Incendiary Image of the Day: Happy New Year from the Constitution State Edition by Robert Farago | Jan 08, 2014 | 126 comments facebook twitter linkedin email [h/t DrVino] comments Jwestham1 says: January 8, 2014 at 10:02 Violation of 4th amendment right. Self incrimination. Reply Adam says: January 8, 2014 at 10:30 Self incrimination is the 5th Reply Jwestham1 says: January 8, 2014 at 13:43 Sorry. Meant the fifth. Reply DanRRZ says: January 8, 2014 at 10:03 This is disgusting Reply Andrew says: January 8, 2014 at 12:04 I second the utter disgustingness of this letter. I won’t resort to curses… just acronyms – F. O. A. D. Reply JeffR says: January 8, 2014 at 10:03 How could an application not be postmarked prior to January 1, 2014 and yet received in time for CT to send a letter dated January 2, 2014? Reply IdahoPete says: January 8, 2014 at 10:11 Lesson for the day: EVERY time you have to send something to a government agency by a specific due date, “under penalty of law”, send it CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. The $5 it costs you is cheap, considering the consequences demonstrated here. Tax return, illegal gun registration, whatever – get proof that the ‘crats received it by the due date. Reply chuck (hates nj) says: January 8, 2014 at 10:24 Not just proof they received by the due date but proof you sent it. In my line of work we deal with the DEP and they have a habit of misplacing paper work then saying you never sent it here’s your fine. Reply neiowa says: January 8, 2014 at 15:15 Only proof you gave the Gov’t) drone/mail clerk a n envelope. If you added the return rcpt with signature required proof that some other gov’t drone (unknown/unaccountable) accepted it. MEANINGLESS unless it is the gov’t sending something to you. Your word against the gov’t mailclerk, who wins? Your word agains “Lt Cooke” – har you make me laugh Matt says: January 8, 2014 at 15:27 Its more like the government’s word against the receipt with computer generated post mark with the time and date next to it from the government’s own postal machinery. Accur81 says: January 8, 2014 at 12:30 Alternatively, don’t allow the government to rule your life. Use their intolerance against them. In this case, a postmarked return date of Jan 2 is pretty damn incriminating as to the original date of receipt. Two conclusions are obvious: 1. The government demands absolute compliance regarding their own due dates (while giving you nothing when *they* are slow or unable to comply). 2. The goal is to remove, confiscate, or destroy guns. If the goal would have been any sort of compromise, then an application that was one day late – if even late at all – would still be accepted. Reply Tom says: January 8, 2014 at 17:38 Not sure this would be enough. How do you prove what you sent? I could have mailed them a giant dildo and get a receipt. Doesn’t prove I submitted any forms on time. Reply jsbrodhead says: January 8, 2014 at 19:36 If you did send them that, they would be occupied for the next YEAR! bill says: January 13, 2014 at 21:46 Tom the letter or paper you send certified mail should be marked at the very top “Certified Mail” and also include the certified mail# that is on the certified mail tag You need to also include this # upon the return receipt that is affixed to the back of the letter you mail. Certified Mail return receipt now costs over $6 & I know because I send my sales tax certified along with anything else I mail to the state or fed gov’t. Many times in the past in an effort to save the few $$ that certified mail costs I have been later billed by the gov’t agency I was mailing to. Certified Mail works, but You must be careful to make a copy of everything, just in case the gov’t does call your bluff. BTW this letter is not legal as it is not marked Certified Mail, nor was it signed for by the receiving party. Anytime the gov’t sends a Legal Notice it Must have been sent Certified Mail, or else the gov’t cannot prove that it was received by the intended recipient. Matt in FL says: January 8, 2014 at 10:44 That’s a really good question. Reply Jim Barr says: January 8, 2014 at 10:04 So was it or was it not truly postmarked prior to January 1, 2014? Reply BDub says: January 8, 2014 at 10:51 Considering the this response letter is dated on the 2nd, I would call BS – that would pretty incredible turnaround for any public agency. Reply Pete says: January 8, 2014 at 11:03 So it’s a fake. On the Internet. Color me shocked. Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:12 I assure you, it is not fake. It was posted by a state rep on their own facebook page. They just assumed that there was people who would be in violation so created the letter as such RockOnHellChild says: January 8, 2014 at 11:28 Well, they already assume you’re a criminal because you own them, they don’t have to do mental cartwheels to assume you’re a criminal that won’t register them. Matt says: January 8, 2014 at 12:03 My certified mail didn’t even arrive until the second (sent the 30th and properly post marked). I didn’t receive the return receipt until the 6th. I’m skeptical as well… Reply Anon in CT says: January 8, 2014 at 14:13 It’s possible that the form letter was created on the 2nd and they didn’t update the date field when they began sending them out. That adds a day or two at least to the equation. Reply Ross says: January 8, 2014 at 10:06 And so it starts……….. Reply 24/7 Pro says: January 8, 2014 at 11:01 Yeah it looks that way. I’m guessing their next step after this is going to be starting here soon (armed confiscation, persecution of the few remaining law abiding gun owners, etc….) This is probably going to get much worse, much quicker. These things tend to snowball rather violently. Hope everyone is ready. May God bless the United States of America and all of the patriots trapped in places like this. Viva La Revolucion! Reply BillF says: January 8, 2014 at 10:07 Fastest government response in history. This is what happens to the law-biding who attempt to comply. Those who applied a day late are now on record as owning illegal firearms and mags. Reply Javier says: January 8, 2014 at 10:07 Considering that the post office was closed on Jan. 1, how on earth could it have been received in time to be replied to on Jan. 2 if it wasn’t postmarked on time? Is this thing legit? Reply Sertorius says: January 8, 2014 at 10:45 +1 Unless maybe the person hand-delivered it on the 2nd. Reply Jeff says: January 8, 2014 at 14:52 It means the mail stacked up on the 31st in the post office and was delivered to CT offices in a giant bundle on the 2nd. The letter is completely ambiguous as to whether the state requires that the application be postmarked AND received before the 1st – the letter just says postmarked OR received before the 1st, which implies that the state could potentially arbitrarily claim that if you failed one of the two requirements, you failed both. That would mean a lot of people are now criminals due to the holiday interruption of USPS mail service. Reply ready,fire,aim says: January 8, 2014 at 10:08 as the droves start to exit the poor state…. Reply GoPro says: January 8, 2014 at 12:08 The “droves” aren’t going anywhere, the people of “the constitution state” have their fingers up their butts complying with whatever their elected officials throw at them. Give me a break. Reply Mecha75 says: January 8, 2014 at 12:35 well DUH. It is a blue state and proud of it. Reply Erik says: January 8, 2014 at 17:46 Don’t forget, it’s the home of the Bush family. PhoenixNFA says: January 8, 2014 at 10:10 Seems legit. It isn’t. Reply Danny says: January 8, 2014 at 10:10 How the heck does someone register a magazine? I don’t think those come with serial numbers. Reply Scott S says: January 8, 2014 at 10:48 Yes, please. Can some of our CT folks explain how they know if a magazine is “registered” or not? Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:15 Here is the PDF, see for yourself http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/despp-0788-c_magazine_declaration.pdf Then tell me how they will be able to enforce it. That will be a neat trick Reply Anon in CT says: January 8, 2014 at 11:59 Easy. If they catch you with five 30 rounders, but you only registered four, you’re in violation. Scott S says: January 8, 2014 at 12:32 Pascal, thanks for the link. Mr. Anon: What would prevent you from registering 50, 100, or 150 mags, in every conceivable caliber and capacity? Anon in CT says: January 8, 2014 at 14:17 That form has to be covered by an affidavit, notarized by a notary. http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2013/10/CCDL_Assault_Weapon_Affidavit.pdf So lying under oath on a government form? Not the best idea ever. neiowa says: January 8, 2014 at 15:23 Unless you are the gov’t Scott S says: January 8, 2014 at 15:27 Mr. Anon, The form you linked to covered only “assault weapons,” not magazines, so my questions remain: 1) how would they identify a “registered” magazine; and 2) what keeps me from registering 4x the actual number I have? Matt says: January 8, 2014 at 15:33 Reproduced for your reading pleasure see the quoted section from me below. TL;DR, nothing is preventing you from doing it but you are screwed if you are ever caught. Realistically if this registration law stays, I don’t see it being enforceable or cared about much within 3 years but its new and the state is still riding the crack down because of Sandy Hook train. You think the average cop wants to spend the time determining the legality of your un-serialized and nondescript magazine? I doubt it. “Yes but that is a class a misdemeanor to lie on these forms. A class a misdemeanor carries the same weight, penalties, and severity as a felony but without really restricting your rights to the same degree. In CT class a misdemeanors can be disqualifying factors in owning a firearm, I have not cross referenced them to know if this one would count as a disqualifying factor… plus no one have been convicted of it yet so that doesn’t help things research wise. So yes it is in your best interest to add some ‘wiggle room’ but not so much as to be ridiculous and invite questions. Since the DESPP used 20 as an example quantity, I think that is a perfectly rational starting point, should you desire to cook the books a bit. And of course there is also the register some and hide the rest strategy should you be someone who did that.” RockOnHellChild says: January 8, 2014 at 11:03 Joe Snuffy, age 42, 100 Unconstitutional Lane, Utopia, Connecticut has… (10) 30 round (black) Magpul pmags 5.56x45mm (3) 17 round (black) Glock factory mags 9x19mm So on, and so on… Anything Joe Snuffy doesn’t have on “the list”, Joe Snuffly ain’t supposed to have. Just a shot in the dark, I’m not certain… Reply FlaResident says: January 8, 2014 at 11:13 So couldn’t I just “register” 100 of the different types of magazine I might eventually own and then buy them at my leisure? How do they know I don’t have 100 AK mags, 100 AR mags, 100 glock brand glock mags etc… right now? Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:15 Yes Bob says: January 8, 2014 at 11:42 Yes, but imagine if you did that and then they came buy for a “spot check” of your stuff (which i’m sure they’ll find a way to do here eventually) and you are short a couple hundred magazines and 15 “modern sporting rifles? They pretty much depend on fear to get you to comply, because the consequences to a regular law abiding citizen generally make the risk not worth it. Criminals, less so. I wonder if CT, NY, NJ, DC. MD, CA, (etc…) will go in together on the caps with skull emplems, jack boots and rail cars? rosignol says: January 8, 2014 at 11:56 Re the ‘spot check’: 1) Got a warrant? No? FOAD. 2) “They’re in storage”. Matt says: January 8, 2014 at 12:19 Yes but that is a class a misdemeanor to lie on these forms. A class a misdemeanor carries the same weight, penalties, and severity as a felony but without really restricting your rights to the same degree. In CT class a misdemeanors can be disqualifying factors in owning a firearm, I have not cross referenced them to know if this one would count as a disqualifying factor… plus no one have been convicted of it yet so that doesn’t help things research wise. So yes it is in your best interest to add some ‘wiggle room’ but not so much as to be ridiculous and invite questions. Since the DESPP used 20 as an example quantity, I think that is a perfectly rational starting point, should you desire to cook the books a bit. And of course there is also the register some and hide the rest strategy should you be someone who did that. USMC Janitor says: January 8, 2014 at 10:11 This is how it starts. Little letters. short and too the point “here is what you can do… but you are a criminal at the moment” Then comes the knock… “we have a warrant” and its based on the fact that you sent the registration. Your house is tore apart (I dont care who serves the warrant, ever see a home after police search it?). and you have no recourse. One day you are perfectly legal. The next you are being arrested. Sickens me. Reply IdahoPete says: January 8, 2014 at 10:13 Yup. And this is the logical end result of a state that has voted for liberal politicians for 50 years or so. Reply peirsonb says: January 8, 2014 at 11:27 The logical end result looks a lot more like Detroit, they have a (very) little way to go yet. Reply crzapy says: January 8, 2014 at 10:13 The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Ayn Rand Reply IdahoPete says: January 8, 2014 at 10:14 And as a real world test case, it worked quite well for Stalin. Reply Kittenfists says: January 8, 2014 at 10:15 This can’t be legit. It breaks every known rule of how quickly multiple government offices can move. Not the least of which is the post office. Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:19 There is no rule of physic on the date you can put on a letter. Letter post marked after Dec 31st would be hit with this letter. All they are really saying is on that day, you are no longer in compliance. That is the date on the letter, not necessarily the date it was mailed to anyone. This was posted on a Facebook page of a state rep — gun owner not in compliance will probably receive this letter starting this week. Really, it is not magic, simple logic Reply Jandrews says: January 8, 2014 at 10:15 Reads like something verbatim out of Orwell’s 1984, right down to the names of the government departments. Terrifying and sickening at the same time. Reply Michael B. says: January 8, 2014 at 10:15 Constitution State? More like Confiscation State. Reply The Original Brad says: January 8, 2014 at 10:16 @ Danny – You serialize them with Electro-pencil of course! Um, yes officer, here’s my “high capacity” magazine to register, bzzzzzzzt…number 12345. Bzzzzzzt, here it is again…..bbbbbbzt, and again……and again, and again…..bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttt. Lol -this whole law cracks me up. What an absurd waste of time and taxpayer money for nothing. Reply Gopu says: January 8, 2014 at 10:17 Do they require any proof to send it out of state or can people basically just lie? Reply Marcus Aurelius says: January 8, 2014 at 10:43 Something tells me there will be a search regimen that will force anyone not complying to keep said magazines essentially inaccessible until you left the state. Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:21 No, no proof, but do not get caught red handed — see other article today about from LCM Summons Reply Paul T. McCain says: January 8, 2014 at 10:20 I cordially invite all residents of CT to send me their long rifles and magazines and I will treat them with the respect and care they deserve. Reply Ross says: January 8, 2014 at 10:24 Yes and I’m more than happy to help Paul with this. Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:23 Go to the bottom of Lake Zoar in CT. I hear there have been a lot of boating accidents Reply ST says: January 8, 2014 at 10:20 This is probably fake. Why? Because the authorities wouldnt just send a letter.Theyd send the Sheriff with the letter and a search warrant (assuming the judges are just as bent as the lawmakers in CT.) Reply neiowa says: January 8, 2014 at 15:29 Doubt it. You get the letter and do on their “Patriot List” (terrorist) for future action. Reply TommyinKY says: January 8, 2014 at 10:21 Looks like a form letter. All responses will probably have the same date until the letter is updated. Still sucks that all those last minute applicants just incriminated themselves. That’s why I hate the term “law abiding citizen”. Some laws are for making peaceful citizens into criminals. Reply g says: January 8, 2014 at 10:25 Whew boy. CT folks, brace yourselves. Reply Jonathan -- Houston says: January 8, 2014 at 10:32 Sooo….when exactly does that whole “the police are our countrymen and would never enforce unconstitutional laws against us” thing kick in? Is that before the internment/concentration/re-education camps get set up or when? Sure, a smattering of sheriffs have spoken out, filed suit, and written the occasional sternly worded letter, but to what real end? At what point do people already convinced that they’re solely responsible for their own personal security, come to realize that they’re solely responsible for the country’s security against all enemies foreign and domestic? Reply John in Ohio says: January 8, 2014 at 14:56 That’s a good point. Reply Bryan says: January 8, 2014 at 10:33 Welcome to Kaliforn-eticutt. Reply Prairie Patriot says: January 8, 2014 at 10:38 This is why you NEVER register your weapons and try and buy private (this coming from a person who wishes he thought to buy private). Don’t make it easy for them. Reply peirsonb says: January 8, 2014 at 11:53 And learn to enjoy frequent canoe trips…. Reply John Boch says: January 8, 2014 at 10:43 AWB is my personal line in the sand to pack up and move out. John Reply soccerdad1150 says: January 8, 2014 at 11:06 Option 5 – do nothing and receive a ‘no-knock’ visit from us. Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:26 Based on what? What would the warrant say? Reply Anon in CT says: January 8, 2014 at 12:07 Um, homeowner admitted in a signed statement that he has illegal firearms, and we have probable cause to believe he has not remedied the situation? Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 18:28 What probable cause? Soccerchainsaw says: January 8, 2014 at 11:30 Option 6: Gather en mass with said newly illegal items on the front lawn of the capital. You know, just to make sure the lawmakers really meant to pass that law… Reply Jus Bill says: January 8, 2014 at 12:30 The courageous state lawmakers will be absent, but you can bet the State Police will be there. Reply Shenandoah says: January 8, 2014 at 11:07 Any word on how the state plans on compensating residents who have their property confiscated or rendered inoperable under this law? Reply Hal J. says: January 8, 2014 at 11:14 Any word on how the state plans on compensating residents who have their property confiscated or rendered inoperable under this law? Bwah-ha-ha! That’s hilariou…. Oh, wait. You’re serious? Reply Shenandoah says: January 8, 2014 at 11:18 Well yes, it is a serious question, though I doubt Connecticut has any answer to it. Perhaps ole Bloomy himself will personally foot the bill? Nah… More likely these people will never see a dime. Reply Hal J. says: January 8, 2014 at 11:28 More likely Almost certainly these people will never see a dime. peirsonb says: January 8, 2014 at 11:34 The people that write these types of laws are also, generally, the type of people that abhor personal property. Well, YOUR personal property. They’re cool with theirs. When coming from the belief that you don’t own it in the first place what is there to reimburse? Tom says: January 8, 2014 at 12:39 These laws are written by those who have a statist and socialist bend. Meaning you do not have no real ownership rights. What you possess is the extension of privileges by government, not rights Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:30 Remember that NY Unsafe-ACT ruling — wait for the CT one. As far as inoperable, remove base, remove spring, remove follower — now show me how the magazine operates? parts working magazine by definition because like NY, the CT politicians are idiots. Reply ValleyForge77 says: January 8, 2014 at 11:58 Downright Communist for the State to seize assets like this. No other word for it. These were legally purchased assets under state law. And now they are being essentially seized and/or frozen and their owners being treated like/and or made, instant criminals. Holy Shiznit. Wake up people. Reply Shire-man says: January 8, 2014 at 11:20 The best part is that if by some glorious miracle a judge strikes this down or enough state seats are turned where reppeal is an option none this can be undone. Rendered inoperal guns wont suddenly become operational (if.you did it the way they want) sold off guns wont un-sell themselves, confiscated items wont be returned and anyone convicted from now until the impossible happens wont be un-convicted. Overturn or repeal are essentially impossible and any damage done cannot be undone. Reply bill says: January 13, 2014 at 21:57 Why not, just change your name & move Reply Harry Lime says: January 8, 2014 at 11:20 So I’m assuming that the Dep’t of Emergency blah blah blah is expecting a response to that letter. What would happen if the gun owner sent a response back with the form (not filled out) and stapled to it the Fifth Amendment (and maybe a case from the SCOTUS reaffirming the right to be free from self-incrimination). You can even write on the form, “will not answer, please see attached.” I mean, if the law went into effect on 1/1/2014 and the gun owner was supposed to have either sent in the application before that date, or else transferred the weapons out of state , he or she would be admitting to committing the crime of owning an “assault weapon” after the effective date of the statute. I wonder how Connecticut would respond to such a response. If I had no kids and no dog, and had moved my “illegal” weapons out of state, I think I would try this. And have a little fun too (set up cameras in the house, have the fourth amdt doormat, etc.). Reply Pascal says: January 8, 2014 at 11:34 Read the letter — this is for people tried to comply but failed to meet the date. Someone already sent them a document with what they have but was stupid enough to wait until the last minute or send it via mail uncertified. The already know, they told them Also, you last paragraph is key to the whole all you people CT suck argument Reply Harry Lime says: January 8, 2014 at 11:55 I’m having some trouble understanding what you’re trying to say (particularly your last paragraph), but my point still holds. Regardless of if CT sent the gun owner a letter before 1/1/2014 informing the owner of which guns he or she has to register, having to send in a disposition form now (after missing the deadline) basically admitting to possessing such guns after the deadlines would be self-incriminating (you would be saying that after the effective date of the statute, I failed to either successfully register my guns or move them out of state). The Fifth Amdt protects against that. As for your comment “you last paragraph is key to the whole all you people CT suck argument,” I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re talking about. Reply Ed says: January 8, 2014 at 13:00 In regard to the “last paragraph:” He’s referring to what appears to be widespread compliance of registration in CT. The thought is, because you’ve got kids, a dog, and presumably a wife (maybe not) like most, nobody is going to truly stand up and say, “I will NOT comply.” To you, it’s too big of a risk to stand up to the state, and I’m not picking on you at all, but that’s what he’s referring to. Frankly, this is a problem. People, in most places, seem to be generally willing to comply with these B.S. laws because they seem somewhat small and “trivial,” while you get to keep your evil, nasty black rifle. Problem is, as most of us know, they keep changing the rules of the game and demanding more and more and more from gun owners. We need to stay strong en masse, rather than having a single individual go off the reservation and open up on ATF, state, or local police when they come a knocking to inspect the boom sticks. The first time authorities do come looking for weapons at a home where the homeowner simply won’t comply, is likely to end badly. It’ll probably be bloody and people will die. Do you have any idea what that’s going to look like in the mainstream media? That person, or people, at the residence are going to be labeled right wing whack jobs, conspiracy theorists, or domestic terrorists. This will happen, it’s merely a matter of time. His point is simply that it’s very disappointing to see how many sheeple there are in CT who are going along with this ill-advised registration scheme. It was a moment where all gun owners of CT should have stood strong. Instead, it looks like most decided to bend over and comply…though I do wonder how many of them registered one, and then lost the rest in one of those damn inconvenient boating accidents. Deen says: January 13, 2014 at 22:07 And don’t forget that the SCOTUS has ruled that criminals don’t have to declare their firearms since they need them for their livelihood. Makes you wonder doesn’t it? You’re a criminal if you don’t register them, but now that you’re a criminal they can’t force you to register or declare them! Reply Anon in CT says: January 8, 2014 at 11:39 Hmmm. I FedEx’d mine about a week before the deadline (receipt printed and saved). I wonder if they’ll bust me for not being literally “postmarked”. Reply ValleyForge77 says: January 8, 2014 at 11:55 Option 5) Remove yourself and your firearms from said Nanny State to a real state that recognizes your Constitutionally protected rights. I can’t believe they really use ‘Assault weapon’ too. Unbelievable. These people live in their own fictional world and even make up their own definitions. What BS. I hope they all get thrown the F out of office, every one of em. And whoever said registration doesn’t lead to confiscation again? Are they still speaking now? Reply GoPro says: January 8, 2014 at 12:03 Whatcha gonna do Connecticut? After seeing people lined up with hands in pockets and thumbs up butts to register their “assault weapons”, my guess is you are going to rrrrrooooollllllllllllll over. Reply Rick says: January 8, 2014 at 12:51 Ever think you’d live to see something like that in America? Reply CT Resident says: January 8, 2014 at 15:11 I tried counting the number of people in that line, it was maybe around 50. How about a title “Dozens line up for CT Registration” Looks like a lot of people but that is how it is meant to look. When hundredsor even thousands people in CT protested the gun control legislation, in person, at the state capitol where were the photos, Photos of Colt employees protesting at the capitol made it to the news, but that didn’t really do it justice. Did you see those picture in the newspapers? I didn’t see the photos of the protesters also. The media in CT really let us down in many ways. Reply ValleyForge77 says: January 8, 2014 at 12:13 I would be tempted to reply back that: ‘I don’t not possess and “Assault Weapon”. As defined, an Assault Weapon must have a select fire option, of which my modern sporting rifle does not possess. Please direct any further questions to my attorney’ Reply peirsonb says: January 8, 2014 at 12:32 Welcome to the Constitution State, where we keep a copy in every bathroom stall… Reply Tom says: January 8, 2014 at 12:33 This should be a wake up call for constitutional rights in general. Evidently the state of Connecticut can take legally purchased property without compensation. It is a legal precedent. If the state can confiscate a legally obtained gun, what would prevent them from taking your car, home, bank account or any other property? Reply Daniel Silverman says: January 8, 2014 at 12:40 Confiscation?? Say it aint so!!! Reply Tom says: January 8, 2014 at 12:46 If you are a resident of Connecticut, you should get everyone to write and call their legislators and demand that the “assault” weapon ban be extended to law enforcement. Get these anti gun legislators on the record to say things like “the police can be trusted”, and get them to say that on video. And when they defend law enforcement show these statists documented stories across the country of police abuse and corruption. I know what I`m suggesting is pretty much a academic exercise. But if these videos were posted and went viral, I think some people would reconsider their positions. Reply Model 31 says: January 8, 2014 at 12:49 Living in Texas, I’ve never seen a pre-confiscation…err..registration form. I’ll assume it has a section for description and serial number. What will Connecticut do when several hundred thousand subjects who do not own a gun get these letters because several hundred people pulled names and addresses from the Bridgeport phone-book and sent in registration requests with bogus (but look real) guns/serial numbers on their behalf? Reply Commie IL says: January 8, 2014 at 13:03 And so it begins…. Reply mike says: January 8, 2014 at 13:06 Happy new year!…..now bend over… Reply FortWorthColtGuy says: January 8, 2014 at 13:38 I thought they said they were not coming for our guns? Reply Bdk NH says: January 8, 2014 at 14:16 I used to work for a company that sold and serviced a ton of stuff for a company in CT. I made a very good living at it and I spent weeks there at a time for 7 plus years. While I liked my customers I hated the State. I would often tell people that it was a hybrid of MA and NY composed of the worst from both. This is proof that I was right. Reply Adub says: January 8, 2014 at 14:26 Wow. They are lucky we are so much more reasonable than those crazy Democrats who keep going on spree shootings. Reply shawn says: January 8, 2014 at 15:07 Generic letter or fake. Wait till someone receives it. Reply shawn says: January 8, 2014 at 15:09 Fake…boxing around words. Reply Hannibal says: January 8, 2014 at 15:26 Registering your ‘assault weapon’ incorrectly… great way to fail and get the worst of both worlds. Now it’s illegal to possess AND the state knows everything about it. Reply KCK says: January 8, 2014 at 15:48 Any body know? In CT, do they they know you have something, AR or mag, only because you tried to register it. If you tried but failed by the deadline and thus rejected to register, do you now have to prove that you have done one of the numbered options since you have admitted posession post deadline? Reply Matt says: January 8, 2014 at 15:50 They may depending on if you purchased via a licensed dealer. All dealer purchases require registration with the state DESPP with all handguns even in private sale requiring defacto registration. I find it unlikely they will play ball and let some people squeak by past the deadline since this has a been a year long and highly publicized process. I have found on other things that the state will work with you if you can prove that you did meet a deadline and they screwed up so there may be a glimmer of hope. Reply Matt says: January 8, 2014 at 15:54 Whoops, meant to put this here not up there ^. FYI. If anyone, including myself, bothered to click the image and go to the facebook page it was posted from (a CT state representative) from the get out, it would be obvious that this appears to be a draft of what will be sent out to people not one that was actually sent out. Reply bullkrap says: January 8, 2014 at 16:49 Well, guess you shouldn’t have registered anything. Cause now they have your name, and they’ll be stopping by to confiscate it. Reply Buster says: January 8, 2014 at 17:07 Send it back with Option 5 checked: Come and Take It Reply jsbrodhead says: January 8, 2014 at 19:39 Jan. 2, 2014… should stand up in court, as absolute proof it was postmarked BEFORE Jan.1, 2014. No way it was post marked Jan.1, or 2… PERIOD! Dumbass “government” o’fish-holes can’t even lie well. Reply Grumpy in Kali says: January 8, 2014 at 20:27 Not received by or have the correct postmark date? No sympathies here. Reply Taco says: January 8, 2014 at 21:31 The state of Connecticut can have my “assault” rifles when they kick in my door looking for them…at which time I will give it to them. Bullets first. Reply Dave s says: January 8, 2014 at 22:30 They have to move to confiscate quickly or they know the contraband will be much harder to find. buried in every public park in the state with gps tags the biggest geocache game known Reply Pat says: January 9, 2014 at 02:20 Fifth option is to ignore the 1st four options on the letter and do nothing. Knock, knock. Oink, oink. Bang, bang. Dead Bacon. Reply CT resident says: January 9, 2014 at 23:07 I always thought the government could not seize your property without compensation. I guess the US Constitution no longer applies in “The Constitution State “. I do know the state police were buried with last minute mail ins. They got over 5000 certified letters the last day of registration . The form was messed up,it said to prove you purchased this weapon prior to 4/8/13,submit either/or a copy of bill of sale or a notarized statement saying you purchased it prior. I sent the copy,the state sent it back saying it HAS to be notarized. I spent 40 minutes in line 1-3-14 ( the day after my father died) to get an explanation. They said the form was wrong, it has to be notarized. I had it done and they had no problems with that after I proved I sent it in before the time. Reply Patrick says: January 10, 2014 at 21:37 A lot of things don’t add up here. If this is real, that means that a government office was so efficient that they sent out a letter during the two weeks that is usually the slowest time for government entities, and they did so in such a manner that they would have had to send the letter prior to the date which letters could arrive. I mean, mail (especially locally) takes a minimum of 4 days to go from mailed to destination (the first day is pickup, the second is sort, third is movement to local post office and prep, and the fourth is delivery. And the 1st is a holiday. So if you postmarked something on the 31st, it wouldn’t be received until the 4th or the 6th. So a government agency was so diligent they worked too hard and got ahead of themselves when they could potentially still receive the application. But this thing says that they are “returning the application,” which means that it would have to have been received prior to the date the letter was written. Since there is no mail delivery on the 1st, that would mean that the application, in order to be delinquent, would have had to be hand delivered by the applicant on the 2nd, and then the agency would have had to generate the letter the same day. I mean, this falls apart on so many levels. Reply Write a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.