Connecticut: The Coming Storm

SWAT team (courtesy deadliestwarrior.wikia.com)

Written by . Republished from statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com:

Friday, June 27th, 2014, 0-dark-thiry: 

The politicians have made their decision.  By a twist of fate–your file simply happened to be on the top of the stack for no particular reason–you’ll be the first example.  A state police SWAT team pull to the curb in front of your home, leap from their van and rush to your front door.  Two black-clad men pull back a ram and swing it toward your front door, aiming just above the knob, while the rest of the team waits anxiously, their automatic weapons charged and off safe.  Two hope they’ll get the opportunity to shoot.  At least one wants to manufacture the opportunity . . .

You’ve made two major mistakes; they will cost your life and destroy your family:  you live in a blue state where the governor and legislature have no respect for the Constitution and the lives and liberty of citizens, and you were foolish enough to obey the law.

Starting awake from a sound sleep by the explosion of your door being smashed open and the heavy stomping of booted feet, you stumble down the stairs and into the hallway.  As you turn toward the sounds, you’re blinded by multiple bright lights and hear many people screaming at you, but their words are unintelligible.  You raise your hands to shield your eyes, but you have your cell phone in your right hand.  As soon as it comes into view, you’re overwhelmed by a tidal wave of explosive sounds and feel the first bullets rip into your body.  There are stars, so many stars, winking and suddenly, everything goes silent and black and your last conscious thought is a feeling of falling.

The SWAT team, surprised when you suddenly appeared only five feet from them, screamed conflicting commands at you.  When you raised your hands and one of them saw something dark in your right hand, he jerked back the trigger of his MP5 submachine gun and didn’t let go until the weapon was empty.  Seeing him fire, four more did the same.  Of the 137 rounds five of the team initially fired, only 18 actually hit you, but it was enough.  The rest shredded your home from floor to ceiling and wall to wall.  Six nearby homes were hit, as were four cars.  As you lay dying, your heart beating ever more slowly and weakly, you were spared the horror of your wife’s death.

As she descended the stairs, she saw you hit, blood spurting everywhere, falling to the floor, she screamed loud and long and ran down the steps.  When she suddenly leapt into the hallway from the staircase, the nearest officer, who had been staring in shock at your bleeding body, and most of all, at the cell phone near your right hand, was startled.  One of only two who had not completely emptied his magazine, he emptied it into her.  The rest tried, but with one other exception, their guns were empty, and they frantically and impotently jerked their triggers.  The other exception managed to fire the remaining six rounds in his weapon.  Of the final 13 rounds fired, eleven hit your wife, five in the chest, three in the head.  She was dead before her body fell onto yours, the sickening thump of her head on the hardwood floor echoing in the sudden silence and roiling gun smoke.

That was when they heard screaming upstairs, and gathering their courage and slamming fresh magazines into their guns, rushed upstairs, breaking into your 7-year old daughter’s bedroom, to find her lying in a widening pool of blood on her tiny bed.  One of the officers tripped over his own feet as he was charging into the house and triggered nearly a full magazine through the ceiling–into her bedroom and through her bed.  One of his fellow officers caught three rounds on his bullet resistant vest, but that will be covered up for years.  Your daughter will survive.  She’ll be in a medically induced coma for two weeks, and when she awakens, she’ll be informed she’s an orphan, a paraplegic orphan with a single lung.

An investigation of the State Police SWAT team by the State Police done within a month of the murders will find the State Police blameless, and will proclaim them heroic paragons of SWAT virtue.

Your sister’s family gladly takes your daughter in, and after two years, years in which the State Attorney General, the Governor, many politicians and the news media depict you, your wife, and even your daughter as murderous domestic terrorists, a jury finally awards your daughter 30 million dollars.  She’ll need every penny to support her the remainder of her shortened life.  Unfortunately, a judge sympathetic to the state reduces the award to seven million dollars.  The AG, Governor and his advisors, angry and vindictive, get authorization from a corrupt and cooperative judge to steal your daughter from your sister’s family and put her in a group foster home run by people who do it for the substantial money the state pays.  The state also seizes the 7 million dollars for reimbursement for taking care of your daughter.  The Speaker of the State House of Representatives pronounces it a just and fitting end for a family of domestic terrorists and swears to bring justice to all domestic terrorists.

Why were the police there? 

You tried to obey the law and register an AR-15 you bought.  Unfortunately, you missed the deadline by two days, so the state knew you had the rifle and four magazines.  What they didn’t know was that you bought the gun as a birthday present for your adult son who lives in Montana.  The gun and magazines were in Montana only a week after you bought it.  The state police attacked your home because they thought you had an “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazines,” all of which had been in Montana for months.  They were scared to death of anyone with an “assault weapon,” so they sent a SWAT team.

Documents eventually made public during the civil suit will reveal that the state police made no attempt to verify that you still owned the weapon.  They will reveal that a corrupt and cooperative judge–guess who?–signed hundreds of blank search warrants.  They will also reveal that only 31% of local police departments and sheriff’s offices cooperated with the State Police; 69% refused to violate the Constitution.  Not that any of that means anything to you.  You screwed up and you’re dead.  Your daughter will come to wish she had died that night as well.

Far-out fiction?

The decision about which I spoke is being made in Connecticut as you read this article.  Connecticut’s most recent gun restrictions signed into law by Governor Dan Malloy (D) include the requirement that anyone with magazines of greater than 10 round capacity must register them, and all “assault weapons,” with the state no later than January 1, 2014.  Under many circumstances, violation of these laws is a felony.

As Bob Owens at Bearing Arms reports, most Connecticut residents disobeyed their legislative betters: 

Only 50,000 firearms and 38,000 magazines were registered. Perhaps another 350,000 firearms belong to those who refused to register their arms. Nearly 2 million magazines are thought to remain unregistered.

These unregistered firearms and magazines are thought to belong to 80,000-100,000 gun owners who view the law as a blatantly unconstitutional infringement upon the very spirit of the Second Amendment, and a prelude to confiscation.

But what about people who did their best to obey the law?  Suckers!

Those most obviously in danger of being arrested at this time are 106 rifle owners and 108 magazine ownerswho tried to register their arms, too late. The government knows exactly who they are through their botched registrations, and sent them letters giving them options on how to surrender their arms and magazines.

But the police wouldn’t do that!  Yes they would, at least enough of them to fire a second shot heard around the world.  Let’s briefly examine what the police are sworn to do and how they think.

All police officers swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction.  They are members of the executive branch of government, and like the President or the Governors of the several states, are  responsible for seeing that the laws are faithfully enforced.  There are always two potentially exclusive principals at play in law enforcement:  officers are expected to fairly and uniformly enforce the law, yet may lawfully refuse illegal orders and may refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Practically, this rarely becomes an imminent conflict.  Officers are given a great deal of discretion, and usually don’t enforce ridiculous, unconstitutional laws.  Almost always, no one says a word about it.  This is so because thoughtful, professional officers know that they are the pointy end of the spear.  They know that the only reason our system works–and they survive–is because most people respect the law and are willing to obey it most of the time.  Were that not true, police officers wouldn’t last a day.  The police need the respect and willing cooperation of the public, and smart cops understand this.

Legislators, on the other hand, often care about nothing but seizing and maintaining power.  Too many come to see themselves not as public servants hired temporarily to do the people’s business, but as the intellectual and moral superiors of the people, divinely chosen–by themselves; they recognize no higher power–to tell the people what to think, what to say, what to own and how to behave.  They do not react well to the people thinking for themselves or refusing to obey.  They forget–if they ever knew–that no rational legislator passes a law they know will not be obeyed, because when they do, and when people ignore them, a difficult choice is forced upon them.  Take it and back down from a law they should never have written in the first place, or attack and show those peasants who’s boss.  Punish them for daring to challenge their betters.

And who are the enforcers for the elite legislative class.  The police.

Police officers must always consider three factors in their law enforcement decisions:

(1) Maintaining the rule of law.  They do this by upholding the Constitution, fairly enforcing the laws that actually have to do with public safety while honoring the rights of all.

(2) Upholding the social contract.  Police officers are given their powers by the people to deal with truly dangerous and harmful people and situations.  People are willing to respect and obey the police as long as they do not breach the social contract by becoming not even-handed enforcers of laws that actually protect the public and make civilized society possible, but partisan enforcers for a lawless government.

(3) Doing what is reasonably necessary to do their jobs honestly and honorably.

Smart police supervisors and executives also know they should never give an order that will not be obeyed.  Even so, will the police violate the Constitution, break the social contract, act dishonestly and dishonorably in doing their jobs?  Many will.  Refusal might mean the loss of career and pension, discipline, even prosecution.  Some buy into the idea that they are the masters of the people, not their servants.  Others will go along to get along.  Some will honestly, but wrongfully, believe their duty is to follow orders regardless.  But enough will do it.

The decision facing Connecticut legislators, the Attorney General and the Governor is stark: do they back down, refuse to actively pursue gun owners made instant felons by their unconstitutional laws, or do they suppress the peasants,  perhaps even kill a few to make the point?  That would never happen?  Consider the Jose Guerena case, and the case of Andrew Lee Scott.  Consider this from The Examiner:  

A journalist in Connecticut reports that the highly restrictive and punitive gun control laws the state passed last year carry an ominous threat for citizens.

Those who missed the deadline to register their ‘assault weapons’ and high-capacity magazines, which have been outlawed, will be treated as criminals although they may have attempted to obey the law but just missed the deadline.

Ed Jacovino of The Journal Inquirer further stated that Michael P, Lawler, a top aide to Gov. Dannel Malloy, contends that the state will punish those who missed the registration deadline whether they intended to or not.

According to Jacovino: ‘And while the state won’t immediately prosecute those who missed the deadline, it isn’t ignoring that information, either.  The rifle and magazine declarations will be included in information given to police responding to  a certain address.  ‘This would be a factor in deciding how to respond to different situations,’ Lawlor says.’

Read that statement closely.  Lawlor is saying that if a citizen calls the police to report a crime in progress, officers will be able to see whether or not the person reporting the crime has registered their assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and will approach the emergency call accordingly.

Honest officers trying to do their jobs honorably would carefully consider the three aforementioned factors.

They would realize that these laws are clearly unconstitutional and will, sooner rather than later, be ruled so.  They would understand that pursuing honest citizens who refuse to obey an unconstitutional law is a gross and unforgivable violation of the social contract, and such violations will cause breaches that will never be healed.  Trust lost is never regained.  Particularly, arresting–even killing, and some will die–people who actually tried to obey even an unconstitutional law but missed a deadline by a day or two is particularly dishonorable, even evil.  To do their jobs honestly and honorably, they would quietly refuse to enforce those laws.  Their supervisors and administrators, usually understanding of the three factors, would say nothing and do nothing.

Because the mere possession of magazines and AR-15-like weapons is not a crime if they are registered, police officers have no probable cause to investigate people for mere possession of such things.  How can any officer, by merely looking, tell if a magazine holds 10 or 11 rounds?  How can they tell if a magazine or a rifle have been registered?  To be forced to tear apart magazines and to examine and investigate every rifle they see exceeds an officer’s powers and reduces them to corrupt, thuggish operatives of a police state demanding to see anyone’s papers at whim.  Were this lawful, were this truly a significant law enforcement priority, why not simply station State Troopers at every shooting range as a gatekeeper? Of course, actual criminals tend not to frequent shooting ranges, but one has to have priorities.

If in the course of their normal duties they find themselves in a situation where they have genuine–not manufactured–probable cause to investigate further, they might need to enforce those particular laws, particularly if they’re dealing with real criminals rather than honest citizens criminalized by a corrupt legislature, but other than that, professionals would leave it alone.  There are far more pressing issues that the public will support and recognize as clearly upholding the social contract.

And this will work–it does every day–if the police are left to their own devices.  But as the Examiner noted, that may not be the case.  This is an issue about which the police are very much aware, and honest officers worried. Recently, a woman whose husband received a threatening letter called the State Police and spoke with Lt. J. Paul Vance, who is apparently the head of public information for the State Police.  [Click here to hear her recording of their conversation.]

Lt. J. Paul Vance (courtesy starkravingviking.blogspot.com)

While the woman is somewhat naïve regarding these issues, she is asking valid questions, particularly, if ordered to go to the homes of honest citizens and seize their firearms and accessories, will the State Police do it?  Will they put themselves and the citizens they serve in deadly danger to enforce unconstitutional laws?  Will they put honest citizens in situations where officers will feel compelled to kill them?

As the call goes on, Lt. Vance becomes upset and defensive, very reluctant to admit that the police are even considering such things, saying, among other things:

“I don’t want to talk about the Constitution at all–at all.” 

“It sounds like you’re anti-American and anti-law.”

“I’m the master.”

He repeatedly tells her to speak with her attorney and says he would never come to her home, because it’s not his job (of course not; he’s an administrator).  She corrects him, noting that lower ranking officers would do it, but he wants to avoid admitting that, and pretends that the police are automatons with no control over which laws to enforce.  He also pretends not to understand that police officers coming to the homes of the law-abiding to seize their weapons are in any unusual danger, nor will he admit that their actions would put citizens in danger.  He knows better; any competent police officer knows better.

Anyone listening to Lt. Vance should come away with the understanding that the State Police certainly will send SWAT teams to the homes of citizens, and will, if they deem it necessary, kill them over the number of rounds their magazines are capable of holding and the appearance of their rifles.  They will kill people to please blood-thirsty politicians.

Some local agencies–particularly sheriff’s departments, because sheriffs are elected–will refuse to participate, but many will.  Police officers on the coasts are different than those in flyover country.  They are generally more anti-gun.  The State Police absolutely will, and few, if any, will have any qualms about it.  In law enforcement circles, state police officers are known to be rigid and inflexible.  Because they generally have no ties to a particular community, many quickly develop an “us-against-them” mentality.  Their training and rank structure and daily relationships also tend to condition them to think themselves superior to local officers, and to be much more militaristic than other law enforcement agencies.

Have no doubt.

If Connecticut politicians decide to punish the peasants, the State Police SWAT teams will raid the homes of the innocent.  People will die.  The social contract will be irretrievably broken, and the police–and politicians–will be seen as, and treated as, the enemies of Americans.  They will have earned it.

If Connecticut’s legislators have any common sense, any honor, any decency, they will, at the very least, leave this alone and let this ultimately be decided by the courts.  If they’re actually smart, they’ll repeal these unconstitutional laws before lives are lost.

Any bets on which path they’ll take?

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.

205 Responses to Connecticut: The Coming Storm

  1. avatarPhoenixNFA says:

    Damn.

  2. avatarJohn C says:

    My bet…..they will double down on stupid.

    • avatarEvan in Dallas says:

      Good bet, especially since they always double down on stupid.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        I’m feeling a case of “full retard” mustering itself as we speak.

        I’m not confiscating guns from responsible citizens.

        • avatarMichi says:

          Accur81… You’re a LEO.. (One of the few active on ttag I think..)

          Obviously I get your stance on it… But I still wish I could gain some more insight into what police officers feel about this stuff — though I’m guessing the answer is “it varies as much as people vary.”

          Here in CO, it’s been almost a year since the passage of the magazine cap. So far, as far as I know, not a single person has been arrested for having a magazine that holds too many rounds. This actually surprises me, because I would think that SOME officer somewhere would be eager to make the first arrest of a “civvie” in possession of materiel meant only (as of last year) “for the military and government”.

          I don’t know what state you’re in, but if your state govt passed a law making the posession of “high” capacity magazines illegal, — and you can keep this hypothetical — how would you react if you saw someone using one in their rifle (responsibly of course) at the range?

          I mean internal thought process as much as external actions. I’m just really interested in how an officer feels on this.

          I’ll admit, where I go to shoot, I know a lot of police frequent. Though my mags are “grandfathered”, I find myself bringing 10-rounders simply because I don’t want to take the risk. I don’t want to be that first exemplary arrest.

          I know some would tell me I’m wrong for complying there, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near done fighting this “in the system” yet here in Colorado and I think it’s a bit premature to risk throwing myself on the sword for the cause.

          But, I always wonder what the LEOs (who are invariably using 30-rd mags at the range, by the way) might feel on standing orders and seeing what could be termed a “violation” in plain view.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          @Michi,

          I’ve gone shooting with some of the guys on TTAG. Let’s just say I’m more into the spirit of the 2A than the letter of the law. CA does have magazine limit laws. Heck, they’ve got so many laws it isn’t possible for a single person to know them all. Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Welfare & Institutions Code, etc.

          As for other cops, they are all over the place. Most are pro-gun or quasi-pro gun. Some will arrest their own mothers.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Bless you. This little piece of barely fictitious writing really hits hard, doesn’t it?

  3. avatarsacorey says:

    Im hoping theres enough people that act like james yaeger talks to turn this into a giant headache

  4. avatarMichael B. says:

    “Of course I’m dangerous, I’m police. I can do terrible things to people with impunity.” – Cohle, True Detective

    • avatarTom W. says:

      The other story, will be in regards to the officer’s attending funeral processions for their Thin Blue Line will get a wee bit thinner, sad all the way around. Moreover, it’s not just the “assault weapons” confiscation raids that will be scary and tragic. It’s when the bolt actions with long range optics start targeting politicians from far away. This is a leaking gas tank with matches at the ready

      • avatarEvan in Dallas says:

        Thats usually the rationale the pols use for wanting to ban those too. “What if people try to assassinate us?” I truly hope the restoration of liberty comes peacefully, but in a way I find it positive that they are worried about this. Maybe they are finally recognizing how much people are getting POed at their bad ideas. I don’t think it will stop them though.

        • avatarJeff says:

          There has always been a rumor that Hilary Clinton in the mid-90s, along with the NICS push, argued that optics above 4x power should be banned as “assassination tools.” I’ve always been skeptical about this, and have never been able to find a quote online. Can anyone confirm it?

        • avatarAnother Robert says:

          I dunno about that, but I do recall that in the aftermath of the “DC Sniper” case, the usual suspects were trying to gin up a “sniper rifle” ban (basically, any accurized bolt-action centerfire rifle that could mount optics IIRC)

  5. avatarsacorey says:

    Honestly, can we dial back the up armored barney fifes, i mean at least barney meant well and didnt shoot any dogs

  6. avatarlaunchpadmech says:

    RUN….GET OUT.,… MOVE…..BUT WHERE?

    • avatarShire-man says:

      You have most of the country to choose from. It’s the minority of states that are willing to round up and execute folks they don’t agree with.

      For now.

  7. avatarJ E says:

    CT is in a sad state — and there may be blood — but this is a bit over the top.

    • avatarAndy from CT says:

      Agreed.

      The letter was a draft. I’m from here. I follow the CCDL on FB. Everyone talks about the letter but no one received it. The letter didn’t even tell you how long you had to take action on one of the four crappy options. And even then it was only going out to 106 that sent the registration in late. I actually have no sympathy for them. They made themselves into low-hanging fruit.

      Enforcement is futile. Especially with magazines. For guns they can compare forms from sales over the past few decades with the list of the 50k that registered. But that would be a major undertaking. “John Doe” bought an FNC and a AR-15 in 1993. Did he sell them? Is he even still living in the state?”

      For magazines, how many of those sales are recorded? NONE. That and how many went out of state to a gun show, bought them legally and then brought them into the state legally? How many bought magazines over the internet?

      Absolutely 100% unenforceable.

      I doubt I will ever receive a letter. But if I do I guarantee you that the majority of the items in that letter are long gone. And the ones I bought recently? Well, you see officer. I gave them to my uncle in New Hampshire. Sorry. I don’t have them anymore.

      • avatarAndy from CT says:

        To clarify, you can still get busted for a magazine that you didn’t declare. But no one is going to get a letter as to why you didn’t register your magazines.

      • avatarbenny says:

        Yep. It’s a game of who will blink first.
        We all know which side has the most backbone. Money can’t buy courage and they certainly don’t have enough to enforce this grand of a scheme. The antis will fold, you just watch.

    • avatarHeadly LaMar says:

      Nice fiction, certainly incendiary.
      Obviously getting as good at creating emotional fiction as Bloomberg’s gang.
      Let’s not stoop to that level, shall we?

      • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

        One must stoop even lower to bury one’s head in the sand, don’t you find?

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          +1000,000. The bloody pages of the history of tyranny are chock full of incidents like the one described. And like you, they laughed nervously and told themselves, “that could never happen here!”

      • avatarThomasR says:

        Heady Lamar; this is reality; this has happened; will continue to happen in our “war on drugs”; it will simply expand to include outlawed “assault weapons”

        I can truly say I absolutely hate! with a passion! the idea of a no knock warrant; and having to decide if this were to happen to me; Do I shoot? Is it a gang of illegal armed thugs dressed as cops trying to rob and possibly murder me? Or is it the legal armed thugs that picked the wrong house because I live in a poor part of town?

        The fact I have to even think this says how much of a police state we have become.

      • avatarCol. Angus says:

        Well, kuom-by-frikkin’-yah……

      • avatarKCK says:

        Stop at the wife and paralized kid with the state taking $7mil
        It was real up till then.

        • avatarMichael F. says:

          Exactly. That part was overkill. The only thing missing from the story was the Hillary Clinton bumper sticker on the back of their armored SWAT vehicles.

      • avatarAndy says:

        This is a lot of what could have happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany , but they just let the authorities come in and confiscate their firearms , hoping that they would leave them alone , but as we all know that did not happen . So what makes you think that a scenario like this should not be planned for ? If society ends up with this kind of tragedy happening for real , just how far do you think that the politicians and their enforcers will go ? We are almost at a tipping point , to where the lust for power , or the arrogance of politicians pushing for more usurpation of power might might just push something like this . That is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment to be able to stop injustices such as this from happening . Be prepared and ready. Keep your powder dry.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Don’t forget the power desperation has over clear thinking. The political power structure feels their hold slipping, and though they realize rash and stupid actions are likely to fail, there is the horrible feeling that “We HAVE to do something! We’re losing the war!” That’s how things like that happen. If politics makes for strange bedfellows, desperation and panic makes for stupid, violent and ill-advised actions.

          And who is to say that once they’ve started, they’ll be able to stop?

      • avatarPanzercat says:

        I would like to say it’s fiction… But then I’m reminded of what happened here in AZ. Go ahead and google the name “Jose Guerena”, a United States Marine.

        “…He instructed his wife and 4-year-old son to hide inside a closet while he grabbed his AR-15 rifle and crouched down preparing to defend himself from the unidentified people breaking and entering into his home. The Sheriff’s Department initially claimed that Guerena had fired on officers; at least three of the SWAT members including the team commander reported in their post-operation debriefings that they had observed muzzle flashes aimed at them from inside the house.[5] After an examination of the rifle Guerena allegedly pointed at the officers however, it was determined that the rifle had not been fired; the safety was still engaged…”

        And…

        “A video of the raid shows roughly 38 seconds expired from the time the police briefly sounded a siren upon pulling into Guerena’s driveway until they shot him.[8] At this point the five person team fired at least 71 rounds at Guerena in less than seven seconds, who died after being hit 22 times…”

        Sadly, not fiction and not horribly unbelievable. In fact, I’m pretty certain a good chunk of the literary prose was taken from this specific incident.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

      • avatarNighthawk says:

        The same ones tugging heart strings with their selective retelling of stories that focus on the gun as the main aggressor instead of the person wielding the gun are the same ones telling us abuses of power will never happen and only crazy people would believe they can happen. The delusion is such that they ignore the fact that abuses of power are happening constantly, and all the while crime (the motivation for these abuses) isn’t being dented.

    • avatarmpow66m says:

      Wait until it tips off in NY,that will make CT look tame so to speak.Whats gonna happen when people flood to CT to help w/ the cause?……….Martial Law,then the festivities really kick off.

    • avatarAnother Robert says:

      Yes, I’m wondering exactly how helpful stuff like this is. It appears to me that Conn. authorities are feeling, at very least, conflicted about the corner they have painted themselves into. I’m not sure the best way to take advantage of that possible opening for rationality to prevail is to distribute such tales as this, complete with follow-up injustice upon injustice (e.g. that sending the orphan to a state home biz; if that part is based on any actual case, it might be a different story, but failing that it seems like just gratuitious pot-stirring).

      • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

        Slowly boiling frogs could use a little pot stirring to rouse them to leap, wouldn’t you agree?

        • avatarAnother Robert says:

          Well, to continue the metaphor–we don’t want them leaping into the fire if the cook is in the process of turning the stove off. Really, just not sure if this kind of thing is useful at this point, when the authorities and their media lapdogs alike are realizing they have mis-stepped and are looking for a way out.

        • avatarBryan says:

          Or to convince the chef to turn down the heat.

          Sorry didn’t see your post-Another Robert

        • avatarJR says:

          Robert, you are assuming they have misstepped. This ‘stand off’ could have been calculated, or at least foreseen as one of several possibilities.

          Right now, it is playing into the political machinery. They have a hot-button issue in the news almost every day, they get to paint the “us vs them” lines in the sand, and they get to characterize their opponents as the bad guys.

          Why would they consider this a misstep? We have to remember that they are NOT looking at this issue through the same lens we are. To assume so is to grossly miscalculate their goals and the means they will use to achieve said goals.

      • avatarAnother Robert says:

        Truthfully, I’m going off the statements by the gov’t officials up to this point, plus the one editorial in the mainstream news that I have seen. Re the editorial, it referenced the obligatory “laws can’t be ignored” theme, but was urging a re-opening of the “registration period”, along with the usual “education and outreach” jazz, to convince more people to comply ( i.e. is there some way we can kick this can down the road so we can figure something out). As for the officials, what I’ve seen so far is bureaucrat mumbo-jumbo stuff like that “the information [on non-compliers] will be considered in regard to how we respond in other actions”–what the hell does that mean? Even the much-maligned Lt. Vance was trying to kick that can down the road (“we aren’t there yet”) until he was goaded into making some stupid statements to a persistently vexatious caller. All in all, the responses from the CT “establishment” so far have been pretty weak tea, considering they are in a position to just say straight up, we will be enforcing this law to the fullest, you have x days to get in line. I concluded that they at least have some inkling that they may have bitten off more than they want to chew and would like to find a face-saving way out.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          But all that assumes that the final decision is up to them, when it may be up to people like Holder and Obeyme, neither of whom give a damn about what happens to the cops, or us.

    • avatarBrian in WI says:

      Maybe it is, but I could see it happening. How many rookies are in the team going in, what were they told going in? Would this SWAT team even know why they were raiding, because he turned in papers 3 days late, or would they be told the occupants were suspected of having an unknown number of ‘assault weapons’ and ‘multiple high capacity clips’? Once the bullets start flying, you don’t know how the members will respond. Shoot what the other guy is shooting at, etc.

      If you would have told someone that you couldn’t legally own a semi auto rifle or magazines holding more than 7 rounds etc 25 years ago they might have said you were being a bit ‘over the top’

      • avatarJR says:

        25 years ago…1989. Lots of talk in those days about handgun bans. In the early 90′s, there was 10 rnd mag limits on handgun mags – I remember when Midway stopped selling “pre-ban” mags.

        So, not so over the top. Par for the course, more like.

    • avatarDBM says:

      JE,
      So youre OK with how much blood? How much murder by cop? It seems like once or twice a week we read of cops breaking in the wrong door and mowing down everyone in sight. Yet nothing happens to them. The scenario is possible but your OK with that. Its just some blood. You make a fine useful idiot for CT legislature.

      • avatarLarry says:

        I’m curious as to how many occur that we do NOT hear about. I think we’ve all realized for years that if a cop wants to toss your car for drugs, he just does it, no warrant, no worry. If he finds nothing, he lets you go on your way (if you have been appropriately subservient) and no one ever hears of it. If he does find (or plant) something, he manufactures a reason to have searched without warrant. Here, we’re looking at the same thing in our homes, let’s not be surprised that some of us visualize the same exact violations.

      • avatarJ E says:

        I’m referring to the magazine dumping and spraying down everyone in the house. I’m referring to the over-the-top appeal to emotion that does little to help repeal this terrible law.

        This would be just as effective and much harder for those who may be on the fence regarding gun-rights to dismiss quickly if it omitted the chunk from the homeowner ( who simply gets shot instead of riddled by multiple magazine dumps) getting killed for the cellphone to the daughter discovering she is an orphan.

        We must engage the opposition by laying bare their irrational fears — not by replying with knee-jerk fears of our own. We need to evangelize the benefits of a well-informed and and civil society of gun-owners. We can do that by bringing a friend/acquaintance to the range and introducing firsthand.

        • avatar'Liljoe says:

          Actually… I’ve been thinking about that for a while… I think you need both… Actual facts and logic for those who want to listen… Overblown dramatic fantasy to combat those who wouldn’t listen anyway… Fight fire with fire where cold calm reason has no place to stand.

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          “reason has no place to stand.”

          Wrong answer. In America the Constitution is our bedrock.

        • avatarSalty Bear says:

          Fight fire with fire where cold calm reason has no place to stand.

          Rich, I think the place he’s referring to is the minds of bleeding heart liberal gun grabbers. These are people who count to ten 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. I’m disgusted with the idea of making emotional appeals, doing our own versions of ForTheChildren and such, but it’s the only thing these people understand. I doubt it’ll work, but I still think it’s worth a shot (not a full-auto mag dump though).

  8. avatarTaylor Tx says:

    Read this the other day from a link on TheGunWire, so I know we are generally very critical of LEO here, and to be fair, I think were pretty critical about everything. But as Uncle Ben from Spiderman has taught us “with great power comes great responsibility” :) and power corrupts etc But as an inevitability, LEOs will be the ones doing the actual physical act of confiscation, man that frog is boiling in CT right now.

    • avatarLarry says:

      All they have to do is say “NO!”

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Why assume that the cops will be the ones doing the confiscation? It seems more likely (a lot) that they would use foreign troops that feel no sense of connection or loyalty to the Constitution of the American people. UN “peacekeepers”, tasked with solving a trumped-up “rampant violence” by gun owners?

      Or NATO troops? Some of you are assuming the ones who come to confiscate will have all the facts to weigh, and have the ability to make a rational decision. They can tell those guys just about ANYTHING.

      It happens all the time; it just hasn’t happened here. Yet.

  9. avatarMike H says:

    An frightening scenario is the State of Connecticut does not go through with widespread confiscations but uses the threat as a sword of Damocles to hang over the heads of all its residents. A kind of “any time we want to we can imprison” you threat.

  10. avatarBill says:

    At least they are fashion conscious enough to have swapped last year’s FDE and Multicam (can you say FAUX PAS???) for this year’s trendy Urban Grey.

  11. avatarLawrence says:

    The Constitution State …. lol

  12. avatarOHgunner says:

    To do my part for the gun owners in CT, I just designed a T-shirt on Teespring.com to help support Connecticut gun owners. I will be donating all of the proceeds to ctcarry.com to help fund the legal battles ahead.

    Go to http://www.teespring.com/connecticut to order the shirts.

    Twenty shirts must be sold for any to ship out, but you aren’t charged unless the minimum is met and the shirts get printed.

    They say “I Support Connecticut Gun Owners” on the front, and “Don’t Let The Left Take Away Our Rights” on the back under an M4 silhouette.

    The shirts are $20 each, with ladies shirts, long sleeve, V-neck, and hoodies for a little more (hoodies are the most expensive at $33).

    All of the proceeds will be donated to ctcarry.com at the end of the sale. They will be available to buy for 21 days, and will ship 10-14 days later.

    • avatarPascal says:

      if you want to fund the legal battles, then donate to the CCDL.

      While CTCARRY does its part, many time helping individuals with permits and other issues with the police, it is not fighting the bogus laws in court. That is being done via the CCDL.

      Not saying some money should not go to CTCARRY, but it is not for the major court battle

  13. avatarhayward says:

    This is possible.
    It is highly unlikely.

    I really feel for the unstable guys that frequent this site and read this stuff. they must be sh888ng in their pants now, rushing to figure out a way to escape capture.

    Just go and register the dang gun. You can then work on getting the support necessary to overturn the law, but publishing things like this is useless. You actually have to become friendly with the rest of the population. When you write stuff like this you just look crazy!!

    • avatarJR says:

      You seem to be under the misunderstanding that ‘registration’ goes away after the law is overturned. Or that registration is in any way acceptable.

      Registration of private property is NEVER a good idea. It kinda means that property is not really privately owned.

      Nice try at a “bandwagon” fallacy, by the way….get with the rest of the population? Really? Wow.

    • avatarShire-man says:

      Except you cant. That window has closed. Re-opening registration may happen but as of now if you havent already registered you’re a felon whose SOL.

    • avatarTim U says:

      Registrations that are mandated to be destroyed never are.

      The FBI is forbidden by law to keep NICS checks for an extended period of time, yet we have seen numerous reports that prove they are in fact keeping it. Every time you fill out a form 4473 and your name turns up in their system, they know you have one more gun.

      • avatarST says:

        Indeed. A press release by the Etrace section of the ATF already says Conneticutt and other states share their local registries with the Feds.

        Which means, 4473 or no, if you’ve bought a gun secondhand or firsthand from virtually any blue state in America, it’s got a dossier with your name on it in Virginia.

    • avatarMichael G Marriam says:

      Sure go ahead register your gun. Gun registration never leads to confiscation. And if they did confiscate your gun eventually the courts will rule in your favor and you’ll get it back in better shape than when you lost it. Really?

    • avatarWarren says:

      Unstable is the person who agrees with another unstable person.

    • avatarDB says:

      “Just register the dang gun”

      Gleichschaltung!!

    • avatarJonathan - Houston says:

      Spoken like a true Sunshine Patriot.

    • avatarThomas says:

      Register nothing. Just bury or hide the guns. Let them expend resources trying to find them. Public opinion will go against them big time if they knock on thousands of doors and turn up nothing. Then the a holes will get voted out. We need to practice patience right now.

      • avatarEvan in Dallas says:

        I doubt they will get voted out, the people who voted them in see no problem with failures like this. Progs are of the opinion that there policies never fail, you simply haven’t given said policies enough time to work yet.

    • avatarZachary marrs says:

      Just get in the box car, after all, this holocaust might come to an end

    • avatarJoe says:

      I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what has gone on and what is going on at this time.

    • avatarWarren says:

      There is one scenario I haven’t seen posted here, LEOs side by side with citizens saying HELL NO !
      The politicians are just like trouble makers on a playground instigating a fight between two people who have no beef with each other. You can’t have a war when both sides are allied. It is your move LEOs

  14. avatarJR says:

    I reiterate my question…”why the delay on arrests?”

    For all the saber rattling, why is the State NOT arresting those who they have names and addresses for? They have had this information for over two months, they claim they are GOING to do it, but why the delay?

    My speculation is that the longer they can draw this out in the press and pop culture (including the blogosphere), the more entrenched the memes of “criminal” “felon” and “domestic terrorist” take hold.

    They do NOT want this in the courts…not yet, anyway. They KNOW the law is crap and indefensible. They knew it all along is my guess.

    So, their delay is galvanizing the gun rights folks both in CT and across the country. With that galvanizing action comes a lot of talk and keyboard action that plays right into “those gun owners are the violent bad guys.”

    Memes take time to grow into a life of their own…to go “viral,” I guess. All this yacking in the press, in press conferences, on tv, in blogs, newspaper op-eds…the battle IS being fought as a propaganda war.

    And in that battle, they have time on their side. The longer they can make us look like the fringe kooks to the great “public,” the more likely those labels stick.

    • avatarRed Sox says:

      I’m all for the delays actually so it is closer to the November elections and this is fresh on the minds of motivated 2A’ers.

    • avatarAlex Peters says:

      2014 is an election year. Gov. Malloy is in for a very close race. Personally, I don’t think anything happens this year. We’ll see what happens in 2015.

      • avatarJR says:

        But as the article asks, why pass a law you have no intention to enforce? If Malloy did not want it clogging up his chances in ’14, he could have lobbied to have the effective date later than 1 Jan 2014.

        So long as they sit on real action, they run the risk of not having any power at all…of being weak. I like weak in a government entity, don’t get me wrong, but it does not seem to play into their typical motivation.

        The longer they delay to take ANY action (which they have to…I don’t believe for a second this will survive one single judicial review), when something DOES come to pass, even if not until 2015, they will have had that much time to paint all the civil disobeyers as “felons” and “domestic terrorists.”

        That taints juries.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        Yep, 2015 seems much more likely.

    • avatarAndy from CT says:

      Yup. The CCDL is out there saying, “Enforce the law or repeal it”

      I personally love this. I honestly think that the gun grabbers are now afraid to enforce the law. They know that if blood is spilled (either newly minted felon or police officer) it will look extremely bad for the state and especially the governor and legislators.

    • avatarThomasR says:

      What you said JR; If you are the general consensus; no wonder we are in the current state of affairs.. The idea that there was enough of an agreement that 12 out of 13 colonies voted to become independent of the tyrant King George and then fight a revolution to make it so is absolutely mind boggling!

      Now; today; what do we have? Your saying that people that actually believe that the constitution and the second amendment means what it says and are willing to defend that freedom with their lives are considered as some “fringe kooks:” Wow!

      If you are correct JR; then how the mighty have fallen and those that are left are dwelling in the shadows of ruins built by those better than themselves.

      • avatarJR says:

        I’m a having a bit of trouble following your point here, so I wanted to clarify my comment so there is no misunderstanding.

        *I* am not saying those that cling to the Constitution are fringe kooks, only that trying this idea in the Court of Public Opinion gives the anti’s time to paint the Patriots this way.

        That they (the grabbers) control the press, especially in CT, is clear. The more times they get to call lawful gun owners in CT “felons” the more people will be convinced the label is appropriate.

        The sooner the laws get challenged in court the better for our side (in my opinion), and that is precisely why, again in my opinion, the State of CT is NOT making these arrests.

    • avatarDJ says:

      “They do NOT want this in the courts…not yet, anyway. They KNOW the law is crap and indefensible. They knew it all along is my guess. ”

      I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The courts upheld the AWB (which was also unconstitutional, but that’s another story) and they still uphold the GCA.

      @JR. Sorry – for some reason this posted under the wrong reply.

    • avatarChris says:

      There may be more to it than trying to make those who refused to register out to be ‘deserving’ of arrest.

      They have a little more than 100 people they know to search, and if they find the prohibited weapons and weapon accessories still in their possession, odds are good that they’ll be arrested and have the full weight of the law pressed down upon them. With potentially 100 examples made, they can point to the rest of the gun owners and say ‘here’s a second chance, register now or end up with the others’. But that only works if they agree to open a second registration period, and the arrests go down without violence.

      They’re undoubtedly waiting to take action due to the election year, so perhaps they want to hold off with threats looming, and if/when the anger over the law dies down, they can quietly repeal it [or quietly enforce it]. It’s a prominent issue, moving on it now would publicly impact their political image, and make hefty verbal stones to throw when it comes to election campaigning. Image is everything, as long as their political stance *looks* good, they have a good chance of getting into or keeping their office.
      Even if it’s still a front page issue post election, they can repeal or enforce the law without fretting over their precious political seat.

      Perhaps they expected gun owners to simply roll over and register, not wanting to become felons, and didn’t plan for the possibility of the majority of people ignoring the law. Now they have to figure out what to do, since they went forward without a backup plan.

      For the time being, it’s a matter of who blinks first in this staring contest.

  15. avatarjim doe says:

    After one or two of these, some are going to go pay a visit to the private homes of participating jbts. Pets, spouses and even kids will Water the tree of liberty. It won’t be pretty, but war seldom is.

  16. avatarstyrgwillidar says:

    You know — if enough of us felt that the government was lawless– not just with the gun laws but with things like illegal immigration where the government refuses to enforce the laws against an entire group of people, or marijuana/drug where state and federal laws conflict yet its the poor citizen who’ll go to jail obeying the state laws that conflict with the federal. Not the politicians who set up the contradiction—

    we could join the lawlessness by refusing to convict anyone of anything when summoned for jury duty. If the politicians pass laws which the police enforce — but juries won’t convict, the laws don’t matter. I think it’s time all of us who sit on juries join the government in its lawlessness, assist them in promulgating the slide to anarchy.

    • avatarEvan in Dallas says:

      Depends on your state. You have to know what the policies are in terms of jury nullification. It isn’t universally applicable. In most states it is though.

      • avataruncommon_sense says:

        Jury nullification IS universally applicable, period. The problem is that 90% of the people have no idea what jury nullification means or when they should apply it.

        The problem is that our courts tell juries that they MUST issue a “guilty” verdict if the accused broke a law. That is NOT the job of juries. Their job is to deliver justice. In order to deliver justice, juries must determine the facts of the case and then decide what is just.

        Here are some examples of juries serving justice:
        (1) If a jury determines that the accused swore in public and will therefore have to pay a $100 fine, they should find the accused guilty.
        (2) If a jury determines that the accused swore in public and will therefore be executed, they should find the accused not guilty.
        (3) If a jury determines that the accused failed to register a rifle and will therefore have to pay a $20 fine, they can find the accused either guilty or not guilty as their conscience directs them.
        (4) If a jury determines that the accused failed to register a rifle and will therefore spend five years in prison, they should find the accused not guilty.

        Jury nullification is that simple. Make sure the accused really broke the law. Make sure the law is just. And make sure the penalty fits the crime. If any of those are out-of-whack, find the accused not guilty.

      • avatarAnother Robert says:

        Jury nullification isn’t like a statute or a court-precedent-based “common law”. The term is actually simply a short-hand name for the fact that a jury has the prerogative to reach whatever verdict it collectively decides to make, no matter what instructions have come from the bench. That is true whatever the jurisdiction. I myself, as a prosecutor, have been on the wrong end of a variant of the concept, when the jury decides “guilty or not, this case never should have been brought to trial”. And outside of flagrant, provable jury misconduct (e.g. a juror or two actually tells the judge that they reached their verdict by a coin flip, or specifically says yes, we all agreed he was guilty, but decided we didn’t like that law so we voted to acquit) the jury’s verdict will stand.

    • avatarRich Grise says:

      I got called for jury duty just the other day. I went, signed in, and sat. Went to lunch, signed back in and sat. About 1:30 in the afternoon, I got to go to a courtroom; I sat with a couple dozen other people while the judge came in and said, “The case you were supposed to try got settled this morning, we’re sorry we weren’t able to call you, but thank you for your service, you’ve completed your obligation. Have a nice day.”

      I was kind of disappointed – I was so looking forward to nullifying something! I had my pocket Constitution and everything! As a side note,I was a little surprised that at the metal detector they made me leave my Bic lighter outside, but I guess there’s no logic in the statist mind.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        So you failed at burning down the courthouse. At least you tried. Maybe there will be another opportunity.
        :D

  17. avatarKyle in CT says:

    For a lot of reasons, there is a significant portion of voters in the state that are pissed at the Malloy administration. It’s not just guns, it’s taxes, a failing economy, a woeful lack of job growth, and a failure to deal with the problems he promised to solve (e.g. shady accounting practices with reference to the budget, he pulled the same garbage his predecessors did). Trouble is, the Republicans are just as bad. CT, prior to Malloy, hadn’t had a Democratic governor since 1991, and they screwed up the state just as badly, a fact Malloy has been whining about just about every day since he took office. And of course the leading GOP candidate is Foley, who keeps putting his foot in his mouth by publicly accusing Malloy of misconduct without any evidence to back it up. It’s a ship of fools ….

    • avatarJR says:

      This kind of thing is a good argument for something a friend mentioned a few years ago. It’s hypothetical and not without it’s own problems, but is an intriguing idea.

      If a candidate does not get a simple majority, they do not win an election, even if they got the MOST votes. So, 48% does not cut it.

      In that case, the ballot is wiped cleaned and a new election is held with all new candidates. Eventually (in theory!), the ballot will hold a candidate the majority want.

      Like I said, it has some problems, but they are perhaps no less than accepting lesser of two evils form of government, or the “both equally corrupt” aspect of a two party system.

      • avatarBob says:

        I Like it!!!

      • avatarKyle in CT says:

        That suggestion is essentially a run-off election, whereby the top 2-3 candidates would be voted on again if none could muster a majority. It’s not a bad idea, but it doesn’t really solve the core problem that the majority of the politicians are crooks and/or fools. Personal opinion is that the way out of this is a long-term reform of the educational system to demand better outcomes. The more people who are able to think critically, the better. Hopefully that would help solve the sound byte politics issue.

        • avatarJR says:

          Not really a run-off, because if they did not get the majority in the initial election, they are off the ballet.

          It’s a hypothetical that’s fun to ponder. I doubt anything like that could actually be put into practice (and has its own cans of corruption worms).

        • avatarDavid says:

          Long-term reform of the educational system is impossible as long as the govt. is running it. It’s a govt. indoctrination system as it is now. The only way to reform it is to abandon it for private schools and home schooling.

        • avatarEvan in Dallas says:

          The problem is that politics will always attract narcissistic sociopaths. Good people do productive things instead. They don’t go into politics. Term limits would help. In addition to a permanent cap on their salaries(I think a dollar a year would do it) that way no one goes into it trying to make a career of it. Don’t know how you get there since none of them would vote for this.

        • avatarJR says:

          Evan, +1.

          Same friend used to say: “Shouldn’t give the job {President | Any Elected Official} to anyone who wants it.”

          Pretty good point, that.

        • avatarDJ says:

          @ Evan – the problem with the $1/year idea is that it ensures only the independently wealthy will ever be in office. A better approach would be to tie all elected officials compensation to whatever the prevailing median wage is in the area they represent.

          Regardless of how you handle their “salary” though, the reality is that many go into politics to profit from “legal graft” – the ability to award benefits to and legislate on behalf of friends and family, campaign contributions and gifts, the opportunity to “retire” and take those campaign funds and become a lobbyist.

          A comprehensive solution to all that is a different topic for discussion, but I think an argument could be made that unused campaign contributions are the property of the electorate, not the candidate and should be returned to the state to reduce the deficit rather than becoming the personal property of the candidate.

      • avatarstyrgwillidar says:

        I would prefer a government by jury draft. Random representative drawn from among the people who expect to have to live under the constraints of the laws that are passed. Removing the motivation to pass laws to solicit support/donations for their next reelection. Also removing the requirement for allegiance to a party to move up in a political career. Also common folks may have more curiousity as to why current laws aren’t enforced and willingness to defund agencies not doing their jobs vice just passing more laws which may or may not be enforced.

        I think it would be an improvement over the connected elite network of lawyers and their fundraisers that we have now.

      • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

        A simpler and more plausible change to make is to change the voting method from plurality voting to approval voting. To make a long story short, instead of voting “yes” for one candidate and “no” for all other candidates (which is how it works with the current system of plurality voting), you vote “yes” for those you decide to approve of, and “no” for those you do not.

        Essentially, you could check the box for as many candidates as you “approve” of (in whatever manner you decide constitutes approval). “Vote for one” becomes “vote for one or more” on a ballot.

        Plurality voting keeps the two parties in power, since they can argue that you’re “wasting your vote” if you vote for a third party or independent. Of course, IMO, voting for someone you don’t really want is wasting your vote. As long as you can only express a “yes” preference for one candidate, the two-party system will continue. The two parties work together to keep all would-be third parties & independents out of the system, and to keep themselves in power … so it would be hard to implement this reform without an initiative system in place.

        On a much deeper level, the problem is simply that government has far too much power, period. As long as it has the power to make so many decisions for people, we’ll have problems.

        (P.S. The voting method of plurality voting is actually one of the worst voting methods available. It’s a shame that we use it so much.)

      • avatarRich Grise says:

        I think the “None of the Above” option is better. If no candidate can get a majority of eligible voters, leave the office empty.

        As a metaphysicist, I’ve recently discovered that the existence of government is a crime against Nature, but I don’t know how ready the world is for that revelation. It’s OK to have a map room and registry of deeds, but they’re not supposed to be anybody’s boss.

        And according to the Mother and Father of Manifestation, even God isn’t supposed to be the boss of the Universe or even its owner! The Individual is the Supreme Sovereign. I like John 8:32: “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          You had better believe they dread the day “None of the Above” wins the election! It’s a no-confidence vote on the entire election system. That’s why so few places have been able to get NOTA on the ballot.

  18. avatarST says:

    IMO- and this is just pure conjecture- the SWAT raids at two AM aren’t the game plan. There’s too much political risk for serious blowback. Remember the only thing leftists pay more attention to then gun control is police action seizing property. The latte and fedora crowd know all too well that SWAT can take a registered weed stash just as fast as a registered gun, and will react in kind politically.

    No, the game plan is playing out right now in Canada. The goal is to get everything registered , and casually document the folks who don’t comply.

    Then the government hits “cruise control ” and does nothing for five odd years. Once the public outcry dies down, start mailing letters and suspending necessary state stuff for the violators like drivers licenses, tax returns, etc. Got a CCW permit and an “unregistered” toy in the closet? Watch it grow wings until you hand in the hardware.

    Remember- the upper politicial echelons can only whitewash so much.Folks might start getting leery once the fourth dog and family gets whacked in a five day period. That’s why, IMO, the political powers that are will just wait and see.

  19. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I believe that in the draft letter that was posted included the option of removing the weapon from the state. So if you’re one of those who registered late, couldn’t you contact the authorities and inform them that the weapon is no longer in Connecticut? At the very least that would be a good face saving option for the state – swear the weapon isn’t in state anymore and we won’t investigate any further.

    • avatarWarren says:

      Seriously??? Lying will not defend the constitution…time to stand our ground

    • avatarJim Barrett says:

      You’d probably have to prove it was removed. Since it’s illegal to transfer a weapon across state lines without going through a FFL (I think intra-family trades are exempt, but that’s it), you would have easily producible proof that you sent it to an out of state FFL. The burden of proof that the weapon left the state would be on you, so claims that “I lost the paperwork” probably wouldn’t fly.

      • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Who says you have to give up ownership? You could lock it up in a mini-storage unit and by my understanding you’d be in full compliance of the law, as long as the rifle is removed from the state. And magazines would have no paperwork attached to them under any circumstances.

        Or you could hide it in your attic, whichever…

  20. avatarDavid PA/NJ says:

    I read up to Social Contract and then stopped. There is no social contract.

  21. avatarBLAMMO says:

    You’re almost better off with no gun at all, than having one that’s registered.

  22. avatarWarren says:

    I cannot believe any law enforcement officer would want to go confiscate weapons and leave his own home and family unprotected in a state with 300,000 new felons. His neighbors all know who he is.
    Just sayin….

    • avatarRoss says:

      That’s right, one tasked with inforcing unconstitutional laws should never forget they have to live in the community also.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      You’re assuming they think before they act. I’m unsure that’s the case. Following orders is NOT conducive to before-action thinking. Thinking, when done at all, is usually an after-the-fact thing.

  23. avatarKCK says:

    Where is the Supreme Court??
    Let the burden of proving the constitutionality of this monstrosity be on the State.
    Put a stay on this until it can be heard.

    • avatarJR says:

      In general, the courts don’t just act. There has to be a case to bring an issue for review.

      In this case, there pretty much has to be an arrest to start the ball rolling. That’s why it is my speculation why there have been no arrests to date; the State of CT does NOT want this to go to court.

      This way, they get to have their cake and eat it, too. “We passed a law – FOR THE CHILDREN – and those mean old gun toting FELONS disobeyed it!”

      That’s why I think the CT gun owner’s letter the other day was brilliant. “Enforce the law or repeal it. Those are the ONLY two choices that are acceptable.”

      Note that their letter did not include an ultimatum of violence…they explicitly asked for their “day in court,” which is exactly what the CT State Police said last week would be required.

      So, the State is saying the courts must decide it, but that same State is denying the due process standing of the potential ‘victims’ of this law to get it into the courts in the first place.

  24. avatarBR549 says:

    I ran into people like Vance in the service; ……. every crease so perfectly ironed and not one smudge on his shoes or hat, yet underneath that seemingly disciplined persona is a total retard who thinks no one can see the sociopathic parasite hiding behind the uniform.

    In the end, while you’re busy dodging bullets and helping a wounded buddy, these idiots are already looking to see where they can put another medal on themselves for the bravery YOU performed.

  25. avatarHannibal says:

    This article sounds like some sicko is rubbing one out as they write it in their safe room. I thought about writing a similarly gory, poorly-written and dramatized version where a gun owner’s child somehow finds a gun in the house and kills his sister but then I just couldn’t… and I don’t think even demanding mom’s would get off on writing such tripe.

    Just awful.

  26. avatarErrantVenture11 says:

    The tale of almost an entire family being offed by accident seems a bit hyperbolicious (a combination of hyperbole and delicious, as in “This hyperbole really satisfies my craving for emotional rhetoric outlining a worst-possible-case scenario!”). Honestly it reads like the hypothetical, fear-laced diatribes that we find in anti-gun op-eds. I could do without it…

    That said, the rest of the article is spot on, and certainly the risk of death or injury to all parties involved in raids against homeowners is real. In the end, it will in fact come down to just what the author states: The willingness of the legislators to blink vs. the readiness of the State Police to protect and serve those legislators instead of the people.

    • avatarJason says:

      And yet, it happens every night in America under the auspices of the “War on Drugs”

      But, those are poor minorities, so no one in the media gives a shit…

  27. avatarBartman1 says:

    God help us all.

  28. avatarJeb Branham says:

    I hope I never see any writer on this blog ever criticize an anti-gun person for using scare tactics again. The hypocrisy of this piece is disheartening.

  29. avatarMike says:

    This is an amusing read but unrealistic. You see, tyranny is not that stupid. Tyranny knows if it overreaches, its hand will be cut off. Tyranny instead creeps in increments. Restrict magazine capacities to 15. Then 10. Then registration. Then confiscation.

    CT is at the registration stage, and confiscation will be done incrementally. It isn’t the time to kick down doors. Not yet.

    The people who tried to register after the deadline will be the first targets. A simple knock at the door by two local police officers. “Hi, are you John Smith? We understand you own an AR-15. Can you show us where it is?”

    Some will let the police in and the firearm will be confiscated without incident. The felony charge will come later. There’s no rush. Some will refuse the police entry. The police will get warrants. After all, these suspects essentially signed an admission that they possess said firearms. After the firearms are confiscated, the arrests will be made a week or two later. They will go smoothly – no SWAT teams will be present, though they will be on standby out-of-sight. CT lawmakers will cite the smooth success of the confiscation and subsequent arrests as an example for any other felons out there still refusing to comply. “Turn them in now, Mister and Miss America.” Some will cave. Others will not.

    The second stage will be random checks outside local shooting ranges. An undercover officer will observe an AR-15 at the range. Outside, uniformed officers will intercept the suspect as he walks to his car. “Hi there. Do you have identification on you? Thanks. We need to inspect your firearm…”

    This time, the arrests will be made on the scene.

    After this, anyone who continues to own “contraband” will have it hidden away at home and wouldn’t dare to bring it outside. That’s fine with CT. As with other crimes, it can’t catch all criminals but it at least wants to catch the observable crimes and crush the open dissension with the law. They will.

    Over time, the gun culture in CT will change. It may take a generation… but there will come a time when CT gun owners will see a photo of their Georgian friend with an AR-15 and ask “how is that legal?” forgetting that it was once the norm in CT…

    • avatartdiinva says:

      +1 with one modification. They won’t charge the first ones they go after. For one thing it could be a pillar of the community” and when it comes to trial the jury will nullify. The second reason is that they may pick someone who is willing to go to the legal mat and end up getting the law overturned. Malloy and co don’t want to see that happen until they can confiscate as many banned firearms as possible. They also will want to encourage the faint hearted to cave before they get charged so why arrest someone early on in the process.

    • avatarLarry says:

      If those hypothetical cops were coming to MY door for an AR-15, they would be well advised to call first. And bring all their friends, and everybody bring your lunch, it’s gonna be a long day, and I won’t be serving refreshments. I’ll see to it that the press is notified, and given directions, and the party can begin. You’ll have to see how the public reacts to “common sense” laws after that, I won’t be with you. If the press makes it I’ll be on trial, otherwise I’ll have been murdered.

  30. avatarIdahoPete says:

    “If Connecticut’s legislators have any common sense, any honor, any decency, they will, at the very least, leave this alone and let this ultimately be decided by the courts. If they’re actually smart, they’ll repeal these unconstitutional laws before lives are lost.”

    Common sense? honor? decency? smart? The same Connecticut legislators who passed the law in the first place?

    Dream on.

    Just wondering – does anyone have a list of the home addresses of the Connecticut legislators who voted for the law? And can it be posted on-line so the people of Connecticut can write them personal thank-you notes for protecting the populace by banning those evil guns? Just wondering.

  31. avatarEATENG says:

    And here I thought that only the gun-grabbers resorted to sensationalism and demagoguery…

    • avatarLarry says:

      Ah! You thought the sensible folks would just bend over and take it?

      • avatarEATENG says:

        I’m sorry, but I must have missed the part where I typed that. How do we claim the intellectual and moral high ground when we engage in the same tactics of the other side that we consistently ridicule?

  32. avatarCurtis in IL says:

    This blog’s disdain for the law enforcement profession continues to annoy me.

    I work in local government and work closely with the county sheriff, the chief of the local police, and their command staff. I’ve had plenty of candid conversations with them about 2A issues, and Illinois is one of the battlegrounds.

    The police officers I know are strong 2A supporters. They could be our allies in this struggle (as many county sheriffs across the country have publicly opposed gun control laws and supported concealed carry). Attitudes may be different in other communities, but police mostly just want to do their jobs and go home safely after their shift. They don’t deserve to be portrayed as jack booted thugs.

    When we see abusive conduct by law enforcement we need to call them out. But we also need to remember that local and state police departments are in the unenviable position of enforcing the laws created by politicians. It is unfair, not to mention counterproductive, to vilify the entire profession.

    When we ridicule law enforcement today, then praise the Detroit Police Chief tomorrow, we are as hypocritical as the leftist zealots we detest.

    • avatarDelmarva Chip says:

      “When we see abusive conduct by law enforcement we need to call them out.”

      That’s true, but what really needs to happen – and what would give many of us more confidence that there are indeed good law enforcement personnel out there – is that when the world sees abusive conduct by law enforcement, other people in law enforcement and government must call them out and state unequivocally that those abusive actions were wrong.

      Silence appears to imply approval of those activities. And whether there is actual approval or not, that is the message that is sent by silence. The old saying “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” applies here.

    • avatarJoe says:

      We do not have county governments or sheriffs here in CT…. only police. Just something to keep in mind.

      • avatarLarry says:

        What, like a state mini-Army, answers only to the Gov, or what? You’re kidding, right? Is there an Amendment process in your state?

        • avatarMetalius Shaperium says:

          True. Only town/city and state gov’t. Only town/city LE and state troopers. The sheriffs have been gone for a long time.

    • avatarEvan in Dallas says:

      I understand good cops exist(although I have only ever run into the jackbooted type, and I am always extremely polite), but they never seem to openly condemn the behavior of really bad cops. If they want the respect of the public, they need to actively weed out the bad cops. If they can’t fire them, make them such a social pariah that they quit themselves.

      • avatarAnother Robert says:

        I know good cops exist–I play basketball with a bunch of ‘em on Wednesdays when I can make it. But the way things are going nationwide, I am gaining sympathy for those folks who are starting to place “good cops” in the same category as “moderate Muslims”. Surely they are there, but it would be helpful if they would openly speak out against their extremist brethren.

  33. avatarJack in MT says:

    There’s another option on the table here. CT gun owners don’t need to be willing to engage in the mass slaughter of police officers to prove their manhood and willingness to defend the 2nd amendment. What they need is one owner of a non-registered gun, with a healthy bank account, no family to support, and a set of balls, who is willing to sling that thing on his back and stand outside the State Police HQ and get arrested. Then this idiotic and unconstitutional law can get overturned by the courts. If they’re not willing to go to jail for what they believe in, what makes anyone think they’ll be willing to kill for it?

    • avatarJR says:

      Bingo.

      But, to their credit, the CT gun owners in that post a couple of days ago did say “arrest us or repeal the law.” A lot (not all) of the saber rattling from the gun rights side is coming from the anonymous comments on blog sites.

      They (the gun owners, at the least the gun rights GROUPS) want their day in court. Their ultimatum is “enforce the law or drop it,” not “come and get it and die trying.”

      That the State seems to resistant to starting the legal process is what I find intriguing. “Will of the people” is out the door. This whole thing smacks of political manipulation, and in an election year, go figure.

      • avatarJack in MT says:

        Yeah, but why let the state pick who they get to prosecute? Why not present them with a model citizen who they won’t be able to demonize? I’ll put up the first $500 towards the legal defense of the first person in CT willing to exercise a little civil disobedience. You can be sure more would follow.

        • avataruncommon_sense says:

          “Yeah, but why let the state pick who they get to prosecute? Why not present them with a model citizen who they won’t be able to demonize?”

          An excellent application of Sun Tzu’s principle to bring the battle to the enemy on your terms, not theirs.

          I would throw in a chunk of cash to support the defense fund of such a person as well.

        • avatarJR says:

          Yeah, kinda what I was thinking. Get the right person to “surrender” and be arrested. Risky, but it could be hugely effective. At least it would start the ball rolling through the court system.

        • avatarJack in MT says:

          It’s risky, sure, and it will take a committed person to do it. It would be more effective to have a hundred or a thousand people do it at the same time. But after two months, not one person has been willing to risk a five year prison sentence to uphold their own and their fellow citizens’ rights,but we’re supposed to believe that those same people are going to offer violent resistance when the swat teams break down their doors? Not likely.

    • avatarLarry says:

      I like it! Call the press first, how long will the police let you stand there on camera, they would HAVE to act, or publicly declare the law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it (police nullification?). Unfortunately, this really does ask a hell of a lot from that one guy, there’s possibly not one in the state.

  34. avatarGringoFusilero says:

    There is no such thing as a social contract.

  35. avatartdiinva says:

    I don’t think they will resort to SWAT right out of the box. Rather they will ease into it. They know very well the people who they are going after are law abiding citizens and not a threat. They will first come with a not so friendly knock on the door and search warrant. The authorities are going see what the reaction is going to be. If more “gentle” tactics don’t work in flushing out the hold outs then they will up the ante.

  36. avatarJAS says:

    Let’s see, the police are going to have to go serve a warrant to search a domicile where a “known felon” (the key words here) resides, also known to probably be in possession of an AR15 and probably multiple 30-round magazines. Anyone here think they are going to politely knock on the door?

    There was an incident a while back in St. Petersburg, Florida where police went to the domicile and politely knocked. Two officers died and the house was demolished to get to the shooter. Read what happened here:

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/two-st-petersburg-officers-slain-by-wanted-fugitive/1147475

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      No doubt about it … if a person holds up in their home after taking out one or more cops, the cops will simply burn the house down in short order. At that point the home owner’s only two options are burning up alive in the home or coming outside where the cops can execute him/her.

      • avatarTaylor Tx says:

        Christopher Dorner comes to mind, however attacking peoples families is another despicable thing altogether.

        • avatarJR says:

          As does Andrew Wourdes, but on a slightly different level.

          Miriam Carey comes to mind, as well.

    • avatarJaredFromTampa says:

      Strange how the city of St. Petersburg has still not paid Christine Lacy one red cent for destroying her home despite their promise to make her whole. On another strange note, the lawyer representing Ms. Lacy got me out of a DUI one time. I have his number saved in my phone.

  37. avatarbigdaddy says:

    Say it isn’t so. I thought all these new laws were designed so that if they “just save one life” ?…

  38. avatarAJ says:

    You know, the cynical part of me is able to envision exactly this scenario. But here is how I believe it will actually happen:

    You failed to register or registered late.
    The .gov already knows you have guns.
    You get pulled over for a routine traffic stop (remembere, you can’t drive a car nowadays without unintentionally breaking at leats one traffic law).
    When they run your license, your name pops up on the “hot list” of gun owners in violation.
    You’re arrested at gunpoint and taken to jail.

    Now the can get a warrant at their leisure and raid your house, secure in the knowledge that you’re not there to resist. Especially if they wait for your significant other to arrive to post bail. Way easier.

    • avatarKCK says:

      Are you trapped,
      If you are caught trying to drive them out of state.
      Is your only option to be legal is to call the cops to come get it or is that a catch 22 because you are in posession at that moment they arrive and are a felon.
      You are on your way to the police station and get pulled over?
      Maybe an out of state friend can come and pick it up and be a free traveler??
      Are you safe from prosecution if you call the police?
      Any legal opinions how to at this point not get shot or arrested.Is there a safe path from this point.

    • avatarLarry says:

      Good plan. However, only takes one with grown sons before everyone who enters the house without permission finds him/herself dead, and the remaining enforcers have another reason to question their own participation in the madness.

  39. avatarkap says:

    It begins, short of Gorilla War fare, there is not much an average Joe Can do! Besides Obama and his corrupt minions need a plausible excuse to declare martial Law then SHTF for all! People keep voting seditious and Treasonous politicians into office mostly by mostly by uninformed Voters! Into the Valley of the Shadow Death we Ride

    • avatarjirdesteva says:

      +1
      We Americans seem to have short memories and the uninformed majority are easily won by them. Their socialist lies blind the weak who would, without thought, follow blindly the orders to enter the showers.

    • avatarJeff says:

      Gorilla War Fare? What do gorillas typically eat before going to war?

    • avatarKCK says:

      Guerre, the french word for war or conflict
      Guerrilla, tactical method in war.
      be gentile now.

  40. avatarCol. Angus says:

    Connecticut. “Constitution State” my ass……

  41. avatarDBM says:

    Just wait until they figure out that if they use Fish and Game Wardens on the SWAT teams then they don’t have to get a search warranty in most states. Illegal hunting rifle.

  42. avatarjirdesteva says:

    To this situation let US hope it never comes to pass. But if it does then WE will truly be at hell’s gate. It seems that the overly enthusiastic to shoot someone reside on both sides of this fence and the unintentional deaths will happen if both sides proceed down this road. Use our voices and may cooler heads prevail.

  43. avatarDerryM says:

    My goodness! When the anti’s get ahold of this article you can bet it will be sliced and diced into all sorts of spurious, out-of-context bits and pieces and used to “prove” how paranoid, anti Law Enforcement and unbalanced “gun owners” are. His description of the LEO’s “assault” on the home reads like a Three Stooges script replete with a stumble-foot emptying his magazine into the ceiling below the child’s room and hitting another officer in the process.
    If damage this turns-out to be, it is done.

    If no one in CT has actually received “the letter” as yet, it seems ill-advised (charitable phrasing) to jump into the worst case, nightmare scenario “depicting” what the State of CT will do. “Wait and see” is an unsatisfactory tactic, but this is an unprecedented situation in CT.

    • avatarjirdesteva says:

      The first thing to change is the date. The second is probably the phone in hand will be a “GLOCK PHONE”.

  44. avatarDan says:

    This story was a tad sensationalist. I do however agree that the gun grab isnlike gal and illegitimate. I am personally a proponent of civil disobedience. Violence begets violence and I never want my children to know what it is to live in fear.

  45. avatarKCK says:

    Along time ago a guy was arrested with some pot.
    The law made cannabis indica illegal.
    Problem was that the arrestee claimed it was cannabis sativa. Hmmmmmm.
    “What do we do now” said the DA.

    I’m from Wis so this is hypothetical.
    I have three mags, two are registered, can they determine and prove and use as evidence THE ONE that is not?
    Just a nonsensical what if. Like the law itself.

  46. avatarRalph says:

    It’s clear that the situation posited by the article can happen, and is likely to happen, and the results (complete whitewash) always happen.

    But more importantly, it is now crystal clear that there are a few government paid-tr0lls showing up on this site to try to keep us under control.

  47. avatarRustholio says:

    Can we dial back the hyperbole to maybe a 7 or so?!

    What Conn. has done is an outrage, but it doesn’t mean we need to start a war with the cops.

    If you want to take meaningful action against this, have folks dressed in their Sunday best gather in the thousands outside the state police headquarters, holding a 30 round mag. Leave the AR of AK at home, just bring the mag. If you get enough people they will have to do something. Either arrest the protesters (there’s your case for challenging the law ) or they back down and repeal it.

    I think there is power in having vast numbers of ordinary people getting arrested to show a law is unjust.

    I don’t see a violent confrontation leading to a repeal of this law, rather it will play into the hands of the grabbers. “See, we need to take their weapons away. These gun guys are just a bunch of terrorists.”

    The only way to resolve this is politically. Whether it happens legislatively, I don’t know.

    • avatarLarry says:

      Oh, hell that’s a good idea. If CT weren’t so far from TX, *I* might show up for that. How stupid would anyone look to arrest a few HUNDRED (never mind thousand) people for waving an empty mag! Freakin’ BRILLIANT.

  48. avatarCalvin says:

    Why are we talking about this with CT as the setting instead of NY? Because NY is far more politically polarized. There were rumors of enforcement a while ago in NY with a resounding “BRING IT” from upstate. New Yorkers actually do have time to wait for the courts to grind away. Connecticuters may not.

    CT, you really do only have yourselves to blame. Even NY is better off.

  49. avatarMiniMe says:

    Friend just emailed me this:
    http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list

    “Connecticut halts plans to round up firearms after finding most cops in the state are on the list.”

    Anybody know if there’s any truth to this?

    • avatarMichi says:

      Makes no sense saying that they’re halting the plans because “most cops are on the list “.

      Police are exempt and the law doesn’t apply to them, so they can’t be “on the list “.

      Additionally, only 108 people are currently “on the list ” and CT has a lot more police than that.

      It’s BS.

  50. avatarTom Weston says:

    A website needs to be created where individauls can report the address, owning agency of a police take home car. If a database is created that has where LEOs call home, maybe they will be less arrogant.

  51. avatarMiniMe says:

    Tried posting this a sec ago but got marked as spam. :-/ Whatever. I don’t like spam (badumpche!)

    Here’s the point from an email I just got: “Connecticut halts plans to round up firearms after finding most cops in the state are on the list.” (do a search online for this and you’ll find the article)

    Anybody know if there’s any truth to this claim?

    • avatarPeterC says:

      This was on a satirical website, although the supposition that many cops do have personal EBRs is interesting to contemplate.

  52. avatarMark Lloyd says:

    I see it another way! A man get’s up early to use the bathroom and hears dogs barking in the neighborhood. Curious, he looks at his security monitor and observes masked men with rifles sneaking around. The man in his sixties, has prostate cancer and isn’t in a good mood. He’s facing his final horizon and he knows it.
    He picks up his black scary rifle and takes the safety off and takes up a position that he has rehearsed many time. The front door is smashed open without a warning and the man opens fire. A hail of gunfire erupts. In the end, three officers are killed and two others seriously wounded. The home owner is also dead.
    Now the media gets hold and serious questions start being asked. Officers have died and everyone is mad, especially the police. Officers start taking a second look at their duties, because quite frankly, playing GI Joe and kicking doors is all fun, until they saw their lifeless fellow officers laying dead with his a neck blown to shreds, one with a head wound and one that bled out before help arrived.
    This isn’t so fun anymore.

    • avatarDJ says:

      No matter how that scenario unwinds, the homeowner will come out as the bad guy and it will be used as justification for more aggressive confiscation.

      • avatarLarry says:

        I don’t think so. At the very least, LEOs would be asking what the damn warrant is about before suiting up, and (my favorite) telling the boss they’ll follow him anywhere (he’s not planning to go), only after the sun comes up. Remember, the whole excuse for midnight no-knock raids in full gear was that the perp would flush the evidence. That may fly for DEA, but you’re gonna have to demonstrate the flushing of an AR before most people will believe it. Mid-afternoon preannounced delivery of the warrant will be required, and will quickly prove to be a very bad idea.

    • avatarHerb says:

      Well, that’s just ducky, as Daffy would say. Now sixtysomething OFWGs with medical problems like me (I hate `issues’) and who are known by the po-po to possess scary black rifles are to be regarded as dead enders who have nothing to lose by leaving this Earth in a blaze of glory with bullets flying when the front door is kicked in.

      Lovely. So when the USAF’s A-10s become surplus, we know who will be getting them. If police safety is the dominant concern, the sky’s the limit.

  53. avatarBobo says:

    Where’s my roll of tin-foil….need to make a suit as my hat isn’t cutting it any longer….

  54. avatarJohn Wright says:

    Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it. Folks look and listen up, ask the Germans, the French, even the Russians. They all had their private weapons confiscated, and shortly thereafter Stalin had total and complete control. Hitler took all the weapons, then took over his country, and no one was able to stop him. France being “The Cry Baby Leftist” that they are, took the weapons from her citizens, and guess who then took them over. Yes that’s right, good old Adolph. So, all you Crying bleeding heart liberals out there, keep your heads up your butts, believing that this will never happen in America,, and when your individual rights are usurped for the good of the “Powers That Be” who are you then going to whine and cry your blues to?

    • avatarMetalius Shaperium says:

      Forget History? Might be better for somebody to understand history and get the facts straight. I hear what you are saying but at least get the facts right…..

  55. avatarParnell says:

    My stomach churns at the thought that this scenario will occur and the first one will be the straw that broke the camel’s back. We stand at the edge of a precipice and the plunge, should it come, will be bloody and thoroughly avoidable if our elected officials would use their heads and stop punishing the law abiding. I’m afraid that’s never going to happen. Today, it’s Connecticut, tomorrow New Jersey. Unless the Supreme Court steps in and stops this foolishness the disaster will befall us.

  56. avatarDarrell Hacker says:

    If this doesnt cause your blood to boil, nothing will. All I can say is that I hope and pray it doesnt come to this. But I fear it will. And if so, then God bless us all and pass the ammo.

  57. avatarRoger Cain says:

    Liberals always double-down on stupid, it’s the only hand they’ve ever been known to play.

  58. avatarJeremy says:

    Maybe the more press we give this the more likely the law will be overturned. Look if you want to expose the darkness turn on the light The Civil rights movement had meetings and marches remember? They wouldn’t let the injustice die down or go away they kept pressing their claim and then they got the victory. A battle is never won without a full on push without backing down It has been the same way with the gay community (No Im not gay or pro homosexual) Im just saying they are a small minority that have refused to back down and continue to fight (I don’t believe in their cause by the way, sorry) still take a lesson from their strategy they refuse to shut up go away or be silenced and they are getting their way Well its the same for us Pro Gun Pro 2A folks we must keep exposing what the gun grabbers are doing everytime they do some injustice towards us expose it on social media and everywhere else we can and mobilize at the grass roots level and don’t go away refuse to be silenced and fight on Vote for candidates that support the 2A
    Put political pressure on those in charge that are making anti 2A laws make it very costly politically and financially to continue on this road and they will stop
    Start suing municipalities for infringement of your rights just like the gays did Go on the offensive push for laws that restrict gun control some of this is happening with success I might add
    hey it has worked for others and there are millions of gun owners in this country!
    Expose these people everyday for what they are total dictators drunk on power that need to be voted out of office true freedom hating communists that are bent on taking away your rights and they wont stop at your guns
    Refused to be silenced and stand together this will work!

  59. avatarJeremy says:

    I stand with you Gun owners of Connecticut
    In the words of Churchill Never Surrender!

  60. avatarMichael Collins says:

    So have you done your part to prepare for this yet?

    Have you started preparing the battlefield?

    Are you gathering the names of every cop in your town? Their photos and home addresses?

    SWAT-cops are scary when they’re dressed up in black Nomex masks with M4s in hand. When they’re taking the trash down to the curb or bringing in the groceries or picking up the kids at school they’re no more bulletproof than the rest of us.

    Only a damn fool waits until it’s his own door that is being kicked-in by the Gestapo.

    • avatarrlc2 says:

      Take this kind of Crap to some other place.
      My guess is you are a prog-tard troll trying to stir things up.

  61. avatarBierceAmbrose says:

    Well, how do they guarantee access to a warm weather port for their Baltic fleet, without disarming the unwashed who inconveniently live there?

    Leave the proles their guns & they might Irish Democracy their way to actual representation vs. the hand-picked surrogate co-opted by funding his private zoo, Indeed, let a few of them act up when the wanna-be spec-ops crash their door and you have the pretense to “stabilize” the situation. I’m sure some local functionary can be induced to ask for “help” on the promise that they’ll come to reeducate him last.

    Someone refresh my memory – which exported props up the entire economy there? Nutmeg, or something?

    The spice must flow.

    (*) For the satire-challenged, this is an allegory.

Leave a Reply

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