Quote of the Day: Storm Clouds Gathering in Connecticut Edition

Bushmaster AR-15, banned in CT (courtesy nydailynews.com)

“We do not doubt that many sincerely believe the measure, passed after the Newtown massacre, should never have become a Connecticut law because it violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But that doesn’t give them the right to disobey it. The law’s constitutionality is a matter for the courts to determine, not the individual gun owner. In the meantime, he or she must obey the law or face the consequences of breaking it.” - Gun owners must obey registration law [via theday.com]

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.

239 Responses to Quote of the Day: Storm Clouds Gathering in Connecticut Edition

  1. avatarRockOnHellChild says:

    “But that doesn’t give them the right to disobey it.”

    Ah yeah, actually, it kind of does…

    • avatarJim says:

      Not just a right, but a responsibility.

      • avatarSmith says:

        The citizen can indeed decide for themselves to follow or not follow those laws that he feels are immoral, unjust, etc. The citizen also will know that if he is caught he will have to face the consequences so every effect must be taken to insure that the citizen has taken all reasonable precautions to not get caught. —- I knew a guy (citizen) who once transferred to Long Island, New York for a job. He quickly learned that his small arsenal of weapons and ammunition were either illegal to have, or must be registered. New York mandated that even his Remington 12 gauge shotgun be registered. This citizen knew this law was unjust, immoral, and that it violated his 2nd amendment rights. He took the precautions necessary to insure his weapons and ammunition were safe from prying eyes and did so until he transferred to the Free State of Texas. Now this citizen happily partakes in his God given freedoms as it relates to firearms.

      • avatarBob says:

        OBEY – it’s the American way…

        • avatarPaul says:

          Actually it is the furthest thing from “The American way”. Our nation was born from disobeying unjust laws.

          When a law is unjust a man not only has the right to disobey it, he has a DUTY to disobey it. Google that line and see who said it.

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          What’s to google? It’s right in the Declaration:
          “… when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,”

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        Just like with slavery, or returning a “fugitive” slave.

        Heck, I’m in law enforcement, and there are a lot of laws out there that I don’t believe in.

        • avatarmike says:

          My question would be,if you’re a LEO, do you enforce those laws you don’t agree with? Why or why not ?

        • avatarBob says:

          Have you ever kidnapped and caged, or will you ever kidnap and cage a peaceful person who you found in possession of marijuana or someother “illegal” substance? To do so is to initiate an act of aggression which is immoral and claiming that you were following orders is not a defense (see Nuremberg Defense).

        • avatarCrocker says:

          I agree with Accur81. Some may call it officer discretion. Justice is supposed to be blind but I think it should also have a heart…

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          That’s why Justice is a woman. And has a balance.

        • avatarAndy says:

          Used to be a Deputy , there are a lot of laws out there I don’t believe in either , when I was on the job I decided at the time I had to decide if I would enforce them , most of the time I did not enforce them . As for a lot of folks that wear the badge now , some of them really do not even understand the law , and that along with power hungry officials is why law officers do what they do , they feel they are right but in hindsight they realize years down the road that they were wrong or taken advantage of by the said officials . Be prepared and ready. Keep your powder dry.

      • avatarJason says:

        Not just a responsibility but a Duty.

      • avatarZarba says:

        I’m sure they would feel the same way if we substituted “Jim Crow Laws” for “Gun Laws”. Right? Bueller?

    • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Just because Rosa Parks had a right to sit at the front of the bus didn’t mean she had a right to sit at the front of the bus…

      • avatarEl Mac says:

        …afterall, Rosa: “You didn’t build that.”

        • avatarAnonymous says:

          If you would take more than two seconds to look into something, rather than repeating what Fox News tells you. They edited out the part where he said “you didn’t build that”, leaving out what he was talking about beforehand.

          He was referring to infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc. He was telling people who may have a business in an area that they didn’t build “that”, the aforementioned bridges, roads, etc.

        • avatarEl Mac says:

          Hey, great idea. Let’s present the exact quote:
          “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

          Did you get that? “IF YOU HAVE A BUSINESS – YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT.” Business…Business….doesn’t even sound like roads.

          So, Rosa: “You didn’t build that!”

        • avatarmike says:

          Yes we did build the infrastructure. We blood sweat tears and on the Tax payers dime. Government hasn’t built a damn thing except for itself. American citizens would be better off without the current big government. Dissolve the federal government and turn everything back over to the individual states.

        • avatarEl Mac says:

          Uh, yeah. Apparently you didn’t detect my sarcasm.

        • avatarmike says:

          My apologies, I though I was replying to that ridiculous comment from anonymous.

        • avatarSteve says:

          It would appear that “Anonymous” might benefit some from watching FOX News, or similar legitimate news sources, and a little less Chris Mathews and the other ‘lapdog’ media sources…

        • avatarEl Mac says:

          …or at least some critical thinking.

        • avatarRockOnHellChild says:

          So, who built the roads, space aliens?

          Last time I checked contractors or state and local employees (citizens) within the community built the roads and were paid by tax revenue from other citizens.

          So, for example my neighbor works on a road crew for the county, so yes, he did build “that” and my taxes payed for it. The G didn’t build “that”, we did.

        • avatarEl Mac says:

          Once again, my sarcasm didn’t get through. Your buddy built hose roads. I built my business. Rosa “built” a movement. Obama hasnt built shat. And these fools in the CT GODVERNMENT haven’t built a damn thing, except of course perhaps…a new movement and on they hadn’t counted on.

        • avatarAmericanSpirit says:

          Steve: Faux isn’t a reliable news source any more than the Communist News Network. NPR is probably the closest thing to an actual mainstream journalistic (as opposed to paternalistic or commercial) source of information in these modern times.

          Agree with El Mac that critical thinking skills are much more important – aggregating and analyzing information effectively matter much more than the “truthyness” of a single source of information.

        • avatarRockOnHellChild says:

          Mac, I was speaking to anonymous, pump the brakes…

        • avatarAnonymous says:

          El Mac,

          I stand corrected and apologize. For the record, no I do not watch Chris Matthews; it turns out that I am the one who was misinformed here.

        • avatarAdub says:

          When Wal-Mart, Target, or Menards wants to build a new mega-superstore somewhere, the city gives them a list of demands. In some of the deals I’ve worked on, the “evil” retailer had to pay the city to build a four lane divided highway with overpass and full cloverleaf. This was in addition to utility upgrades to the entire surrounding area in case of “future city growth.”

          Shakedowns are the cost of doing business, but they sure as hell did build that.

        • avatarRockOnHellChild says:

          Adub, the samething goes with electrical power and infrastructure.

          If a company wants to build a large scale facility, the company is required to do a study on their power demand.

          If the facility will draw more electrical power than the local grid can handle, the company will be have to pay for all the upgrades to the infrastructure in order to support the increased power demand.

        • avatarChuckN says:

          Hey Anonymous, a significant portion of our infrastructure
          WAS NOT built by government or even with government
          funds. Most roads, bridges, dams, powerplants and
          railroads were built by private enterprise. It wasn’t until
          the 1930s, under the New Deal (most notably the CCC)
          the the federal government became so overtly and
          actively involved. Most of the infrastructure was still
          built and maintained by private enterprise, only now
          private companies could received tax money, kind of
          like a use payment by the feds. From the 1950s
          through the 70s states slowly formed their own DOT
          and began to assume control of infrastructure
          maintenance. By this time probably more than 90%
          of our total infrastructure had already been built.

        • avatarJonathan -- Houston says:

          Hmm….Anony? The context of what the Anointed One was talking about wasn’t simply infrastructure. But don’t take my word for it, let’s bypass Fox News and take instead that of the extreme conservative bastion of right wing conspiracy theories called whitehouse.gov and read the transcript, shall we? http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

          “But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.

          There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

          If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

          Now, he does go on to ramble about the moon landing, the G.I. Bill, Hoover Dam, roads and bridges, and the Internet; but his point there is that we all supposedly right and fall because of collectivism. Now, how on Earth he can claim that my or your or Mitt Romney’s success depends on men having landed on the moon decades ago, is beyond me.

          Nobody challenges that anyone’s success is in part dependent on the successes of the past. After all, Shakespeare, brilliant playwright as he was, did not invent the English language in which he wrote. Others before him paved that way. So what? Do we discount his genius 100% because of it? He didn’t write that! Of course not. It’s what an individual does with the opportunities that matters. Yes, we all benefit from the work our forefathers did. Yet, not all of us actually do anything to build on it. It’s what successful people do to BUILD on prior successes that matters. Obama ignores that value-adding element; destroying proper credit where credit is due.

          Obama is just a collectivist who knows damn well that crushing people’s sense of individuality and personal achievement is fundamental to fostering hopelessness and dependency upon the government. It’s the cult of government he’s preaching. That’s where his “you didn’t build that” nonsense comes from. So quit trying to spin his anti-individualism words into some apologist nonsense like “Your business relies on the infrastructure, soooo………..in a *sense*…..you didn’t create your business out of pure emptiness the way our Lord Almighty created the Universe out of the void.” Please.

        • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Because reporters always get the story right within minutes of a shooting…

        • avatarVendetta says:

          Was that site written by a trained monkey? So many grammatical errors.

        • avatarscoutino says:

          @Vendetta – the site says it was written by a Russian. My knowledge of russian language is far from great so I would cut him some slack on his english.

    • avatarTaylor Tx says:

      Sure seems like one of those “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God” times to me :)

    • avatarAlex says:

      You’re right; it does. Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary to protect our rights. If things get bad enough, as they did back in the 1700s, even war can become necessary. Sometimes the only choice is between freedom or slavery.

    • avatarCliff H says:

      So let me see if I understand this correctly – it’s been a long time since my high school civics classes -

      “The Legislature can pass any kind of blatantly unconstitutional law they want by any means possible and you subjects are REQUIRED to obey that unconstitutional law in its entirety from that moment until the point several years from now when the Supreme Court gets around to hearing the case and for the several months thereafter before they publish their decision.”

      What country is this fascist cop working in? Didn’t she have to take an oath before they gave her that fancy Gestapo uniform to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States of America?

    • avatarThomasR says:

      I do believe she needs to study up on our Founding Fathers thoughts about obeying unconstitutional laws.

      And what was the end result.

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      I’m glad to see that Bull Conners has found a new job writing editorials at The Day. (Ma, he must be getting on in years.) After all, Rosa Parks should have gone and sat at the back of the bus. That was the law, right?

      And those four college kids at the Woolworth’s lunch counter? They should have left because that was the law, right?

    • avatarBob says:

      There are only two reasons that a government would want weapons registered. 1.) To levy a tax on them, and 2.) To confiscate them. I live in the free state of Louisiana. Our State Government does NOT want to know who has what. In fact, we can open carry, and your vehicle is an extension of your home, so hide your gun anywhere you want inside your vehicle without a permit. I do feel sorry for the people of liberal states. That’s what decades of democrats will do to you. Maybe they will think before they vote from now on.

  2. avatarlaunchpadmech says:

    Now What? But they are right. Was the law legally enacted to take away our right before a court can decide?

    • avatarRockOnHellChild says:

      Does it matter…?

      If the courts say it is perfectly legal for everyone to kill a certain group of people and take their property, you being those people, would you obey and take your death?

  3. avatargtfoxy says:

    Like they obeyed during Prohibition…. Right.

    We see where that got the big Guv! REPEELED!!!!

    An unconstitutional law requires non-compliance as Constitutionality mandates it. Unless the entire state of CT is non-rural, The Supreme Court has already ruled that registration in rural areas is unconstitutional as the knowing is not a matter of public safety in areas of rurality. In DC V Heller it was stated that CITIES have the right to require registration. No where does it say the States can do so.

    The State Police should be enforcing the constitution, not that which is unconstitutional. They are to follow and obey the rulings of the court, not lawmakers, if those lawmakers pass laws against the Judicial branch in regards to constitutionality.

    • avatarSmith says:

      An Un-Constitutional Law requires non-compliance”. I love that!

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      Actually I think the State Police should be out catching the conventional, old timey criminals instead of trying to track down the “newly-minted” ones who have hurt nobody.

      Go set up a speed trap or something. Do what you’re good at.

  4. avatarEl Mac says:

    An unlawful law should not be followed. Just ask the participants at Nuremburg. By the way, not meant as an ad hominem attack here, but in the pic above, Private Butch looks like she/he might need a lesson in weapons handling.

    • avatar'liljoe says:

      Exactly! All these people screaming that we need to follow the law are the same people who shouted that the Nazis should have disobeyed it. If a large portion of the population feels it is unjust and it violates the laws of nature enumerated in the constitution (self defense) then they have a moral obligation of non-compliance… you listening NY?

    • avatarRockOnHellChild says:

      Guns are icky!

    • avatarTaylor Tx says:

      and private butch answered: Befehl ist Befehl and the CT state police goose step away?

      I dont know much, but that is the face of a frog boiler if I ever saw one.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Can you imagine being a women going through processing at the local jail and finding out that Private Butch was the “female” assigned to conduct your full body cavity search?

    • avatarCliff H says:

      Even in the military you are instructed that it is your DUTY to disregard or disobey an unlawful order, AND to report the reasons and the person who issued that order.

      Any law passed that is so obviously unconstitutional requires disregard on the part of the citizens and the rapid repeal of the law and prosecution of any and all government officials who attempt to enforce it.

      The next step in CT will probably be a law that warrants are not necessary if you are suspected of owning a prohibited weapon and that you are not allowed access to legal representation. That way they can break down your door at zero dark thirty, shoot your dog, arrest you, confiscate ALL of your firearms, throw your wife in jail for conspiracy to defy the state, ship your kids to foster care and imprison you for years until the Supreme Court decides that the whole thing was a mistake, slaps the CT legislature on the wrist, and you are released from prison destitute, homeless, and unemployable.

      Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

    • avatarJoe says:

      I had her pegged at first glance. Worked with a butch at the Iowa State Pen, she found out she couldn’t do man things.

  5. avatarAlbaniaaaa says:

    We MUST disobey unjust laws. There is no way around it. I am sick of this “well it is the law” attitude people have… especially when it comes to things they don’t like or have no interest in. I am sick of my friends supporting people breaking every drug law on the books (which I agree with breaking) but then saying these people in Connecticut should all be arrested. Freaking hypocrites and it enrages me.

    Laws are only supposed to exist when there is an actual victim. They are supposed to be malleable and based on the situation. They are not supposed to exist because of people’s feelings or ignorance.

    • avatarbullkrap says:

      Well said.. and they should also apply to EVERYONE. Including the politicians, and all government officials.

  6. avatarThe Last Marine out says:

    We would never have had a America if the people turned in all the guns in 1775 and yes the British Army also found out at Concord ! They the people in Conn. are the ones following the REAL LAW of the land…like 2A… There is no higher laws or persons ……..the Constitution is the KING…our only King…. that is why we hung all the Germans and Japs why said I was only following my orders (laws)..

  7. avatarGregolas says:

    Zees ahr oardhers! You vill obey!
    According to this quote, if the CT legislature passed laws abolishing the rights of free speech and banning attendance at houses of worship, the right to trial by jury, and the need for search warrants, then all citizens would be obliged to follow these laws until the SCOTUS declared they were unconstitutional.
    My brain hurts trying to comprehend the disconnect here from logic, law and American history

    • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

      The only thing that’s missing is a Storm Trooper…err, I mean CT State Police checkpoint demanding “papiere bitte!” And you better obey until such practice is found unconstitutional. See? Makes perfect sense…

      • avatarAvid Reader says:

        Watch for it as a “logical” extension of the drunk driving checkpoints.

        “Would you mind if we have a look in your car, sir?”
        “No, you may not.”
        “We can wait here all night, sir. . .Hey, Joe, get the dog! This wiseass won’t let us search the car!”

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          Actually that would be BP along the Mexican border. Or 50-100 miles up the road. Or within 100 miles from any US border.

  8. avatarRecalcitrant says:

    I foresee another Waco in the not to distant future.

  9. avatarWurzel Gummidge says:

    At least CT residents are free, unlike those poor slobs in Libya.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Define “free”.

      (Pardon me if my sarcasmometer failed to pick up on any intended sarc.)

    • avatarCliff H says:

      It would appear that you have only two freedoms left in Connecticut -

      1) You are free to disobey this unconstitutional law and face the potential consequences, or
      2) You are free to pack up all of your belongings and leave the state and all you have worked for your whole life behind.

      In the case of item 2), do not be surprised if the State Police set up checkpoints at the major highways exiting the state to stop U-Hauls and moving vans to inspect for transportation of unregistered weapons and then throw your ass in jail anyway rather than let you depart.

  10. avatarsota says:

    Hopefully the state police of CT are paying attention to the situation in Oakland, CA. The criminal element all but rules the night in parts of that town. The cops don’t even bother to stop or attempt to apprehend. Any criminal with the balls to wave firearms and throw bottles at cops isn’t going to hesitate to shoot at someone attempting to arrest them. CT police needs to note one important thing… the citizenship is better armed, and better shots. The sheep have teeth.

    • avatarEvan HB says:

      Those people aren’t the sheep. Generally speaking it’s the people in the cities who elect these clowns.

      • avatarJus Bill says:

        Correct. If the Public Assistance (i.e., Welfare) System ever runs dry, there WILL be rioting by the disgruntled Liberal voters.

    • avatarTaylor Tx says:

      Until there is something belt fed or with a giggle switch in every CT gun safe, Id say you might be wrong about the cops being better armed.

  11. avatarcwp says:

    In a way, I’m kind of grateful to Connecticut for their help in making perfectly clear what the results of the anti-self defense movement’s agenda will be. “Background checks won’t be used against legal gun owners!” Connecticut. “No one’s coming for your guns!” Connecticut. “No one wants to put law-abiding gun owners in jail!” Connecticut.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      “Background checks won’t be used against legal gun owners!”

      You do realize that gun grabbers will respond, “Firearm owners who chose not to register are no longer legal gun owners!”, right?

  12. avatardoesky2 says:

    I believe that sounds like a threat……

    These idiots just keep walking into deeper water.

  13. avatarMark says:

    “The law’s constitutionality is a matter for the courts to determine, not the individual gun owner. In the meantime, he or she must obey the law or face the consequences of breaking it.”

    This is blatant bovine scatology. This law is wrong on many fronts, Constitutionally, mechanically and common sense to name a few. IT NEEDS to be ignored. If anyone is charged with violating it the jury should invalidate the law through nullification. Those who raid homes to confiscate items “forbidden” by the state masters should be dealt with with prejudice either at the time or later. We cannot go quietly to the gallows any more.

    • avatarEvan HB says:

      Make sure people know jury nullification is an option. I bet most Americans don’t.

      • avatarSteveInCO says:

        Many have never heard of the concept. Most who have, probably believe in the sacredness of The Law (as passed by legislatures) enough to believe it’s wrong to use it.

        • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

          When I discuss jury nullification with people, I tend to use one (or more) of these “what if” questions to try to get them thinking …

          If you were on the jury in the 1940s, and you were asked to convict a person of disobeying the order to report to a Japanese relocation camp, would you vote to do so?

          If you were on a jury in the 1920s, and you were asked to convict a person for consumption of alcohol, would you vote to do so?

          If you were on a jury in the 1850s, and you were asked to return a slave to its owner, would you vote to do so?

          If nothing else, these questions may get a person to actually consider the role of the jury. Nullification is a tool – and while it has been occasionally used for bad (e.g. all-white juries letting racist murderers go free), it has often been used for good, and certainly could (and should) be used in CT regarding this law.

      • avataruncommon_sense says:

        +1000 to Evan HB and SteveInCo !!!!!

  14. avatarMk10108 says:

    So here’s it is folks. How many in CT will openly defy an unjust law? How many will administratively overwhelm the system? Rosa Parks’ seat squat was a walk in the park compared to this.

    At issue is legislators AND elected representatives openly circumventing establish procedures to past a law that prevents the people from exercising their 2A right.

  15. avatarlaunchpadmech says:

    I live in MD. Same thing. DATells cops you bring them in, we will charge them.

  16. avatarthe ruester says:

    Since you need to have “standing” to challenge an unconstitutional law, if everyone follows his advice and simply complies with this edict there can technically never be an appeal to SCOTUS. Well played, Connecticut.

  17. avatarjirdesteva says:

    “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
    ― Martin Luther King Jr.
    “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.”
    ― Mahatma Gandhi
    Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.
    ― Henry David Thoreau

    This much is true: Those that obey an unlawful order even in the military are the ones that pay for its committing.

  18. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    Two songs come to mind(lines from the songs actually): “People get ready! There’s a train a coming”: law abiding CT gun owners!!
    “Get up Stand Up! Stand up for your rights”!!:American Patriots!
    It a past time we get off our asses and fight back! If we continue to let the government take just a little but here and a little there before long we have nothing left! We are damn near there now, both as an individual and as a country!!
    We have to fight fire with fire!! And above all We as Americans cannot fire the first shot!! Let the government fire the first shot! Let us defend our homes and families against attack! If we fire the first shot of the “Revolution”(pray it never comes to that), we are the “Bad Guys”, “Crazy Gun Toting Fools”,etc etc!! CT’s legal gun owning law abiding citizens are doing it the right way!!
    Every state needs to follow their example of defiance and refusal to obey such a blatantly unconstitutional “law”!!
    JMHO YMMV
    And before you ask yes I do practice what I preach. On social media 10-12 hrs a day. Talking to people face to face. Call my politicians 6 days a week!! On and on and on!

  19. avatar505markf says:

    I am reminded that the law of the land has many, many times been used as a force of oppression in our history. Resettlement of Native Americans was the law. Blacks being worth three-fifths of a white person was the law. Internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was the law. Note what all these cases share – the oppression of a smaller group by the majority. The counterweight to the mob-rule of democracy is the Constitution, or at least it is supposed to be. Sadly, SCOTUS ruled in the examples above that the laws enabling that oppression were constitutional, and thus legal.

    Freedom could easily be defined as an individual determining what is right vs. that definition being provided by the government. But while I might define freedom in this way, another would call it anarchy. And maybe they would be correct. In any case, I know how I want to live and it is not beneath the boot of an all-powerful State who manipulates the laws as a force of oppression and have so corrupted the Founder’s design that oppression becomes the law of the land.

    This, too, I know: there is a time in every generation when what is right is more important than what is legal.

    • avatarFortWorthColtGuy says:

      One correction:
      The three fifths compromise was not drawn up by the South to deny rights to blacks, it was proposed by the abolitionist north to ensure the south had less representation in Congress. Although it seems barbaric from an egalitarian perspective, it helped free blacks in the end by limiting the political power of their slave owners.

      • avatar505markf says:

        Not saying how it was created, but rather that it was nonsense – and passed constitutional muster by SCOTUS – regardless of where the law was authored. I understand the historical context, but it was a silly law. Wyoming (I believe) was the first state to give women the vote and this was done only to enable statehood as only voters counted in population requirements. Sometimes people do stupid stuff for “right” reasons and sometimes they do decent things for wrong reasons. It can indeed be muddy.

        • avatarSteveInCO says:

          It wasn’t a mere law that had to pass muster with SCOTUS.

          It passed constitutional muster because it was actually in the constitution.

          It was indeed a counter-blow against the slave states, which wanted slaves counted as one whole person each for allocating congresscritter seats.

      • avatarPaul G. says:

        Very true. The 3/5 compromise was intended to minimize the influence of slave ownership, a tacit measure to hasten the ending of slavery.

        • avatarAnon in CT says:

          Exactly. It was to keep t slavers from being rewarded with extra House sets and Electoral College votes.

    • avatarChuckN says:

      The 3/5ths rule regarded blacks needs to be clarified. It was actually
      a good thing. At this point any Progressive who is reading this should
      now leave before reading he explanation (read: historical truth)
      and scream to the media how we’re all racists.

      Continuing, at the time there was still slavery. But the slave owning
      states still wanted to count blacks among the population. Why?
      to increase the number of seats in Congress and the Electoral college.
      Naturally the additional congressmen would be on the side of slave
      owners. Shockingly slaves could vote themselves and had owners
      often “help” with filling out the ballot. Surprisingly, only pro-slavery
      people got elected. So, essentially, slave states were stacking the
      deck and making it harder for abolitionists to make any headway.
      The 3/5th Compromise would temper this advantage; smaller
      population, less influence in Congress.

      In your examples you also forgot (as do most) the internment of
      German Americans during WWI and WWII. An understandable
      oversight though. Very few history books even record the events.
      Sure thousands if not tens of thousands were interned but they
      don’t count. You see, teaching history kind of hurts the Progressive
      meme that we’re all unredeemable racists.

      • avatarGyufygy says:

        Uh, almost. Slaves were not citizens, they were property. They could NOT vote. But you are right about how the debate and subsequent compromise was over if and how they were to be counted for census purposes and Congressional representation.

        I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if newly enfranchised blacks were pressured by the landowners they rented farmland from to vote certain ways. You know, when people weren’t running around in bed sheets and raising a fuss.

        “Raising a fuss” is intentional understatement for the record.

        • avatarChuckN says:

          I should have clarified/explained better. You are correct that slaves
          could not vote, officially anyway. However, it was not uncommon for many slaves to be listed under their name only on the voting roll and not identified as a slave. This would give them the defacto ability to vote. Of course their owners would do the actual voting. This was done mainly to ensure a stuffed ballot box. Though generally done quietly, occasionally, by hook or by crook, a slave or freeman was allowed to openly support slavery. A few owners even held sham votes among slaves for the purpose of showing support for the practice of slavery.

          After the war, and following passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, blatant coercion (read: threats and lynchings) occurred to ensure the “correct” vote. Protection from this abuse and disenfranchisement would become one of the foundational reasons behind the creation of the NRA. Unfortunately, this knowledge is something the anti and Dems
          have done a very good at erasing.

  20. avatarTom396 says:

    This sure isn’t just an intellectual exercise anymore. It’s all getting very real, very fast. I also see it potentially getting very ugly, very fast.

    Perhaps Connecticut will earn it’s Constitution State moniker instead of more appropriately being labeled The Nutmeg State. Take care. Tom Worthington

  21. avatarAnon in CT says:

    Rosa Parks should have just sat quietly at the back of the bus.

    It’s da law!

  22. avatarPeter says:

    Sometimes the mask slips and we see the monster.
    Blind obedience to the state is the only goal, and the reason we resist.

  23. avatarS.dogood says:

    NOW FORMING THE FIRST VOLUNTEER INFANTRY !!! IF OUR BROTHERS IN ARMS IN A STATE THAT IS TYRANNICAL NEEDS HELP WE SHALL COME TO THEIR AID !!!

  24. avatarDOnald123 says:

    So if the CT legislature passes a law mandating that Blacks use different restrooms and water fountains than Caucasians, people should just obey the law?

  25. avatarracer88 says:

    Just as jurors have a right to nullify law (Jury Nullification), I submit that citizens have the same right and OBLIGATION.

  26. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    The law also said that Blacks couldn’t riot & the libs are not asking that all gains be reversed because the law was broken. Hopefully burning & widespread destruction will be ok for gun owners of all colors too./// I’m torn with this, what is reasonable? We know we are reasonable, the libs know they are reasonable. Who gets to decide? The courts? What if they aren’t reasonable & just decide on political grounds? The Constitution is all we have & lets say they had the clout to ammend the Constitution to eliminate 2A rights, would this be reasonable(that would be the new law of the land?) War is the imposition of ones will on another, we are at war. (so you would sure want to give up your rifles before the shooting starts) ha ha libs, nice try.

  27. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    DRES for success (defy, resist, evade, smuggle). It is a citizen’s right and DUTY to disobey unjust and unconstitutional laws. There will be and are times when a citizen must choose to take a difficult and harrowing path. Follow your conscience.

  28. avatarbigred1 says:

    Many a Nazi private used the argument about just following orders. Does history not tell us anything?

    • avatarPatrick says:

      We are currently watching the rise to power of a tyrant, just as the Germans did in the 1930′s. The only difference at the moment is that Obama hasn’t chosen to publicly admit to having a race of people he wants to wipe off the face of the planet. But if people watch his, and his sycophantic followers, moves and we see who he believes all of the worlds problems come down upon. How much longer will it be before we all see what this muslims true agenda is?

      • avatarSteveInCO says:

        Many a tyrant had no interest whatsoever in wiping out a race of people.

        The lust for power over others has many manifestations, genocide is only one of them. So Obama’s not showing such a desire is basically meaningless. He is a tyrant, or not, based on other criteria.

        • avatarJus Bill says:

          If you just peek under the covers for a moment you will suddenly discover that every tyrant has killed large numbers of people to solidify their grip on power. Every one. Think about it…

      • avatarCliff H says:

        Genocide is not a prerequisite for the condition of tyranny or title of tyrant. We rebelled against King George on the basis that he was a tyrant.

        A tyrant is a tyrant based on what he does, not on who he does it to.

  29. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    One word for those that believe such drivel. Nuremberg. BTW it didn’t end up so nice for the gauleiters.

  30. avatarken says:

    Did anyone catch that last line:
    “As to those who sincerely believe the requirement is wrong, we respect their beliefs, but that does mean they can disobey this law or any law.”
    That DOES MEAN they can disobey this law?
    Does look to anyone else like a “fruedian slip”? Where the author meant to lie but the real truth just slipped right out? Like Homer Simpson is forever doing?
    Or is it just another example of the illiteracy of today’s press?

  31. avatarMk10108 says:

    CT just crossed the line into tyranny. The purpose of the law is to make law abiding citizens comply. Failure to do will make an otherwise law abiding citizen a Class D felon.

    Here is a State saying, we are removing your right to privacy, fail to comply and we’ll make you a felon. Now we get to take away your weapon, take away your future right to vote, defend yourself and we’ll take your coin, your home, & separate you from your family. YOUR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO DEFY OR VOTE EVERY SINGLE ONE OUT OF OFFICE. THEN FIRE ALL NON ELECTED BUREAUCRATS.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      “… we [state of Connecticut] are removing your right to privacy …”

      I wondered how long it would take someone to point this out. It is no one’s business what we build or purchase for ourselves. Period!

      If the state of Connecticut passed a law that required everyone to register which religious books they have at home, would that be okay? How about if Connecticut required people to register sexual products in their home … would that be okay?

      The answer should be a resounding NO!!!!!

  32. avatarKyle says:

    So…if the state government passed a law banning speech that is critical of the government, would the media have the attitude of, “We disagree with this law, but deciding the legality of it is a job for the Courts; we the citizens must obey it in the meantime or face the consequences…”

    OR

    “Some laws are so blatantly unconstitutional that they are not to be left solely to the Courts and the citizens have a right and a duty to disobey them.”

  33. avatarNJDevil says:

    It’s right here in the Declaration of Independence, the first three sentences of the second paragraph:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

    I don’t think it could be any more clear that when laws are not in the interests of all the people, when laws restrict the rights of all the people, these laws must be changed.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      Here’s the key phrase: “…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed“[emphasis added]. I do believe the governed have withdrawn their consent in this case. Be careful, Governor.

  34. avatartom w a glock says:

    Those sure are fancy uniforms. In my experience, the fancier the uniform, the less capable the troops. I wouldn’t expect much out of them in line-of-battle.

  35. avatarJay In Florida says:

    An unjust law must be disobeyed.
    The people are obligated to take a stance.
    The peoples of Connecticut didn’t want these laws the politicians did.
    Same in Colorado and NY.
    Might as well add Maryland.
    Until the Supreme Court takes up the issues pending before it on gun rights.
    And for once comes up with a written ruling.
    Right or wrong.
    The people must disobey these laws till proven otherwise.
    I don’t honestly see the State making an example of any one individual who disobeys with some civil disobedience.
    Once the cats out of the bag it will never go back in.
    If the state lets loose the dogs of war.
    It will be a bloody mess.
    You honestly think any side wants that on their hands??

  36. avatarMmmtacos says:

    “In the meantime, he or she must obey the law or face the consequences of breaking it.”

    Actually, in the meantime, the state must obey the Constitution, or face the consequences of disgracing it. The boiling frog is beginning to feel the heat…

  37. avatarAvid Reader says:

    That cop is holding it like it just made a bad smell. . .

  38. avatarjim says:

    the problem becomes if they all did register their guns and later the law was found to be illegal
    than “THEY” would already have all that illegally obtained information
    and does anyone really think “THEY” would just destroy that info ?
    this law should be on hold until it is decided it court

    • avatarBillF says:

      Right. If everyone registers and the law is repealed, the damage will have already been done. The info can’t be “ungathered” and the government won’t get rid of it.

  39. avatarTimbo says:

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)?

  40. avatarBuddy Alton says:

    If you pass something you call a law & it violates the constitution I have a DUTY to disobey your edict. It is NOT up to the governments courts to decide if the government violated the constitution, (Talk about a rigged game/stacked deck there) it is up to the people.

  41. avatarWI Patriot says:

    It’s called “civil disobedience”, moreover, “Molon labe”…

  42. avatarEagleScout87 says:

    If the mandatory beating of blacks for talking back to whites or looking at whites was the new law in Connecticut, and people felt that was Unconstitutional and immoral, should they obey it or ignore it?

  43. avatarAnonymous says:

    Haha.

    Obey!

    That is the statement they call for.

    “We do not doubt that many sincerely believe the measure, passed after the Newtown massacre, should never have become a Connecticut law because it violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But that doesn’t give them the right to disobey it. The law’s constitutionality is a matter for the courts to determine, not the individual gun owner. In the meantime, he or she must obey the law or face the consequences of breaking it.” – Gun owners must obey registration law

    Natural rights are not granted to us by the constitution, nor do the courts determine their existence. They are granted to us by each individual’s creator. It came to being through much debate amongst philosophers. Our founding father’s agreed with those philosophies as listed here in the declaration of independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    In the US we have freedom of religion, so they didn’t say God… they said “their Creator…”

    If we all face the consequence of breaking it and juror’s acquit those who break them. The law means nothing. Nothing at all. During the prohibition 60% of all juries acquitted still owners and alcohol distributors. Ultimately that law was repealed.

    “Gun owner’s must obey registration law.” Actually no. There are only two things we MUST do in this short life. Be Born, and live until we die. That’s it. The rest is up to us.

  44. avatarOdinSix says:

    MOLON LABE mothabrothas

  45. avatarAl Harshman says:

    We all have a duty to disobey unlawful laws and/or orders. Does anyone remember 1LT William Calley and the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam.

  46. avatarJim says:

    Even if a miracle happens and that law is abolished, do you really believe the state would voluntarily destroy their registry? Remember how they were supposed to destroy the registry in Canada, but suddenly knew exactly which houses to search, and for what?

  47. avatarjirdesteva says:

    So the line in the sand thing ? They (YKWTA) keep making laws that when challenged or fall short of their intended result they keep changing the date or some aspect of it to keep it going (Obama care). What WE all need to do is to get involved those who are sitting there quietly in the corners or think that this doesn’t apply to them also need to get involved.
    “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

  48. avatarAnonymous says:

    The correct response to the following should be:

    We do not doubt that many sincerely believe the measure, passed as a quick campaign boosting knee jerk reaction after the Newtown massacre, should never have become a Connecticut law because it violates the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That gives everyone the right to disobey it. Because after all it is a right… right? Is a Right or is it not a right? The law’s constitutionality is very straightforward… shall not be infringed. It is each and everyone’s duty as an American and free-person to stand up against infringements such as these, regardless of consequences. – Gun owners must disobey registration law.

  49. 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    “The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

    [Emphasis added]

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Point well taken. Our grade school civics classes instilled in us that the federal Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land. That said, when I looked up the cite you posted above (16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:) I came across this, from Wikipedia;

      “The citation to “16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256″ is nonsensical gibberish. A correct citation looks like this: “47 Am. Jur. 2d. Jury § 266 (1995).” First, you’re missing periods. Second, “late 2d” is not a valid notation in any major American legal citation system. I can’t tell if you’re citing sections 177, 256, both, or everything in between. Third, an Am. Jur. cite always mentions the title of the Am. Jur. article being cited and uses the section sign (§). There’s no reference to the article being cited so it’s impossible to tell which article in volume 16 is being cited. Fourth, no competent lawyer or legal scholar relies upon Am. Jur. 2d as the sole basis for a point of law; it’s always cited after citing three or four cases or law review articles on the same point of law. These are the kind of basics everyone learns in law school after their first assignment in Lawyering Skills comes back with red marks all over it despite their earnest best efforts.”.

      I’m no lawyer so I don’t know hardly a thing about such technicalities as the correct format for a proper, cogent citation. I’m not in any way refuting the content. I just think that it’s important to our cause that we get everything near as right as possible. Maybe some of the AI’s legal scholars would like to set the record straight for us laymen.

      • avatarCliff H says:

        “I just think that it’s important to our cause that we get everything near as right as possible.”

        Greg:
        “A well regulated militia being necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Legal mumbo jumbo and all that aside, I believe the Second Amendment is the only legal decision that needs to be cited in support of our position.

  50. avatarNxtdoor says:

    Molon Labe

  51. avatarfuque says:

    I cant get past That slouchy old dish rag with her bottom lip turned down and bad haircut..

  52. avatarMina says:

    I think it’s very interesting and kind of intriguing to wonder why the Liberal media in CT is pushing so hard for the police to start doing something.

    Do they want to create a confrontation? Seems like it.

    • avatarH.R. says:

      A cynical man might wonder if an armed confrontation between the police and the citizens of CT wouldn’t create a great “journalism” opportunity. Lots of people getting shot, lots of people slinging blame out, armed stand-offs, politicians commenting on the whole damn mess…

      Perhaps some among them see this as a great opportunity.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      “… why the Liberal media in CT is pushing so hard for the police to start doing something.”

      There are two simple explanations:
      (1) To Communists Progressives, the State is quite literally God; criticizing the State much less defying the State is blaspheme and the State must punish the offender severely. Since something like 95% of journalists are Communists Progressives, they are horrified at the defiance of armed citizens and DEMAND that the State promptly mete out punishment.
      (2) Except for a few “leaders” or “enforcers”, Progressives are incredibly meek. And they project their meekness onto armed citizens. Progressives are convinced that armed citizens are just as meek as they are and will immediately fold under the slightest pressure from the State. Progressives therefore assume that enforcement action from the State will go quickly and smoothly.

      Thus, Progressives are calling for the State to clamp down on defiant, armed citizens. They truly have no idea who ugly this will get.

  53. avatarCAG404 says:

    I would say it is the duty and obligation of a citizen to disobey unconstitutional “laws.” Good to see that this noncompliance is creating consternation with the authorities in Connecticut. It will be interesting to see what they do about it.

  54. avatarRobert Akers says:

    Everything Hitler did was legal. Did that make it right?

  55. avatarscooter says:

    Civil disobedience anyone? Heard somewhere it works. Called history books.

  56. avatarMike says:

    The more I hear from CT, the more I feel like Andrew Ryan’s quote from Bioshock is aptly appropriate: “A man chooses, a slave obeys.”

    That QOTD only needed the “Would you kindly…” added in.

  57. avatarStuart Anderson says:

    …And Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus.

    Except she didn’t.

  58. avatarM says:

    Snappy uniforms! A lot like post war East German uniforms (which were basically the same as the old Nazi uniforms, but with stylish iron curtain communist party insignia).

  59. avatarCCW Guy says:

    Watch this if you have a few minutes.
    http://youngcons.com/i-am-a-ukrainian-video-goes-viral-i-want-to-be-free-from-a-dictatorship/
    They wish they had the rights we are freely giving up.

  60. avatarH.R. says:

    From the article -

    “Since the intent of the law is to create a record and track these weapons, not to make criminals of gun owners, we would urge the administration and the legislature to find some way to provide a bit more time for registration.

    No one should take any joy in having 20,000 or 100,000 citizens suddenly becoming criminals. If possible, a way should be be found to allow these gun owners a chance to reconsider and follow the law.”

    I’d suggest that the intent of this law is precisely to make law-abiding people into criminals. Were it not, why wouldn’t they have extended the registration deadline by a month? Or by six months? But the idea of extending the deadline was rejected months ago by the powers that be in Connecticut.

    So while I’d hate to see anyone set himself up for legal problems, I’m not really feeling any sympathy for the yahoos in CT who pushed this law through and are now dealing with the consequences.

  61. avatarShire-man says:

    Id like to hear how the cops in CT feel about all this. Seems theyre all too happy to “just follow orders” here.

    Theyre making disobeying unjust laws out to be worse than enforcing those unjust laws.

    So CT cops are happy to turn hoses on negroes and raid gay bars?

    Law is the law is the law, right? I mean its not like laws are ever oppressive or discriminatory or just plain stupid.

    It must suck to be a cop with a brain or sense of honor. Probably why there are so few who do.

  62. avatarMk10108 says:

    The EVIL point here is LEGISLATORS. These elected officals who decide, without public comment to pass a law that make citzens FELONS. No care if that particular law is valid. To pass a law and then say, well let’s higher courts rule on weather what we passed was correct……this the worst example of elected leadership.

    The PEOPLE OF CT, are your elected representatives worthy of your patronage, worthy of your trust, worthy of your vote?

  63. avatarJ B says:

    I’m proud of those who are not registering their guns. I hope and pray that if it comes to this here in Oklahoma, that we will have the same guts to stand against it. It is our American duty to stand against all unconstitutional laws.

  64. avatarS.CROCK says:

    just because the law is unconstitutional and you have to turn in your Bibles and Quran’s dose not mean you can disobey it.

    yes it does. if any other right other than the 2A was being abused so heavily, there would be an uproar among the whole country. if there was a law infringing on your freedom of religion, no one would call you a criminal for praying. if there is a law infringing on your right to protect your freedom of religion, then if you disobey it you are labeled a white extremist criminal.

  65. avatarJHK says:

    Notice how much of this knee jerk (emphasis on JERK) law stammering dan rushed thru fails to address ANY mental health issues. Criminals all lined up to regester their guns – didn’t they??? Why is it that when a drunk kills someone – we blame the drunk…. When a bomber explodes a device – we blame the bomber BUT when a gunman shoots someone – we blame the gun….?.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      “Why is it that when a drunk kills someone – we blame the drunk…. When a bomber explodes a device – we blame the bomber BUT when a gunman shoots someone – we blame the gun armed citizens who had nothing to do with it?”

      There, fixed that for you.

  66. avatarHannibal says:

    This is the second paper talking about consequences of disobeying laws. I agree, anyone disobeying such a law should consider and be ready to face the consequences. While some in CT might have failed to register out of ignorance or apathy, I suspect many others made the decision knowing the possible results without needing a lecture from some editorial staff.

    The question I have: is the guy writing that editorial ready for all the possible consequences that could Hey anonymous TheDay writier… stfu until you’ve got skin in the game.

  67. avatarRalph says:

    he or she must obey the law or face the consequences of breaking it.

    And the cops have to enforce the law or face the consequences. So why isn’t Connecticut rounding up all those evil, noncompliant gun owners, instead of begging them for compliance?

    Here’s my reply to the Obamabots and Bloomberg Lovers of Connecticut: You made your stupid law. Now go ahead and enforce it.

  68. avatarT says:

    The law’s constitutionality is a matter for the courts to determine, not the individual gun owner.

    That to me and many others is the reason to fight it. I find it disturbing in so many ways that the people are not considered,pushed over and ignored. I’m glad those guys are not taking anymore crap being shoved down their throats.

  69. avatartsn4 says:

    I would no comply either. I may not be lawyer who specializes in “constitutional law” (whatever that is, aren’t all laws supposed to be constitutional?) but I know what in “infringe” means.

  70. avatarSteve says:

    “Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with the good” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

  71. avatarMichael B. says:

    They’re testing the waters in CT and all of the gun control loving wannabe tyrants in the federal government are watching closely to see what they can get away with in the future.

    Stay brave, CT gun owners, and stand up for your rights

  72. avatarChuckN says:

    Just noticed that the cop in the picture has multiple single stack
    mags for a 1911. I’m left wondering why dirtbag pols can’t
    figure out that everyone will do the same if/when rounds are
    limited. My guess is limiting the number of magazines on can
    have is next on the agenda.

  73. avatarMichael B. says:

    Also, tell me again, who it is that’s truly pining for a civil war/revolution? Because it doesn’t look like gun owners to me.

    Looks like CT political class (“journolists,” politicians, and police) sincerely is.

  74. avatarCubby123 says:

    Nice try Connecticut ,but it is you that have infringed and have broken Federal law and your illegal process and lawmakers should be jailed.Just like a soldier is not bound to follow illegal or immoral orders nor are citizens bound by illegal or immoral laws.Police are not bound either.

  75. avatarRikoshay says:

    Why don’t the citizens of CT aggressively pursue some kind of legal action against their government for breaking the laws in establishing illegal law? A recall petition or something to get this in the courts. After all, isn’t it suppose to be, by the people and for the people? Just wondering.

  76. avatarsizzlin bacon says:

    She’s holding it (and showing the same facial expression) like she probably held her first penis. “Ewww, what do I do with this?” My goodness, where do they find cops like that?

  77. avatarExcedrine says:

    Pfffft. Go and try and take them, then. Otherwise, STFU and hop to repealing it already.

  78. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    Following the repeal of prohibition, all the jailed brewers, distillers and drinkers weren’t immediately released, reimbursed or any other such niceties.

    Violating a law, however reprehensible it might be, carries serious risk.

    That the violators are in the right doesn’t mean that the whole situation isn’t guaranteed to get one hell of a lot uglier before it gets any better.

    “Constitution State,” my pale, princely patoot.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      Following the repeal of prohibition, all the jailed brewers, distillers and drinkers weren’t immediately released, reimbursed or any other such niceties.

      I do not recall reading about any jailed brewers, distillers and drinkers.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Then read more closely.

        There were a whole lotta little people who got reamed by the system in addition to the three or four famous names you likely can recite.

        For every Capone or Donnelly, there were a whole lot of lower-downs – including their customers, and sometimes their suppliers. Even drinkers in raided speakeasies could get time, especially were they in no position to pay their fines.

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Russ, as deluded and irrational as the folks that passed these foolish laws are, they are not complete idiots. There was a calculus on their part that the good, law abiding citizens of CT would roll over and fold when presented with yet another onerous and thoughtless set of laws. They were quite wrong and their bluff was called. The legislature and the executive now look pathetic and small. So now they’re confronted with a serious quandary. Do they back down or start kicking in doors? They don’t have the conviction, the spine or the moral foundation for the latter. I suspect that they’ll just amend or repeal the law in the not too distant future if the high courts don’t force their hand in the interim. AR’s are in “common use”, there is an acknowledged right to bear arms outside the home and there are any number of other factors that a rational and righteous judiciary will find in our favor. We still have a fight on our hands and we must remain ever vigilant but despite all the foolishness on the state level, we’re in a better position than we’ve been in in decades.

      • avatarCliff H says:

        While you may be absolutely correct on all the salient points, Greg, it is of little consolation to those patriots who face the full force of state tyranny in the meantime.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        True dat. However, I sincerely hope that they don’t try some SWATing first before throwing in the towel.

      • avatarChuckN says:

        Whether CT may or may not have the stones is only part
        of the equation. One also has to consider our illustrious
        Attorney General and the Justice Dept. at large. So the
        question becomes not whether CT will start something,
        but whether the Feds will back them openly and risk
        full scale civil war. Unlikely, but a possibility that does
        exist. What I think is more likely is the Feds backing them
        and making sure a few “examples” are made.

  79. avatarharrycarry says:

    Could Connecticut be the next Ukraine? Kinda shaping up to be.

  80. avatarDroppinTruthBombz says:

    “The law’s constitutionality is a matter for the courts to determine, not the individual gun owner. In the meantime, he or she must obey the law or face the consequences of breaking it.”

    ^–Wasn’t the same sort of thing said in Nazi Germany before mass extermination happened? I’m just saying…

    • avatarCliff H says:

      Yes. Line up here. Register at the table. Put your luggage in that pile. Get into that boxcar. We will determine your legal status when you reach your destination. Very sorry for the inconvenience, Jew.

  81. avatarSteve says:

    Then prepare yourself for a war, if you don’t believe the people have to the right to stand for what the people as a whole believe, not what law makers believe. Molan labe!

  82. avatargreenthing says:

    Solzhenitsyn:

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Solzhenitsyn has impeccable street cred. That particular passage has enormous resonance. The powers that be need to understand that real Americans wil not go meekly into that sweet good night.

  83. avatarDJ says:

    All good points. I would just like to add that the time to resist is before you have a rope around your neck.

    • avatarZombie says:

      If you wait until that point, then your ability to resist is gone.

      The CT gun owners standing up to their corrupt gov’t are right. Yea, the courts will decide it’s Constitutionality AFTER lawyers take it through four levels or courts, tens of thousands if not more are paid to lawyers arguing it’s unconstitutional….then it two or three years later it comes before SCOTUS and then based on politics the “Constitutionality” of it is decided.

      So in the mean time people’s rights are violated…UNACCEPTABLE. I hope to hear stories of CT gun owners standing up and beginning the Second American Revolution…

  84. avatarCoolBreeze says:

    Sounds like a line being drawn in the sand to me. A line that divides law enforcement AGENTS from representatives of justice. Our duty to defend our natural rights comes from a place these jack-booted thugs know not.

  85. avatarA Patriot III% says:

    They do not have a responsibility to obey a law that is in complete contradiction to the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights. Do you think that you can just create laws that strip us of our liberties and that we should become surfs and celebrate our enslavement?

  86. avatarDan says:

    And for every individual gun owner who is prosecuted under this unconstitutional law, shall have cause to sue the state for damages when the law is found in violation of the constitution and overturned.

    this law may turn out to be _very_ expensive for the state and taxpayers.

  87. avatarG Boyd says:

    When I lived in a state that had unreasonable regulations and limitations on Guns, I moved.
    So be it for the morons that stay. Vote with your feet.

  88. avatarMediocrates says:

    We, the People, have the ultimate say on what is and is not Constitutional.

    The unconstitutionists in the Connecticut government must face the consequences for their actions.

  89. avatarCoolBreeze says:

    What if, instead of freemen voting with their feet (leaving a tyrant state), there was instead an influx of freemen into the tyrant state to oppose the tyranny where it lives….? Nip it in the bud. Kill it in the crib. Make an example for the Feds to chew on…

  90. avatarAdub says:

    If only I had lived in CT, I would have handed out Star of David armbands to everyone in line waiting to register.

  91. avatarGlenn in USA says:

    From the article:
    “We do not doubt that many sincerely believe the measure, passed after the Newtown massacre, should never have become a Connecticut law because it violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But that doesn’t give them the right to disobey it.
    The law’s constitutionality is a matter for the courts to determine, not the individual gun owner.”

    My response:
    1. Our Founding Fathers stated over and over that an Unconstitutional Law is null and void.
    2. The Courts ARE NOT the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional or not.
    THE PEOPLE ARE THE ULTIMATE ARBITERS. NOT THE COURTS.
    RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD.

  92. avatargringito says:

    Obey – and you are disarmed.
    Disobey – and you are a criminal, despite your constitutional rights.

    The problems:
    1) politicians that crap your rights and are never brought to justice for doing so.
    2) who the $$$$ has voted for these guys?!
    3) lack of unitary legislation within the U.S.A.
    4) local law beats the Constitution (great..isn`t it?!)

  93. avatarCT Citizen says:

    As one who lives here, I can say.. we’ve heard a LOT of voices and perspectives. While the whole world remembers Newtown, those of us here ALSO remember the Petit family as an example. I can tell you that no gun store from 2007 to April 4th, 2013 (signature date of new laws) was ever empty. In fact, parking was overflowed out onto streets and neighboring lots all day, every day. No one here wants more children deaths, but everyone here agrees that the laws passed have will not affect crime rates or mass shootings in any way. By declaring specific firearms to be “assault style” weapons based upon Appearance and Accessories, and not by function, we look like idiots. If you run down our posted ban list, you can use Google and go tit-for-tat and find comparable model firearms which ARE legal and which 100% match function to those banned. We admit the State’s legislation pushed through a fear-based law. Our own State Police and local police reflect this statement and continue to promote citizens owning and carrying legal firearms for self-protection. They speak the truth: they can Respond to, but cannot Stop an aggressor. Now, I am one of those “sheep” who went along and put everything on paper with the state. If, someday, they reach for what is locked away my response will simply be to abandon ship – - not only are the laws goofy here, but taxes are outrageous, employment is dead, and cost of living and/or property is exorbitant. The Blue leadership has sunk the boat and is no longer looking out for the Citizens or their Rights.

    But now what? Media reports that perhaps 50,000 to 350,000 “assault style weapons” have not been registered. Having lived here my entire life, I can SAFELY say that those numbers are a woeful underestimate. The cities here are Blue, but get a few minutes away into the woods and there are deer hanging from every deck. In a state where everyone has friends or family who have been involved in the firearm industry just as much as with insurance companies or aerospace, you can imagine that there are generations of gun owners here with collections. We have a proud tradition of service, and many young veterans have brought civilian black rifles to life here. Now, I believe the “estimate” of 50 to 350k unregistered “ASW”s represent AR-type platforms only, since that is the rallying image of those who fear what they do not understand. Allow for all the various platforms, as well as the fact that tens of thousands of otherwise innocuous guns are now “ASW”s based SOLELY on the accessories attached and I don’t find it far fetched at all to consider the real number to be closer to 500,000 to 700,000 unregistered “AWS”s. Based on ARs alone, essentially 1 in 9 Citizen registered their serial numbers with the State. Let’s presume most owners have 2 as an average. That means that 250,000 to 350,000 armed Citizens, of their own volition, not as a bandwagon, and completely without planning… individually declared on their own that, no, they are not going to declare their firearms. How does a state go about handling this scenario? Failure to register means all of these men and woman are now Cass D felons. In an already dead economy, is the State now going to attempt to go door to door and arrest and house these people? Destroy their careers? Turn them and their families into dependents upon the State? The current Governor views them all as criminals and wants to make them pay. How do you afford to jail 300,000 Citizens? What happens when the images of police firing on families refusing to hand over their firearms hits the news? That is NOT an unlikely scenario based on the deep convictions of some who have spoken openly here.

    SNAFU, man.

    Also – you have to love that perhaps 50k “ASW”s were put on the lists, but only 30k magazines were written down… and you know most of those are for folks’ NON-”ASW” tools, too.

  94. avatarMarcus Aurelius says:

    Consent of the goverend

  95. avatarNyoka Tisa says:

    Yeppers, We must obey the new gun law, or else…
    (They just copied the California anti-gun laws practically verbatim regarding Semi-Autos and mags)
    Just like these laws, right?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29

  96. avatarMemyselfandI says:

    An un-constitutional law is not a law and you do not have to follow it period.

  97. avatarSenior Veteran says:

    I swore an oath on more than 6 occasions, to Protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Now, that oath never expires and so, if called, I must report!

    This is true for some 30+ million of us who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of
    America. It is our DUTY to disregard, and even VIOLATE un-constitutional laws!

    If elected officials, who also took a similar oath of office, are so stupid as to provoke these acts of truth and obedience, through their stupidity, then, they are the “enemies”, who need be promptly removed from office, or else, then, what is the future course for America?

  98. avatarTom RKBA says:

    An inconstitutional law is no law at all and nobody need wait for the courts.

Leave a Reply

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