CT: Massive Non-Compliance with “Assault Weapons” and “Large Capacity Magazine” Registration?

(courtesy ct.gov)

“Gun owners in Connecticut registered about 50,000 assault rifles before the Jan. 1 deadline, state public safety officials reported Friday as they drew close to completing the task of processing reams of related paperwork,” ctnewsjunkie.com reports. “That rough estimate comes more than two weeks after the deadline to register banned rifles and ammunition magazines — steps required by last year’s gun control legislation passed in response to the Sandy Hook shooting.” Reader CTsheepdog wonders . . .

“How is that there were 50,000 rifles registered versus less than 40,000 LCM’s [large capacity magazines] declared? Second, how do we reconcile 50,000 rifles against an official state analyst group suggesting over 370,000 rifles back in April 2011? And the same report estimated well over 1 million LCMs in CT back in early 2011. [Click here to read.] Either the Department of Emergency and Public Protections initial hand-count estimate is off by a factor of 10X or more, OR there is MASSIVE noncompliance going on in CT right now.”

In either case, it’s only a matter of time before confiscation begins. Then what?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

185 Responses to CT: Massive Non-Compliance with “Assault Weapons” and “Large Capacity Magazine” Registration?

  1. avatarYoel Grauberg says:

    Fridays in the FEMA camps will be pizza day.

    • avatarJeremy S says:

      LOL. Casual prison pajama pizza party Fridays.

      I think CT residents had the option of registering their guns or getting rid of them — selling them to a dealer or moving them out of state, etc, or destroying them. I’m suuure the difference in estimates vs. actual just reflects everyone disposing of their gear.

      • avatarMatt P says:

        I’m highly doubtful anyone is disposing of any weapons or gear. They are just waiting for the movement to begin. Then we will see how many are really out there.

        • avatarSteve (CT) says:

          There are some. I’ve had one friend tell me he’s selling his evil guns for now until he moves out of state in a few years. I’ve read several others on the local CT boards saying that they just don’t want to deal with the hassle. Hard to guess what the % is though, probably in the low double digits.

          There’s also a lot of ignorance. Several people I asked prior to the deadline believed their firearms were already ‘registered’ due to paperwork filled out years prior when they purchased from a dealer.

        • I believe these weapons, and I know ‘their’ magazines are, merely sleeping peacefully under the stars of Orion and Sirius.I know of a fellow who is making garlands for the head out of his magazines. And another has told me if you store them shallow enough, after a time the guns and magazines give off a “lily’s fragrance rare” which the police dogs will never find.

      • avatarHerman Nelson says:

        No. They’ll sit around in pajamas, drinking hot cocoa, talking about obamacare. ;)

    • avatarPT Stud says:

      Spaghetti Tuesdays on Wedensday.

    • avatarJim Scrummy says:

      Don’t forget mystery meat taco Thursday’s!

    • avatarEver Vigilant says:

      Yoel,
      Now that’s funny……!

  2. avatarPaul says:

    Confiscation = War.

    • avatarCraig says:

      You have heard of the NY SAFE Act, right? I seem to have missed the war.

      • avatarHal J. says:

        There have also been confiscations in CA. No war.

        How ’bout that?

      • avatarDavis Thompson says:

        Very curious what the NY registration numbers will be. I’m guessing very low.

        • avatarnemsis says:

          Chicago passed a ordinance after losing McDonald and created the Chicago Firearms Permit that everyone had to get. Less than 9000 of 3 million residents got one

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        True, however I’d argue that’s because the states passing such laws seem to be primarily people who lack any sort of spine. The states populated with those with a backbone don’t pass such legislation.

        • avatarJeremy says:

          I’d say Colorado disproves that. The laws were passed, citizens got pissed, certain state legislators lost their jobs.

          Now if they can just manage to get the offending legislation repealed.

        • avatartheaton says:

          Since there was no war after the federal assault weapons ban in ’94, it follows from your logic that there is nobody with a spine left across the country. We just sat back happy in the fact that there was still beer in the fridge and sports on the television. We gave no aid of Randy Weaver, the Branch Davidian’s, or countless others that have been persecuted by the government. When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they never envisioned a country in which all the men had no courage!

          A couple of state legislators losing their job only to be replace the the same ilk is nothing in the face of the Tyranny upon us.

      • avatarBob4 says:

        Good people will exhaust all the non-violent approaches to fixing the government before considering taking up arms. It took over a decade from the implementation of the Stamp Act before the start of the revolution. The Colonists did have some early successes by protesting and negotiating. It wasn’t until there was a critical mass of the population who determined that no amount of protesting, negotiation, or voting was going to help them regain their rights. Although it may take a few years, we will win this fight, and personally, I bet it will be won at the ballot box.

  3. avatarFrank Masotti says:

    I live in WA so confiscation a bit off for me. However when it comes to thime, they ca have my guns when they take my bullets at about 2400 FPS. As for what they are doing in CT, good for them. There is no but, or or’s, or in case of’s in the second amendment.

  4. avatarjwm says:

    Nothing will happen if the confiscations go with no felony charges being filed against the hold outs. people are not going to rebel when they can still buy shotguns, rifles and handguns, just not assualt rifles.

    Assualt rifles are not the tipping point. Until you adversely affect soccer moms you’re not going to get a rebellion. Isolated incidents like Ruby ridge, Waco and the Huttaree militia are not enough to push mainstream folks over the edge.

    • avatarRad Man says:

      I disagree. The notion of confiscating personal property without compensation is an underlying theme here too, not just the “assault weapon” part. If there’s currently massive noncompliance with the registration scheme don’t expect silky smooth, resistance-free confiscation to follow.

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      i don’t think any state is stupid enough to do an all out confiscation (yet). the slave states will follow their role model (ca) and start making putting restriction after restriction. ca will have successfully stopped the legal sale of new handguns in a maximum of 5 years unless something changes soon. i would say that affects the soccer moms.

      i do agree that there will be no armed rebellions as long as people are still falsely convinced that they have a government somewhat respecting the 2a.

      • avatarJohn in Ohio says:

        falsely convinced that they have a government somewhat respecting the 2a

        True. Part of that is the idea that government doesn’t have to confiscate initially as long as it (partial enumeration follows): 1) develops lists of gun owners and potential gun owners through concealed carry licenses/permits, gun ownership permits, and other registration 2) has strong domestic spying and data mining coupled with intensive data correlation capabilities (NSA, etc could even collect this by spying on NICS checks & correlating data from other sources.) 3) control of the compulsory education system 4) a public that accepts ever increasing gun control making ever greater numbers disqualified to keep and bear arms under law 5) unconstitutional judicial review. With these things in government’s favor, among possibly other factors, it can always attempt confiscation when the moment is optimal.

        Selling the People the idea that the privilege of government licensed carry is equivalent to exercising the individual right to keep and bear arms was brilliant if government intentionally originated the idea. Generally, I don’t give government that much credit for competence so, sadly, I fear we’ve done that part to ourselves.

        • avatarMike says:

          John, the problem is that people fail to understand the actuality that, in the Constitutional context, rights and privileges are the exact same thing. They are not different. In point you to the 14th – privileges and immunities. THAT is “rights” described in both the positive and the negative – iow, what Citizens can do and what government cannot do to us because we do. Rights and privileges are synonyms. It’s a huge LIE to claim privileges means government allowance.

          If we had a presidential election where the 14th was the focus by a liberty minded candidate – the democrat party would go the way of the Whigs and the GOPe would go hide under the rock from whence they came.

          Telling the TRUTH about the 14th and how it came to be would rock the political establishment to its core. Indeed it would implode the corruption we witness today in upon itself forcing critical mass detonation.

          We must ignore all the distractions – from abortion to guns and from foreign aid to gay marriage. We must focus on the 14th. THATS what the political elite FEAR the most.

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          “If we had a presidential election where the 14th was the focus by a liberty minded candidate – the democrat party would go the way of the Whigs and the GOPe would go hide under the rock from whence they came.”

          Here I am! http://rich_grise.tripod.com

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Do you have your acceptance speech ready?

      • avatarJonathan -- Houston says:

        It’s not just whether the government is at least superficially respecting the 2A. It’s whether the government is no longer respecting the elections. People, including many in here, put up with this stuff or write it off as “well, that’s the government they {fill in pathetic slave state of your choice, here} voted for. As long as that’s actually true, then this will continue unabated. Once the people lose confidence in the underlying apparatus of the government, namely that it is replaceable through elections, even if only with fresh faced scoundrels, then it’s probably on.

        When does that happen? I’m not sure, but I’d expect it coincides with whichever President jumps in the water first and refuses to let go of power. After all, who wants to lay all the groundwork, only to have one’s successor come in and reap all the statist rewards? We’ll see what happens next year when the expected GOP takeover of Congress comes to pass and Obama is relegated to lame duck status. If this election doesn’t yield a GOP Congress, or worse, the Republicans “lose’ the House, people will start to suspect that the fix is in. Tick tock, tick tock………..

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          “When does that happen? I’m not sure, but I’d expect it coincides with whichever President jumps in the water first and refuses to let go of power.”

          Hmmm. I think I know the guy!

        • avatartheaton says:

          Far to many people are under the impression that there is a difference between the Ds and the Rs. This gives people the false sense that elections are still valid. The government has grown in size under both Ds and Rs for decades. Both the Ds and Rs have taken our rights away. The Patriot Act was originated under an R, passed by Ds and continued under Rs and Ds. Same for the NDAA. As long as they have us convinced that this one party system is two parties, we will do nothing. We’ll watch as the march in our doors and seize our property. Oh sure, there will be a few isolated instances of resistance but in the end, we the people lack the courage of those that came before. We will not pledge our lives, fortunes and sacred honor. Hell, half the voting age population can’t even be bothered to go to the polls one day every two years. Even more stay home when it’s not a Presidential election.

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          That’s why it’s important to elect a complete outsider – me! http://rich_grise.tripod.com

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          +10,000. A coin has a head and a tail, but it’s still one coin.

    • avatarTroutbum5 says:

      The most likely trigger, I believe, would be some sort of heavy handed response to a civil disobedience. For instance, if it got out of hand like Kent State. Though that was a result of poor training and discipline, and some jackass tossing firecrackers. Today’s NG is a far cry from that. I don’t believe National Guard troops would just open fire on US citizens, but if they started taking fire, they might well shoot back in self defense (which is the only way I believe they would fire on civilians). In that case, the stuff will hit the fan, and God help us all.

      I was relieved when Kokesh’s armed march into DC was cancelled. That was a powder keg waiting to happen.

      • avatarC says:

        National guard may not, but some dipshit LEO sure would.

        • avatarTroutbum5 says:

          Much more likely I think. DHS has done a fair amount of training for civil disobedience, including an exercise with a zombie theme. Anyone doubt that was a poor attempt to disguise training to squash an uprising? Given the number of rounds they apparently use for practice, and the specific nature of their training, they worry me a bit. I can’t think of any reason for a law enforcement arm of DHS than to put down any sort of uprising.

          We probably don’t need to worry unless hey change the direction of the barbed wire on the fence around Denver International Airport. Just thought I would mention that just for the tin foil hat crowd. If you have never heard of that conspiracy theory, google it. It’s one of the more amusing ones.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          DHS is deeply troubling to me. Some of the people I’ve encountered there should be institutionalized.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          I’m okay with those odds. You?

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        It will probably happen anyway, and probably this year. The Big Pushback is coming; no matter if it gives you butterflies. You’ll have a decision to make. Where will you stand – shoulder-to-shoulder with liberty-loving Americans, or at home in your Safe Room?

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      Not so fast. Ruby ridge, Waco and the Huttaree militia happened before the ubiquity of the Interwebz. Things are different now. People? I don’t know…

      • avatarKen Vossen says:

        You’re right, things have changed. But people have changed too. As I recall, there wasn’t much of a Liberty Movement back then, at least compared to now. Many people who initially supported the government’s raid in Waco have since radically changed their minds. I know, because I’m one of them! (Gosh, sometimes I just wish I could go back in time and kick my former self’s butt!)

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          “go back in time and kick my former self’s butt!”

          No, ,no! Go back and forgive your past self because he was misinformed.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Since “former self” is a slippery concept in the first place, there is nothing to forgive.

    • avatarMarine 03 says:

      Our first revolution was over a tax on tea.

      • avatar2brknot2b says:

        The Revolutionary War was sparked by General Gage trying to confiscate weapons.

        • avatarCTsheepdog says:

          Excellent article on British gun control and the Revolution here:

          http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          You mean THE HISTORY BOOKS LIED? (faints)

          If they would lie about this or anything else, they are unfit to believe on ANY matter. Everybody, even me, falls into this mind-trap. Though you caught them lying for the 100,000th time (conservatively), you still want to consider them truthful when their beliefs seem to back up yours.

          If you can’t read/watch them with a jaundiced and experienced eye, you are better off not reading or watching them.

      • avatarKen Vossen says:

        Well, read the Declaration of Independence sometime. It was about a whole lot more than taxation! In fact, taxation just gets one brief mention. But 2brknot2b is right, the actual trigger was an attempted confiscation of guns and ammo.

  5. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    Wonder how many cops are gonna be willing to take a bullet for some bullshit and stupid rule?

    • avatarSomeOneInWA says:

      I wonder how many people are willing to put a bullet downrange for the same bullshit.

      • avatarGuy says:

        Probably fewer than you’d think. Federal agents and contractors, however…

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Not if they’re not getting paid, they aren’t. This is one area where the coming economic collapse (and, I assure you, it’s “when”, not “if”) may actually work in our favor.

      • avatarDirk Diggler says:

        No knock warrants showing up for mass confiscation. Yeah, I am willing when someone kicks in my door unannounced at 4 am.

        • avatarSwarf says:

          I don’t live my life in fear, but damn if this isn’t one that I seriously worry about. Not the confiscation issue (because I a: live in WA, and b: don’t own or have any interest in owning an SBR. I think they are boring as hell), the “oops, wrong address” scenario.

          Not to mention the fact that any asshole can yell “police!” as they bust in your door.

          How do I know you’re the cops and not a slightly clever home invasion gang?

          I guess I don’t until I get shot to death by the swarm after I shoot a cop in the armor.

          My dying words will be “Oh, it’s the good guys.”

        • avatarTom in Oregon says:

          And it may only take one time, before they stop and think. The next time, it could be them on the receiving end of a very self-protecting home owner.

        • avatarJohn in Ohio says:

          My dying words will be “Oh, it’s the good guys.”

          Yikes! That reminded me of the ending to 1984. O_o

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          I don’t think they’ll do it that way, at least not in the beginning. They’ll get a warrant (or fake one), and pick up citizens when they’re downtown. Or at least gone somewhere other than home. Then, with citizens in custody, they will search homes and do the confiscation dance.

          We need a way to properly respond to this when the day comes. I’m not sure at this point what that response should be.

          But we need to realize it’s the most likely scenario, and work from that assumption.

        • avatarHazzard Bagg says:

          Heading out on their second foray to confiscate weapons, the British were sent packing into Boston after Concord Bridge by the swarming of enraged armed citizens. When they tried to march back out at Breed’s Hill they received their worst pasting of the war. Nowadays Paul Revere has an iPhone.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          “Nowadays Paul Revere has an iPhone.”
          ;) This is apropos, as Obamba just compared NSA spying to Paul Revere in a speech! :/

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          “This is apropos, as Obamba just compared NSA spying to Paul Revere in a speech! ”

          That’s freakin’ eerie, man:
          http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

        • avatarKen Vossen says:

          My dying words will be “Oh, it’s the good guys.”

          There’s irony for you. Gosh, I never thought I’d live in a country where we have to fear the “good guys” as much as the bad guys, but it looks like we’re heading in that direction. God help America!

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          “God help America!”

          She’s giving it Her best shot – She sent Me!

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          DAMMIT, Rich, this has degenerated into craven spamming. BUY AN EFFING AD HERE or STOP!

    • avatarBob says:

      They think it’s a slim chance. For one, they will only go after one citizen at a time and they’ll use overwhelming force with SWAT team’s, Bearcat’s and fully automatic rifles.

  6. avatarKingSarc48265 says:

    Obviously its the massive spike in aquatic disasters.

    • avatarJohn L. says:

      “How is that there were 50,000 rifles registered versus less than 40,000 LCM’s [large capacity magazines] declared? Second, how do we reconcile 50,000 rifles against an official state analyst group suggesting over 370,000 rifles back in April 2011? And the same report estimated well over 1 million LCMs in CT back in early 2011.”

      Lot of trajic boating accidents up that way, or so I hear … Dang, ya beat me to it. :-)

      • avatar505markf says:

        I’d go so far as to suggest there have been so many boating disasters that you could wade across the Connecticut River in several places.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        I refuse to believe that, when Confiscation Day arrives, most gun owners will have most of their guns stowed in a safe place, hidden, or in another location.

        It just ain’t gonna happen. Stop pretending that it will.

    • avatarSwarf says:

      Goddamn Polar Vortex swept ‘em all up! It was the strangest thing you ever saw!

    • avatarMarcus says:

      Nice. Nice.

  7. avatarST says:

    I doubt they’ll go down the path of direct confiscation. Too much political risk, as even a blind statist realizes a SWAT unit could kick down their door just as easily as the despised NRA gun nut in Unit 1408.

    Nope, what begins now is the ‘Detective Phase”. CT is likely going to follow California’s lead and establish a branch of “gun cops”, whose only job will be tracking down unregistered hardware. They’ll roam the ranges and streets of CT looking for people with unregistered gear-again much like how CA LEOs harass gun owners on occasion.

    For some folks in CT who civilly disobeyed, they should keep a jaundiced eye on their mailbox for a nastygram and an attorney on retainer.

    • avatarAvid Reader says:

      Plus there will soon be an anonymous tip line for citizens to call and report suspected anti-socials who may be harboring scary black rifles.

    • avatarA-Rod says:

      Ummmm No, cops on gun ranges looking to ask questions to people armed and fully loaded would be a bad idea for any cop. They will have a soy inside to warn those on the outside who to pull over once they leave the range. You can bet they will be sneaky about how they pull people over. Just leaving a gun range will be suspicion and they will follow you until you go 1 mile over the speed limit then the blue lights come on.

      • avatarST says:

        Except, again, that’s what’s happened in California on several occasions.

        Cop walks up to a shooter and goes “hey bud, nice Glock.Got a registration # for that magazine? Oh it’s at home.Riiight.

        ‘Dispatch, I need a confirmation check on a registered magazine for Jon D Shooter……….right, no match found.’

        You have the right to remain silent, etc……..

    • avatarSwarf says:

      They’ll roam the ranges and streets of CT looking for people with unregistered gear

      Der papers, please!

    • avatarEric says:

      “I doubt they’ll go down the path of direct confiscation. Too much political risk, as even a blind statist realizes a SWAT unit could kick down their door just as easily as the despised NRA gun nut in Unit 1408.”

      That gets weighed against the political risk of allowing citizens to remain armed and believing in self-determination. They can see the ability to control people by fiat pen-stroke from where they are now. The only thing keeping them from that level of free exercise of power is the consideration of all those people who might feel they can say “no” and not necessarily be pushed out of the way.

      Think how much harder they could press on citizen harassment, IRS persecution, and lifestyle-criminalization if they didn’t have to worry about their police balking or the private citizens standing up for their rights.

      Further, they will continue to dehumanize anyone who opposes the agenda. It’s already socially acceptable to communicate that a rifle-owner is a sub-intelligent, uncivilized, dangerously-savage “redneck” (or other pejorative) who could at any moment begin growling and shoot someone at random. The police *must* go to great lengths to protect the populace from such a domestic threat, musn’t they?

      • avatarJohn in Ohio says:

        The last paragraph is especially spot on. We even have gun owners ridiculing other gun owners who open carry. Among other insulting labels, they throw around things equivalent to sub-intelligent, uncivilized, dangerously-savage “redneck” (or other pejorative) when describing those who choose to exercise their actual right to keep and bear arms. When even our own do it, how much more-so would antis and government believe that it’s perfectly acceptable to do so?

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          That needed to be said. And I’m not surprised you were the one to say it.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          “When even our own do it, how much more-so would antis and government believe that it’s perfectly acceptable to do so?”

          Don’t know how to break this to you, but they already do.

        • avatarJohn in Ohio says:

          @Jus Bill: Annnnnnd your point is? The finger was pointing at our own, not them. ;)

    • avatarBob says:

      The effect of these laws is to make people think twice about buying their first gun. The politicians know this and is a large part of their motivation.

    • avatarPhilWilson says:

      Agree. Some people may be shaken down at ranges or elsewhere, but they’ll probably threaten other action first (letters threatening increasingly stiff fines, escalating to court summons on firearm charges, etc.). That would yield a good number of turned in guns. Confiscation comes later.

  8. avatarMurray says:

    we are years ahead of you down this path in the UK, you really dont want to follow our example

    • avatarDave the dude says:

      My sympathies brother. US POTG fully realize this fact. Sorry about that thing in 1776, all is (mostly) forgiven. Just a reminder that (some of) us Yanks still have a tenacious patriotic drive within. I am sworn to uphold and defend our constitution, and that I shall do.

      Cheers

    • avatarJohn in Ohio says:

      Thank you for posting that comment. IMHO, we need many of our UK brothers and sisters to remind our people often of what awaits us should we continue to ‘engage in *cough* reasonable *cough* compromise’ on our RKBA.

  9. avatarSkyler says:

    They will find a particularly stupid but determined hold out and they will make an example of him. They will kill him very publicly and gruesomely after making him look very unreasonable. Then they will start telling the less vocal or ardent holdouts they they have been identified and they will need to comply. After watching the first man and probably his family get executed these newly identified holdouts will immediately surrender and the public will now accept the law. Terrorism works.

    • avatarRalph says:

      I fear that you are absolutely correct, Skyler. OTOH, Ruby Ridge radicalized me and a lot of other people. While the siege ended badly for the Weaver family, it was a turning point in 2A activism and a stark reminder that government is not to be trusted.

    • avatarJohn in Ohio says:

      This assumes that it hasn’t been done already and that the disinformation wasn’t a complete success. ;)

      Most of us probably wouldn’t know the real facts if the situation did or does happen. But, I do agree with you.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      +1000. A very reasonable scenario. God help us. While we help ourselves, of course…

  10. avatarwu chang says:

    +1 to Skyler

    Ancient Chinese proverb
    Kill one man to terrorize a thousand

    • avatarSantander says:

      …and while we are on Chinese proverbs:

      千军易得一将难求
      “Easy to find a thousand soldiers, [but] hard to find one good general.”

      一人拼命万夫莫当
      “If one man is ready to risk his life, ten thousand men cannot defeat him.”

  11. avatarBuzzlefutt says:

    I recall a study about crosswalks and drivers’ constant disobedience about yielding to pedestrians (bear with me, I’ll tie this with the article). Drivers had a high frequency of not yielding to pedestrians even when they risked hitting a pedestrian actively using the crosswalk. The law, in Illinois, requires them to stop.
    The conclusion was that if people did not see the morality of the law, they were unlikely to obey the law.

    Connecticut’s new law is likely to have a great wealth of critics that fail to see morality in obeying the law, so a low turn out in compliance is not surprising.

  12. avatar505markf says:

    If, in fact, there are actually > 300,000 incidents of disobedience, there is very little the state can do. It would swamp the entire police and judicial systems in CT. If the number is < 10,000? That may be something they'd start with. We already know the state maintains sales records for these firearms, so directly comparing that with registration lists defines the master set of people who potentially disobeyed.

    I would expect the state cops in CT to prioritize the list to people who have purchased multiple currently-banned firearms and to then go through the SWAT storming, confiscation, and charging route. Sort of do it as a trial balloon to see how it plays out. If the people they go after are, for want of a word, backwoods, mobile home occupants, and it's a few per week, I don't think people in CT are going to care much. Once they start SWATing "upstanding" citizens like business owners, doctors, and lawyers, it will get much more interesting.

    • avatarint19h says:

      Thing is, once the SWATing starts, many of that 300,000 may reconsider also. If it turns out that having you on the record as a purchaser of an “assault weapon” but not on the current register is sufficient cause for a no-knock warrant, well…

      So after a few well-publicized cases, they’d just have to declare “amnesty” when you can come and turn in your guns without being charged. And a lot of people will.

  13. avatarDaleND says:

    If CT authorities had difficulty registering 50,000 firearms and 40,000 magazines, there would have been chaos if a majority decided to register. Was CT incompetent? Or were they “unprepared” on purpose? Now they can remove guns/mags from the state via prosecution, or hope some will move them out of state to avoid prosecution. This is just speculation, but nothing I’ve seen so far suggests the grabbers play fair.

  14. avatarDefens says:

    Folks keep pointing to the California model of confiscations – but keep in mind the massive non-compliance with Roberti-Roos in that state as well. There are tens of thousands of unregistered firearms in the state and they know it, and with the SKS debacle as an example, the politicians know full well that any other paths of registration will also see significant non-compliance.

    • avatarIdahoPete says:

      Bingo – I was in the PRCa in 1991 when they passed the AWB, and they got less than 10% of the estimated “assault weapons” registered. Probably several hundred thousand simply “disappeared”. Most people tucked them away in places that would take a thorough search to find, and kept their mouths shut about where they had them. Some people were able to avoid the law by removing the “flash hider” from the rifle, or changing from a folding stock to a fixed stock. Most people just engaged in massive civil disobedience. No one that I know, of course …

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        Your post raises an interesting and important question: with so many guns to confiscate, spread out all over a state, how much time will they be able to devote to a weapons search at each home?

        It can’t be a lot. 30 minutes? Less?

  15. avatarPhil says:

    Come to free Texas.

  16. avatarTom in Oregon says:

    OK, I have to comment on the photo lead-in to this article.
    The building housing the “department of emergency services and public protection” sure resembles a castle.
    Like in England. As in what the king lived in a scant 230 odd years ago?
    No wonder the people in CT are in non-compliance.

  17. avatarRobert Seddon says:

    Hark back to 1775, It was a decision made by a WHOLE populace. Today, we have the main stream media and a government that is dividing us up .. ie divide and conquer.

    It is up to US to train our children well, continue to give every spare dollar we have to the NRA and NAGR type organizations, and go from there.

    It will likely be a band of brothers in some oddball place that will kick it off, after 40 states fold up like a fart in a tornado.

    In Tiananmen Square , a single man stopped a tank, because the operators of the tank didn’t really want to kill their own countrymen for no real reason. Hopefully the same may have hope to happen here.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      You neglected to mention that post-Tienanmen the jails are full. Watch CCTV and the like closely. Xie and the CPC are worried about revolts…

    • avatarTroutbum5 says:

      Robert, based on many conversations I’ve had with other service members, and the results of a poll at Camp Pendelton in 1994, I am virtually certain that the US military will not fire on civilians, for the very reason the Chinese tank didn’t fire.

      My gut says that if the Feds get heavy handed and bloody, there will be what amounts to a military coup, with the executive leadership removed at bayonet point (yes, Mr. O, we still have those, and horses) and hauled before Congress for impeachment and trial.

      Yes, I have thought about this a lot. I have been trying to work up a good plot for a novel for years. At the rate things are going, it might end up being a non-fiction historical work.

      • avatarDJ says:

        The military would split into factions. Similar to the first civil war.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          With the larger/largest faction on our side, pretty sure.

        • avatarTroutbum5 says:

          Perhaps to an extent. But the vast majority of the military is conservative, and most own firearms. There will be some who blindly follow orders, and a few officers who will play ball, but I just don’t see AC-130s or M1s cutting loose on civilians. The oath states “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” As I said before, I don’t think the military would tolerate such orders, and would remove the domestic enemy.

      • avatarBob4 says:

        Personally, I doubt Obama would risk using the military. He may be a tyrant, but he is not dumb. He has been building up an “army” within the DHS and FEMA. In a round about way, Hitler did the same thing. It took Hitler some time to get the support of his military when he took control. Instead, he used the Nazi SA and SS to silence opposition, and seize absolute control of the populace.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      1775 was a product of “the whole population”??? What ever gave you that idea? In fact the revolutionaries were always a minority; but the loyalists were not much up to fighting about it, leaving the war to the military to prosecute. Their mistake.

  18. avatarSixpack70 says:

    CT must have some for profit jails that aren’t over 100% capacity yet.

  19. avatarTaylor Tx says:

    So for my ODWG quote for the day :

    “It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” -Samuel Adams

  20. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    Just remember that programs usually go through a testing phase. Kinda like the obamacare website thingy. If it don’t work so well, they change it. They tinker with it. It gets better with each new day.

    Point being, CT represents a trial. First one out of the gates. By the time they get to Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota etc. they will have it all down pat. As Patton said in the movie, they will “go thru them like crap thru a goose”.

    • avatarIdahoPete says:

      I thought California was the “leader of the nation” on gun ban trials. The lack of compliance with the PRCa 1991 AWB, and now the CT one, would seem to indicate that they are still not quite ready for prime time in “flyover country”.

  21. avatarAdub says:

    Crappy states will do crappy things, but I doubt it will ever go nationwide. Besides, there are more gun owners than police officers, and more retired veterans than national guardsmen. We will not be herded into boxcars.

  22. avatarColdNorth says:

    Up here in Canada, when the long gun registry was instituted, sales of pvc pipes, end caps and cosmoline went way up. When the long gun registry was abolished, suddenly all sorts of rifles just magically sort of appeared again.

    It took a long time for the forces up here to organize to make changes. It will take a similarly long time and effort in CT, but if we can do it, you can do it, too.

  23. avatarMichael says:

    I bought my Colt Match Target (AR15) in CT many years ago, before I headed south. It came with two 8 round magazines. So maybe most of the AR owners just have 10 round magazine, honest officer.
    Personally if I still lived there I would register 100 magazines and continue to buy them out of state.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      And when they catch you with you illegal mags, say at the firing range one day. they will charge you, prosecute you, and convict you of a felony for each magazine; and then they will come for the rest of your firearms, because you will be a prohibited person.

  24. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    Looks to me as if a lot of Nutmeggers decided to become instant criminals rather than comply with such despotic lawmaking.

    “The Constitution State”. What a laugh.

  25. avatarDon says:

    After the bans in UK and AUS, only a minority percentage of the estimated firearms which existed in both places were surrendered. All in all that would make such bans a “failure”.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      But neither tried massive, house-to-house confiscation, right? I suspect we’re going to get some data on how that works, before too long. Hope I’m wrong.

      • avatarSouthern Cross says:

        Downunder the Australian Military has a long tradition of acts that in other countries would be regarded as out-and-out mutiny, especially in moral or ethical matters.

        When the army were asked if they would participate in house-to-house searches and seizures of firearms, the army representative responded with “If you order that we will turn and march on Parliament House. For such an order to be given, Australia is no longer the country we swore to uphold and defend, and certainly not the country our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for.”

        Deafening silence ensued.

        I’ll bet they are the token registrations. And sales of plumbing supplies, especially PVC piping and end-caps, had a sudden increase over the last six months.

        But Waco and Ruby Ridge have shown that making an example can be a public relations disaster, so they will get sneaky. Previously mentioned traffic stops are one method. Reports of “domestic violence” will be another. Changing the culture through demonizing gun owners. A dob-in-a-gun-owner hotline to imply that gun ownership is illegal. The agents of state terror know the best methods are quiet methods. An arrest here and another there, with no mention in the media, and a closed-door trial. Any mention will be a brief line after sentencing.

  26. avatarDave s says:

    Kent State is a good analogy, tho it wasn’t meant as one:
    when you push armed folks up against a wall, (or chain link fence,)
    someone’s gonna get hurt.

  27. avatartdiinva says:

    This is time for offensive action and I don’t shooting. The non-compliant gun owners need to begin mass protest openly displaying their banned weapons and magazines. They need to directly challenge the authorities. This is what Martin Luther King would do. The state will not act and once they are shown to be impotent then the edifice of gun control will collapse.

    • avatarJohn in Ohio says:

      Mass civil disobedience is what’s needed right now and I agree that the gun control push would crumble in short order.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      ” The state will not act and once they are shown to be impotent then the edifice of gun control will collapse.”

      Hmm. I’m not so sure they could afford to NOT make a big show of force. I don’t see them backing down. If they did, the Impeachment Brigade would go after them, one by one, since they’ve shown weakness in the face of strength!

      • avatartdiinva says:

        You are actually right they would need a big show of force but while most of police would not disobey orders when there are dealing with ones and twos there will be a mass revolt if they have to go after thousands and that is what mass civil disobedience will require. Even if the police leadership wants to go after the thousands they know that they cannot risk splitting the force. In the end they will be forced to keep the police in their barracks so to speak. If the police have to use force they won’t be going after thugs. They will be targeting doctors, lawyers, teachers and regular working stiffs. It won’t sit well with general public.

      • avatarRaulYbarra says:

        That is why it would have to be a *mass* CD. This wouldn’t be a police action in response if there were several thousand protesters. The governor would have to either back down or call in the national guard.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      Whatever you are smoking, it must be pretty potent. While the police may not many people, or even any people, those people have to go to their cars to go home, cars whose license plates have been recorded while the owners attended the rally. Split up into small groups, they will be easy pickings. And then there will be all the photographers there, taking pictures so that the authorities can scoop up the rest of the protesters holding illegal weapons at their convenience. How do you think so many Vietnam War protesters ended up with FBI files? And today, data gathering is far superior.

      Toke up some more, and let us know when you reach that gun utopia of which you dream.

  28. avatarMediocrates says:

    Yup. As soon as confiscation starts, we’ll learn the real number.

  29. So many tragic boating accidents…

  30. avatarniceguns says:

    Our forefathers would have been shooting by now. Maybe they had nothing to lose and maybe we have to much to lose, But soon were all gonna lose it all anyway, You think the housing bubble was an accident?

  31. avatarPat says:

    Confiscation? Then, knock knock, oink oink, bang bang. Dead bacon.

  32. avatarCTsheepdog says:

    The questions above in the original post were raised by me. After discussing with friends, gun club members and two local LEOs, I can offer the following:

    - I have met no one who has admitted in public that they have intentionally NOT registered/declared what they have in CT = no one has admitted nor bragged about non-compliance to me.

    - I do know more than a few people who have moved some of their stuff out of state but not to many who would have suggested they have moved all or most of their stuff out of CT.

    - Personally, I have moved a number of 10+ round pistol mags given the limitations on grandfathered LCMs and I have bought two 10-round mags for each carry pistol so as to never have an issue of a LCM as the second mag carried.

    - I know NO ONE who has admitted selling anything prior to Dec 31st to avoid having to register/declare.

    - I have been told by two LEOs in two CT towns that they know “many” and “more than a few” officers who have not registered/declared their personal weapons nor mags. The thinking among this group is that they are exempt and do not need to, even if the rifles involved are never used on duty.

    - Some of us are beginning to question whether the 2011 OLR report with the estimates of 370,000 LCM-capable rifles and 2.4mm or more LMCs was correct. In 2011, the state’s largest anti-gun group was trying to get LCMs banned and their friends in Hartford ordered up that report. Maybe it was spiked to show higher numbers.

    In the end, the number of LCMs being lower than the number of “assault weapons” is just crazy. Forgetting pistol mags for a moment, I would guess, 3-4 10+ round rifle mags per rifle which would suggest 150-200,000 mags.

    Something is wrong in the Constitution State.

    • avatarSteve (CT) says:

      My thought is that the 40k number represents the number of declarations that were submitted, not the total number of magazines listed on them. I think its fairly easy for them to count the # of pages, but until they’ve entered them all into the database (which is far from done) they won’t know the total number of magazines declared. Multiple magazines are registered per page while each AW had its own page.

      • avatarCTsheepdog says:

        Steve – That they are counting people and not items is certainly possible and if that is the case, than ever the publication that first wrote the article or the state official offering the info mischaracterized it. The reason I think that possible is that people is what was reported in a different article at year-end referencing the count as of Christmas:

        http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Gun-Owners-Race-to-Meet-Registration-Deadline-237957271.html

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          “than ever the publication that first wrote the article or the state official offering the info mischaracterized it. The reason I think that possible is that people is what was reported in a different article at year-end referencing the count as of Christmas:”

          WHAAAT? I’m sorry, but that’s gibberish.

        • avatarCTsheepdog says:

          The article written at year-end referencing the count as of Christmas week was about the number of people who had submitted registration forms and declarations. If one person handed in a aw registration with 5 black rifles and one threaded barrel pistol on it, the person counted as 1 individual in the ~35,000 reported then (not 6 items). If that same person submitted a mag declaration form listing 20 30-round PMAGs and 6 15-round mags for a threaded barrel P226, that form also counts as 1 individual. Clear so far?

          If the information being reported is really about the number of people submitting forms, and not the actual number of rifles nor mags, then 50,000 PEOPLE submitting AW registration forms does not sound incredible. That would suggest that ~15,000 submitted forms since the time of the preliminary count of 35,000 persons who Malloy discussed at year-end. Same for the number of individuals declaring mags, not the actual number of mags. Clear?

          So my point, not well articulated before coffee is that, if both counts indeed apply to the number of filers and not the number of items registered, then somewhere there has been a huge communication breakdown. In this case, either the person at DESPP who provided the recent data did not report it correctly (items instead of people) OR, the reporter receiving the people count misconstrued it as an item count.

          Sorry about the confusion but I am wondering whether this is a case of confusing apples and oranges?

  33. avatarlisalake says:

    Yeah…. right. And then there’s this. The “numbers” given by the “state” were always planned to be fraudulent.

  34. avatarCT resident says:

    The State Police spokesman already said they were going back to see who purchased what and comparing them to the registrations . This is much safer than fighting real crime in the inner cities of Connecticut. It’s much easier to demonize law abiding citizens who have never broken any laws then real criminals who do it every day . What I want to know is when this disaster is declared unconstitutional under the Connecticut and US Constitution , when will the State Police (who even retired are exempt from it ) will destroy all these records .

  35. avatarMark says:

    This law needs to be ignored. Jury nullification should be the order of the day should the statists charge anyone with a violation of this “law”.

  36. avatarMatt says:

    I do not believe for a minute the DESPP is done going through registration paperwork in only two weeks.

    What I really want to know is the true cost of this is when everything is said and done. The paperwork, the records checking, the extra staff, the overtime, the enforcement, the printing of certificates, the postage, etc etc.

  37. avatardona says:

    there is reason to believe that the students at kent state were infiltrated by communist plants, and that it was one of these that intentionally set off the fireworks, knowing what that would cause. we must beware of similar infiltrators if any demonstration following SWAT tactics or even carry rallies.

    there are already many cases of confiscation nationwide without legislation or new registration. any media coverage includes marginalizing or vilifying the victim. in one case a gun collector was stopped on his way home, with no chance to take a stand or defend himself or his possessions. that will be how they will do it. use NSA data to identify likely targets and eliminate any chance to take a stand. then with the vilification, other owners neglect to band together in response. there are many, many of these cases already, even some in texas and other places you’d never think it could happen. other ways, of course, is the profiling of veterans as ticking time bombs, etc. most anyone can be made to appear to be rightfully disarmed. it’s easy to say you’d take a stand if they showed up at your door, but what purpose does it serve to martyr yourself if the powers that be and the media will make sure your case is not seen as defendable, or the one to stand behind?

  38. avatarMarine 03 says:

    We can know simply by the nature of how time unfolds that some colonialist was the first person to say, “Couldn’t we just start shooting the British?” I wonder what response he got and how long before the masses were ready to actually start shooting the British? He was probably told not to say such a thing about the government. He was probably viewed as extreme. He was probably considered dangerous. A bad citizen. Violent. Etc, etc, etc……but someone had to be the first person to say, “Let’s just shoot them!” And history has proven he was the man who was most gifted in foresight. (P.S. – Hi NSA, I know you monitor every post on TTAG because I’m smart. Happy reading.)

  39. avatarGhost says:

    Un-Constitutional laws are null and void.

    Defy these edicts. Civil disobedience. HIgh cap mags already being mailed to CT Gov and tyrants elsewhere in “Toys for Totalitarians” campaign by Consittutional militia. Why not make phony cut outs of high cap mags with steel/rubber or take some air soft guns with orange tip off and taunt these traitors, placing them in city hall, at tyrant’s homes, etc. Resist, defy, with a sh*t eatin grin.

    Your enemy are the tyrants, the enablers, their aides.

    Thugs behind tin stars they’ll keep sending out. Focus on that tiny bit of brain matter between the tyrants ears, either by psy-ops or later by ice pick. Oh? You mean this might be a war in the shadows?

    If folks start dying for freedom, it gets started. “Just war” clause get enacted when level of brutality and massacre are evident. You’ll know. Look up Doctrine of One Hundred Heads for what happens next.

    But before that precipice wage a psychological war — make the domestic enemies of the Constitution understand their course of tyrannical action will not be complied with, that their chosen path is an impossible endeavor that comes with personal consequences as well.

    Phone chain can be established if you trust your confidants who won’t be bent by silver. Witness raid in your neighborhood or area of operations, send out the signal. Take video, photos of incidents. Post on these boards. Send into social media. Win the support of the public, make them aware and if there is a botched raid and dead citizen, even worse. Also shame what some 200 yard sniping can do to geared up stormtroopers conversing in tight formation on a citizen’s lawn.

  40. avatarUzziel says:

    Remains to be seen, if those unfortunates in Connecticut will actually *do* something about it.

  41. avatarConcerned Party says:

    Americans, NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS! You need them to protect yourselves from tyranny.

    A new book on 9/11 is out. The author knew the Mossad agent who organised the events of that day.

    Dimitri Khalezov has spent 10 years researching and writing this book. Download links:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0pdmokX9s8

    Or read at:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/170266922/9-11thology-The-third-truth-about-9-11-or-Defending-the-US-Government-which-has-only-the-first-two

    In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can’t build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center’s demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

    Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

    Note: underground nuclear explosions do not produce mushroom clouds. This is only ever seen when the explosion takes place above ground. On 9/11, the explosions were deep underground.

    More info:
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm

    You can watch the 2010 interview at:
    http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-khalezov-wtc-nuclear-demolition-full-playlist-t21675.html
    Video # 4 – WTC’s demolition plan
    Video # 14 – WTC 7 (which fell ½ hour AFTER the BBC announced its collapse).
    Videos # 24/25 – chronic radiation sickness of WTC responders (their cancers are not due to asbestos poisoning)

    Khalezov was interviewed on 4 Sept 2013:
    http://www.renseradioarchives.com/harris/

    Here is a recent article mentioning Khalezov:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/mossad-bush-planned-executed-911/

    I know it is preposterous to claim that the WTC was brought down by nukes. But note that the place where the WTC once stood is called ‘Ground Zero’. If you look up the meaning of ‘ground zero’ in the old dictionaries you have at home, you’ll find that there would only be one definition. It is what you call a place that has been nuked.

    After 9/11, the US government sent people out to switch all the dictionaries in the public domain. The replacements differed only in the meaning of ‘ground zero’. They show extra definitions for that term, to obfuscate the original single meaning.

    For example, if you have a genuine old Merriam-Webster dictionary, you would see this:
    ground zero n (1946) : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs.

    The replacement books (even of old editions) show two extra definitions and this is what you’ll see:
    ground zero n (1946) 1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs. 2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change 3: the very beginning : SQUARE ONE

    Have a look at this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBQuoPi_grw
    At 6:05 mins, he shows the old and new definitions of ‘ground zero’.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      “After 9/11, the US government sent people out to switch all the dictionaries in the public domain.”

      BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Wow… just… wow.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Thanks for the links! It took some time, but 911 now looks as if it was a joint Mossad/Saudi operation. Strange bedfellows, I agree. But this is where the evidence leads.

      A name for y’all: Prince Bandar, aka “Bandar Bush”.

    • avatarKen Vossen says:

      I’m not sure you’re right about “ground zero”. In my dictionary the definitions given are:

      1: the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs
      2: the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change
      3: the very beginning: SQUARE ONE

      This is from the 10th edition of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, publish in 1997.

  42. avatarDO da says:

    If the politicians haven’t figured it out by now. The people are not going to take any more of this nonsense. These assholes work for us, not the other way around. Guns now taxes tomorrow, Tea in the water.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.