Connecticut Carry to State: Enforce Your Gun Grabbing Laws or Repeal Them

Screen Shot 2014-03-03 at 7.06.24 PM

Connecticut Carry has had enough and they aren’t pulling any punches. Noting the embarrassing lack of public compliance with the gun control laws they enacted, and what they call the “tyrannical dystopia” that Constitution State legislators have created, they’re issuing a challenge: put up or shut up. Enforce the laws or repeal them. An old saying about being careful what you wish for comes to mind . . .

Rocky Hill CT, March 3, 2014: A recent media tidal wave based on false reports and bad journalism has proven a few things about the 2013 Gun Ban:  people from Connecticut and around the nation are tired of being threatened; are ready to make a stand; and the State of Connecticut does not have the stomach to enforce the edicts and laws with which they threaten gun owners.

For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives’, government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.

Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws. Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand. Throughout the Legislature and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), there is only talk of “amnesty” and possibly boiling the frog at a slower rate.

It comes as no surprise that the talks of relaxing enforcement expectations go along with legislators trying to get past their re-election deadlines. If the anti-gun laws they passed are so good for everyone in this state, then why are elected officials requesting increased security, both at the LOB and at their private homes? The anti-gun legislators and officials are scared to implement their tyranny because they know that they did not have any sort of ‘consent of the governed’. Those officials violated their oaths of office, as the Executive and Legislative branches of our Connecticut government overstepped their moral and constitutional responsibilities by passing those laws: they acted and voted contrary to our Rights and against our Constitution.

Now, State officials look down the barrel of the laws that they created, and it is very probably that they now tremble as they rethink the extremity of their folly. Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision: Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or else repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety.

As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it’s time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.

There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws. Connecticut residents should not have to live in perpetual fear of “the jack boot” coming down on them. Unenforced, frequently repeated threats fall on deaf ears. By passing laws that they cannot or choose not to enforce, State officials tell the public that this State is ignorant, immoral, blind, and impotent in its legal and decision making processes. The passage of such foolishly conceived, insufferable laws is an affront to every law-abiding citizen. Every official who supports such legal foolishness mocks our State and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence.

“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” – Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta

If officials of the State of Connecticut opt to get ‘froggy’ (jumping on citizens) and start to enforce the new laws (as officials have claimed a desire to do), Connecticut Carry stands ready to do whatever it takes and whatever it can do to represent and defend anyone impacted by the State’s violence.

“As citizens of Connecticut, we have a right to bear arms. With that right comes responsibility. The responsibility to stand in defense of ourselves and our fellow citizens is paramount.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess


  1. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    You should listen to his interview on Guntalk Radio with Tom Gresham this Sunday. It was so confusing as to what CC wanted Gresham couldn’t make it out.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      I, too, was confused.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      I’m confused just reading this article, since every other article here has been trumpeting that door to door confiscations are coming five minutes ago in CT…

  2. avatar CA.Ben says:

    Your turn, government.

    If things continue like this, with both sides escalating and not blinking, then we are going to see violence in Connecticut on the order of Ruby Ridge x100.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      The gun owners of Connecticut aren’t all bunched up in a little fortress like at Ruby Ridge, they’re spread all over the state. No matter which way the enforcers go, they’ve got Good Guys with Guns on their flanks.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        But that also means they are somewhat isolated. And easier to pick off one-by-one.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          It’s a good time, to the extent each American is able, to surround themselves with other Americans. If our neighbors are Progressives rather than Americans, we will certainly be on our own if rule of constitutional law breaks down entirely. Hope we can win at the polls/in court.

    2. avatar murray says:

      you maybe interested in this link,

      it should be familiar to you all and I hope that the mayhem that the English went thro for the birth of this document isnt repeated in the USA.

  3. avatar Anon in CT says:

    “For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear.”

    Clearly that does not include criminals, like Benjamin Malloy (son of a gov).

    No Jail For Ex-stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy’s Son
    Robbery Attempt

    December 11, 2009|By ALAINE GRIFFIN, [email protected]

    STAMFORD — The son of prospective Democratic candidate for governor Dannel Malloy was sentenced Thursday to five years’ probation for his role in a drug-related attempted armed robbery last March.

    In a plea deal, Benjamin Malloy, 22, was spared prison time in exchange for his guilty plea in Superior Court in September to a charge of attempt to commit first-degree robbery and possession of marijuana with intent to sell.

    1. avatar michi says:

      Armed robbery? As in, with a gun? Will wonders never cease.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        He just wants to make sure that some upstanding citizen won’t shoot his lad when his lad tries to rob them.

        Of course, little Ben Malloy actually tried to rip off one of his fellow criminal scumbags. So not necessarily the type to be deterred by more gun laws.

    2. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      Thats only fair, no time for drug dealing & armed robbery, prison for a spent shell casing etc. The corruption only hurts the grabbers.

  4. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Is there anywhere we can donate to their cause or legal fund?

    As a citizen of Texas, I want to help. I pray for a peaceful resolution to these events and I want every CT Gun owner to know we stand with you!

    1. avatar CTsheepdog says:

      Yes, go to CT Carry’s website and follow the donation links. Rich runs a very lean organization so most of what is donated goes to work. Better yet, order one or more of their “Keep calm and Carry” shirts and then make an additional donations as well. Great shirts that leave no question as to wear you stand.

      1. avatar Tim says:

        Pun intended?

      2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Because so many good, freedom loving, Conn residents obviously did not fold on this issue, I will buy a shirt and donate to their cause…

        The fact that so many people stood fast in defiance and did not register their weapons is something I find admirable, much respect.

        1. avatar Joe says:

          Thanks for standing with us. We appreciate it!

  5. avatar MiketheHopsFarmer says:

    The gauntlet has touched the firmament. Necessary maybe, desirable not, inevitable? Who knows. I’m a bicentennial baby, so I’ve practiced missile drills in Florida as a kid, watched the iron curtain fall, and 25 years of small but horribly violent popular uprisings when the people get fed up enough that death for something seems better than the status quo. The line in the sand in Conn is the first time I’ve been queasy about the State pushing too far. Cooler heads and repeal need to come, and come soon to back away from this powderkeg.

  6. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Exactly. Enforce your fiat and face the consequences or repeal it. You can only push good people so far, before they will push back.

    Glad to hear the man pants are finally being put on in CT.

    People > Government

  7. avatar michi says:

    So, yeah uh – I’m not sure what they hope to achieve here. The CT state government isn’t going to “enforce or repeal”. They’re going to go at their own pace. Remember, they tell you what to do, not the other way around, right?

    Incrementalism is the mode of operation for this stuff. The laws are passed , and they’ll begin to enforce them, piecemeal, at their leisure. One gun owner here, another there, so that everyone’s nervous enough to “dispose” of their guns.

    They aren’t going to “confront the gun owning public at once”. That would be tactically disadvantageous. And – being from Colorado, here, sorry guys: repeals? No, you’re stuck with ’em.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      I’m sure the State of Connecticut intends to maintain a Kafkaesque approach. Sounds like CC is trying to get them to blink.

      1. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

        A Final Fantasy VI reference? Very Nice.

        1. avatar Erin says:

          FF6: Kefka
          Evil-incarnate: Kafka

        2. avatar Wiregrass says:

          I don’t even know what that is. I was thinking more about and referring to The Trial.

        3. avatar ScurvyDog says:

          Erin, what’s so evil about Franz Kafka? He was only one of the greatest writers of the 20th century.

          FortWorthColtGuy – Seriously, you confuse Franz Kafka with something from a video game? Wow.

          A mind is a terrible thing to waste, friends.

    2. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      My take on this is the groups have said “it starts with the first citizen”.

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Seems like they want to keep this issue fresh and vital in the minds of CT voters, to keep delayed enforcement from lulling gun owners into a false sense of security. The oath breakers among the CT officials want to tighten the noose slowly, which is actually very smart. It’s seldom a good idea to let your enemy do what he wants unhindered.

    4. avatar Larry says:

      In TX, the gubt would realize they would be highly successful at relieving the citizens of their ammo (but we have a LOT of ammo), before beginning to collect guns. BTW, hiding guns accomplishes nothing. Try refusing to surrender them!

    5. avatar JR says:

      Actually, what they are doing here is brilliant in my opinion. Last week, CT State Police said “It’s the law until the courts decide otherwise.”

      So, CT folks are saying, “Okay, then, come and arrest us and let’s get it in the courts.”

      That’s the last thing the CT government really wants. What they want is to be able to try this in the MSM and the court of Public Opinion where they can control what is said and how it’s all interpreted.

      However, there is no “due process” in the court of public opinion.

      What the gun owners are doing here, as I see it, is shifting it from a Second Amendment argument to a 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment “due process” argument.

      “So, you passed a law and you say we are criminals. We disagree. We want our day in court.” But, they lack standing because nothing has actually been DONE yet.

      As I said…brilliant. They are calling the bluff of the government that wants to appear as if they are doing something.

      This has been law for over two months. They (the government) have names and addresses of at least some people who are in noncompliance. Ask yourself WHY they have not made any arrests yet?

      Part of it may be they fear armed rebellion, but I think it’s much deeper than that. They KNOW this is a bull feces law and that it will fail in court. But, then they lose. So long as they can keep it like it LOOKS like a ‘real law’ and those mean old gun owners are the bad guys, they “win” the popularity debate (at least they think so).

      The government wants this to drag out…with MSM on its side, that’s the only way they can win the hearts and minds. By pushing the issue, the gun owners are not exactly for armed revolt, but are neutering the drawn out media / propaganda war.

      “Arrest me; let me have my day in court” looks like a very solid strategy to me.

      1. avatar bozo says:

        Good points. Cowardly, but effective tactic. (on the govt’s part)

  8. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Almost as powerful as the letter from the sipsey street irregulars.

    He then went on to post every legislator and politicians home address who voted for this.

  9. avatar Anmut says:

    What do you need to mask a good ‘ol gun confiscation? How about an escalating showdown with another superpower… Under which shell is the ruskie hiding? Nope, nope and nope! Too bad so sad you loose your gun.

    Just say’n.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      You “loose” your gun? Better tighten it up, then.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Wait a sec, I thought it went the other way around.



  10. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    I’m just going to throw this out there for the Conn resident willing to “get froggy” too.

    Best to start talking to neighbors, establish some “plans” for the future, you never know when emergencies might spring up.

    Maybe set up a buddy system, you watch my place, I watch yours. At least get some ideas out on the table with like minded people.

    Two is one, one is none, fifty is preferable.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      A signal is needed for when the jackboots arrive. Something simple like hitting the car alarm on your keyfob. Then a neighbor hits his car alarm and throws open his window. (What’s behind the window? Nothing? A camera? A gun? Who knows?) Then another neighbor and another neighbor until the whole area is alerted. Will the jackboots slink off unfulfilled or will they start a firefight surrounded?

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Back in the day before big fire depts and phones, neighbors would come to the aid of other neighbors who’s home was on fire. Even if all they could do was haul buckets of water…

        And, if for no other reason than to stop the spreading and save their own place.

        A plan is better than no plan.

  11. avatar gloomhound says:

    How many members does Connecticut Carry have?

    1. avatar Larry says:

      Shoot, can’t be many, only a few hundred residents, right?

  12. avatar Fred says:

    The way I see it let the gun confiscation begin but I doubt that will happen. If they start the gun confiscations it will show the rest of America and the world that is the ultimate plan of the gun grabbing elitist. To enforce the law and perhaps start some gun battles between the state police and non complying American citizens the last thing they want spread all over the news. Even if the news media decided to not air the gun confiscations or gun battles it would be all over the world on videos. I agree either inforce the law or repeal it.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      How do you inforce something? Is that anything like enforcing?

      1. avatar B says:

        You spit on the head, then you kind of just push it in.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          If you’re unmutilated, you don’t even need spit. You should get one of those restoration cone thingies.

        2. avatar Larry says:

          You guys are killing me.

  13. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    The State of Connecticut doesn’t have the money to enforce mass confiscation. They are already billions of dollars in debt with a stagnant economy:

    It’s time to cut bait and run before it turns into another Detroit.

    1. avatar benny says:

      THANK YOU.
      I can’t tell you how long I’ve been saying this. Even if they weren’t in debt, they would need Bloomberg deep pockets to pay for such enforcement.
      -State funded life insurance policies for officers killed during a confiscation…
      -money for the numerous court costs for the metric tons of court cases to be seen…
      -more money for jailing and housing of thousands of new felons…
      -money for new SWAT equipment for use in confiscation raids…

      I could go on.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “I could go on.”
        I don’t think that’s necessary, but I fear it could come true; it seems nobody in DC has the balls to cut up Our Glorious Beloved Infallible Saviour’s credit card.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          The congresscritters and DC “government leaders” are too busy lining their pockets and trying to get reelected to worry about that “governance/oversight” thingy…

        2. avatar benny says:

          They have tried, but our beloved democratic party played a political version of “can’t catch me!”

          I couldn’t finish watching the fiscal debate in Washington. All those big words didn’t change the fact that it was like this…
          “Stop spending so much damn money.”
          “NO! I don’t wanna!”

    2. avatar benny says:

      Where did my reply go?
      Dammit all…lol

  14. avatar Dr. Michael S. Brown says: is the link for Connecticut Carry. There is a “donate” icon along the top of the page. You can use a credit card or PayPal.

    Politicians understand money. Suggest you donate the most you can manage.

  15. avatar Mark N. says:

    The State Police are not going to go door to door searching everybody’s homes for banned weapons–that would be illegal and unconstitutional. What they will do is, when the opportunity arises, search every house that they have a legal right to search, and if they find illegal weapons, it will be an add on charge. Or if an ex-spouse turns in someone who owns a banned firearm. They’ll have spies at all the ranges, identifying who shows up with an EBR. They’ll search cars during traffic stops, of course focusing on anyone driving away from a firing range. How many people will cave and sell their weapons after a few hundred people are arrested and charged under the law? No, they will not get them all–but they will get enough. In my mind, gun owners need their own version of Kiev/Tiananmen Square/Bangkok–a protest that lasts for days, even better weeks involving hundreds–preferably thousands–of people camped out surrounding the state capitol. Can you imagine ten thousand people surrounding the capitol for two weeks?

  16. avatar TFred says:

    I see this working in much the same way as the most heinous Federal Gun Free School Zone Act. This law, on the books in various forms for almost 25 years, makes a Federal Felon out of hundreds of thousands of US Citizens each and every day – including thousands of off-duty law enforcement officers. The Government knows that it is unconstitutional (even after they “fixed it” in 1995), so they will never enforce it as a stand-alone charge. It has been upheld in several cases since 1995 as add-on crimes in very bad cases for the gun-rights cause. Yet it is still on the books, and looms as an ever-present hammer over the heads of law-abiding citizens who choose to carry a gun for self-defense.

    I understand the sentiment here. I very much wish the same thing for the GFSZA – enforce it completely, or repeal it. If the public were made aware of how heinous this law is – by the arrest and felony prosecution of hundreds of their most valued and respected neighbors – something would FINALLY be done to rid it from our laws.

    That is exactly what they are trying to do here.

  17. avatar Jack in MT says:

    I definitely understand the frustration that CT gun owners must be feeling. They seem to be in a legal no man’s land right now. Lots of questions and few answers. Faced with mass civil disobedience, the state has to make the next move, and for now they’re not moving. They agreed to accept most of the late applications, which is good for the people who submitted them since it means they didn’t inadvertently incriminate themselves. But will the state try to get warrants for the hundred or so applicants that didn’t qualify for the grace period? Can those applications be supressed on 5th amendment grounds? Who will they arrest then? You can bet they’re combing through their records looking for the perfect person to smear and parade around as an unreasonable, backwards, and scary “gun nut”. Until they prosecute someone under the new law, the judicial battle can’t move forward. Will a jury return a guilty verdict? Questions, questions. I hope it turns out okay in CT, but if I was there I’d be preparing for the worst.

  18. avatar benny says:

    Ok…is my post being moderated or something?

    Wtf, mate?

    1. avatar benny says:

      Too much common sense I guess….
      “We don’t take kindly to that there….emperical data, son. Better walk on home now”

      What? I gotta have SOME fun.

  19. avatar murray says:

    not my business really as a Brit but tactically you guys need to push peacefully before the state deliberately triggers a shoot out to make their case, pre-empt their action to keep them under moral pressure, moderate your language, work up a good message and get all of your supporters out to vote in the next election.

    1. avatar benny says:

      That’s what most of us want to do. It’s pretty damn hard though when your state legislature passes a bill in the dead of night with only 20 minutes reading time (NY) or when feel good legislation takes power over factual legislation (CT)

      Playing by the rules only works if your opponent does the same. That being said, NO ONE (at least those with sane minds) wants a confrontation.

  20. avatar Stacy says:

    This Lawlor guy seems to be there whenever a state official is in the news darkly implying that enforcement actions are coming and people are going to jail. Maybe it’s not the entire state government that’s the enemy…

  21. avatar JAS says:

    I pray cooler heads prevail on both sides. Especially on the government side. They don’t want this to go down badly anymore than the “free” people of CT do.

    The people pf CT need to stay cool as cucumbers until the first arrest is made. That will pour in hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal aid funds for this first arrest to be the test case. Maybe, just maybe, a level minded judge will issue a decree to make the law sit on ice until the case is decided.

    One can only hope.

  22. avatar Don says:

    Lawmakers ought to take a step back when passing legislation and ask themselves:

    “Will we have to commit a humanitarian atrocity to enforce this law against people who have done no harm beyond noncompliance with said law?”

    If this question is never asked then you are an incompetent lawmaker. If the answer is yes, then you are evil.

  23. avatar Karlan in ATX says:

    Isn’t the submission of those rejected registrations a violation of the 5th amendment if they choose to act on enforcing the law? Especially if the person said they sent it before the 31st (put it in the box).. The burden of proof is on the state I believe. Too bad the constitution didn’t establish punishments for violations of the BoR or constitution…. Except for the authority to overthrow a tyrannical gov’t (obviously a little far, I was think about a dollar amount :p )

    *armchair lawyering at its best*

Write a Comment

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

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