human Being says:

      What, we’re all just going to roll over? We’re not going to fight, one way or the other, so long as we are the men we are?

      S’alright. We’ll be over here when your bout of despondency passes.

      1. avatar gloomhound says:

        I’m a realist and I think it will come to a fight and it will most likely be my blood running in the streets. Or considering where I live, dead in a ditch or burnt to death in the ruins of my home.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Then at least we will take some of the bastards with us. A fair trade I would think. Let them pay cash for their tyranny.

    2. avatar John Fritz says:

      This is how I feel too. The will of the people is irrelevant now.

      1. avatar Nobody says:

        Quite true. Even many “on our side” are really only on the side of votes to retain power. Sure, we’ll continue to fight, but we need men/women of character in high office to make our fight relevant.
        A sad reality.

    3. avatar Swarf says:

      We are doomed. We are some of the last free men this country shall ever see. Weep for our children.

      That’s Reagan in ’62 when he was ranting about Social Security, right?

      Good one.

      1. avatar gloomhound says:

        Reagan is cold, dead and in the ground, and they bulldozed his childhood home and turned it into a parking lot the other day.

        You are not living in Reagan’s America anymore.

        It’s as dead as he is.

    4. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      I cannot express adequately the depth of my contempt for the Americans who voted for Obama.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Don’t worry — I can.

  4. Why doesn’t he come here to Chicago and spike gun control football? We’ve had many of the same restrictions that CT just passed for 30+ years now. It’s working out so well that we’ve had over 80 dead (3+ Sandy Hooks) with an additional 300+ shot and wounded so far this year.

    Oh, that’s right… no one gives a rat’s @$$ about a bunch of dead, black, male gangbangers. They’re not exploitable.

    Illustrating Chicago’s Murders, Homicides, Violence and Idiocy at heyjackass.com

    1. avatar dwb says:

      or baltimurder

      +1

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      If they would just murder each other in peace everything would be alright.
      Want to bet that the gangs sent their minions down to Gold Coast to get the cops out their neighborhoods so they could continue business as usual.

      The only reason that The Machine gives a damn is that the bad publicity keeps conventions and tourists away. Everybody thinks Rahm is smart but his pushing the gun control meme has kept the city on the front pages of the nation’s media. If he would shut up about gun control nobody would notice all those murders. What a dumbass

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I have an incredibly serious question. There are something like two dozen law enforcement officers in the photo behind the President. Are all of them wearing their sidearms?

    There are some really interesting implications whether the answer is “yes” or “no”.

  6. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    This fool is never going to be another MLK, shouldn’t someone tell him? Randy

    1. avatar JR LORENCZ says:

      He’s not trying to be the next MLK. He wants to be the next FDR. He is the worst president we have ever had, with the possible exception of LBJ (Vietnam and the F%@$&*D society).

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Too bad he’s really trying to be the next AH.

  7. avatar Nate says:

    Why do people keep calling CT’s the toughest in the country? It’s only just come UP to what we in Massachusetts have to deal with, and have had to deal with for years now.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      As a fellow sufferer, I have to tell you that it’s going to get worse in the Commonwealth. There’s a race to the bottom going on, and I have faith in my soon to be former state to lead the way.

      1. avatar Dave says:

        One hears of this in MA:

        “Patrick has filed legislation that would, among other measures, restrict gun owners to purchasing one firearm a month; tighten access to high-powered rounds of ammunition; create four new types of firearms-related crimes; and mandate buyers to undergo background checks before purchasing weapons at gun shows.”

        “Restricting access to high-powered rounds of ammunition” sounds iffy and unclear, the rest is annoying, but kinda “normal” by MA standards. Put another way, not as loony as some stuff pending in CA, at least on the surface.

        But then, there is also this: “House Speaker Robert DeLeo recently formed an eight-member panel to study the state’s gun laws and make recommendations to the Legislature.” Hmm.

        Anything else to watch in the lovely State of MA this season?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          It’s not close to as bad as what they are proposing for us out here in California. How about a license (with background check) to qualify to purchase ammo, a .05 per round ammo tax, a complete ban on all semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines (internal mags only), in addition to our current registration for pistols, an impending registration for long gun purchases, mandatory registration of all assault weapons, a ten round mag limit we’ve had for years, a restricted supply of “safe” handguns, a proposed ban on military and hollow point ammo, a renewed assault on lead ammo, a ban on open carry except in permitted unincorporated areas, forests and national parks, a ban on concealed carry without a CCW (which you pretty much can’t get if you live in a high density urban area), a law on the books that will require microprinting of cartridges if the tech ever becomes available, a ban on .50s, machine guns and silencers, and and and….

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      It is ALL propaganda. The mass of idiots in this country who only listen to sound bites have no damn clue so they can say whatever they want.

      Critical thinking was lost a time ago and people listen to whatever the media tells them and if the media says it enough times, people believe it regardless of facts. People somehow have come to trust the media and many people mistaken believe their governments instead of challenging them.

      Gun control is a farce. Complacency is a decease that will kill us all.

  8. avatar 2nd Amendment Rules says:

    We have a saying in Tennessee:

    “You can have my gun, one bullet at a time”

    1. avatar Jay Dunn says:

      In Kentucky the question never even comes up so we don’t have any sayings.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Nor in the other K State.

  9. avatar Nazgul says:

    This legislation does nothing except punish the law-abiding gun owners of Connecticut. I don’t know which is worse; progressives that are naive to believe that gun prohibition works, or the progressives that know these laws don’t work but just want to disarm the public.

  10. avatar Accur81 says:

    The sad thing, among many, is that not a single one of these asinine laws will stop the next mass shooter. Then again, I would expect nothing less from a president with strong ties to Chicago.

  11. avatar raincrow says:

    Liberty,Liberty so sweet is her embrace,what have we become if we don’t protect her with all our might.

  12. avatar Silver says:

    I think there actually has to exist a Free World for there to be a Leader of it.

    If there was any justice in the world, Obama and every politician who supported these bills would be forgotten or villainized in history books, vanishing in disgrace in jail cells or obscurity. But, as I’m sure everyone here has learned by now, there is no justice left in the world.

    Perhaps, as my father says, my youth leads me to despair in every setback, itching for a fight for fear that the cogs of justice are too slow and uncertain. Faith is one of those things I didn’t know I had until I lost it completely. Can I be blamed for my lack of patience when every morning, I must wake up to more casual treason ripping apart what was once a free nation, and more supposed ‘countrymen’ proving themselves to be the useful idiots of tyranny? Is there anyone left here who doesn’t feel it in the air, the furthest line in the sand inevitably about to be crossed?

    I dunno. Call me an “internet commando” all you want, but I’ll say this. I’m afraid there will be real violent conflict. But I’m even more afraid that there will be none.

    1. avatar Nobody says:

      “I’m afraid there will be real violent conflict. But I’m even more afraid that there will be none.”
      In addition to everything else you said – This is the truth.

  13. avatar In Memphis says:

    “Invitation Only”

    I remember when “W” came through Connecticut and made a stop in my hometown (Westbrook) for a dinner at Waters Edge. Anyways they wanted a couple grand to be a part of that dinner amd I dont know how much extra for a pic with him.

    Westbrook, Connecticut… I grew up inowing Art Carney (The Honeymooners). Ive been to his house a few times and it never cost me a dime.

    No president diserves such a “VIP” treatment.

    1. avatar Nobody says:

      Yes, we’ve made celebrities out of “public servants” and that is a major part of our situation. When elected officials are insulated/afraid of the masses, we have a problem. If they are representatives, rather than rulers, why would they need to be concerned? Both parties are guilty of this, and it is wrong.

  14. avatar Shenandoah says:

    Solution:

    VT, NH, ME remove themselves from the Union and form a more perfect union amongst themselves.

    VA, NC, SC, GA and FL remove themselves from the Union and form a more perfect Union amongst themselves.

    AL, MS, TN, LA and AR remove themselves from the Union and form a more perfect union amongst themselves.

    ND, SD, MT, WY, ID remove themselves from the Union and form a more perfect union amongst themselves.

    TX, well, TX will be just fine.

    And so on and so forth.

    The current size and demographics of the current country do little to better the lives of the citizens and really offer little advantage. CA and NY residents clearly want to lead very different lives than those of us in free states, and I see no reason why we must force ourselves, on both ends of the freedom spectrum, to live within confines none of us are happy with.

    Small confederations of states are more than capable of ample defense, so the military argument is moot, in contrast to the state of the country in the decades following the revolution.

    Trade and commerce would continue amongst us, governments would be smaller and thus more responsive to the commands and concerns of the people, and the corruption we’re plagued with now would be much more transparent and preventable. No more DHS, DEA, ICE, EPA, and the rest of the gigantic, unwieldy and utterly inefficient bureaucracies.

    No more infringements upon our liberties by a government which believes we exist only to serve it.

    If only our governors and representatives would begin a dialogue with each other and explore the viability of these alternatives…

    ‘Tis but a dream.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      I live in Illinois but was born in Texas. Y’all will let me come back, right? Please?

      1. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

        You are a citizen of Texas, of course you can come back

      2. avatar SkyMan77 says:

        Post-Haste Jeff !!! Get yourself outta there…. 🙂

      1. avatar ChuckN says:

        I agree. We can start by putting a fence around states
        like Mass., CT and New York.

    2. avatar WLCE says:

      Be careful what you wish for, you painted a pretty realistic picture of the way things will become.

      Personally, Im down with the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming forming their republic. Maybe we can take Utah, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska with us.

      Form a close alliance with Texas and the Midwest then well have something good. Itll keep California and the northeast away.

  15. avatar alanhmn says:

    One of the problems I see is people saying they voted for Obama because they valued his stance on social issues…. I don’t get this. How can social issues trump constitutional issues? Without the latter you do not have the other. I learned a long time ago to value my constitutional rights over any social issues. Sadly in this day and age you cannot have both.

  16. avatar Coloradan says:

    This pos is disgusting.

  17. avatar flboots says:

    Look at the cops faces in the picture. They don’t look to happy being there.

    1. avatar Mamba says:

      They weren’t…many were there under duress, veiled and not so-veiled threats if they didn’t attend.

  18. avatar 2nd Amendment Rules says:

    Obama wants to be the next Castro!

    Notice that NOT ONE of those cops are armed!

  19. avatar 2nd Amendment Rules says:

    Mark N.:

    Since the right to bear arms is a RIGHT NO federal judge has the right to rule it out of existence! EVERY RULING ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WEAKENS IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

    Requiring a permit to carry a gun is no different then requiring a right to go to church or complain about the government on the internet.

    THEY ARE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ARE IN CONCRETE!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email