Previous Post
Next Post

 Connecticut Governor Malloy (courtesy

“Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with [Connecticut] state police by Dec. 31,” muses, avoiding the official term for the firearms in question (i.e. “assault rifles”). “But few thought the figures would be this bad.” How bad? The news org reports that  . . .

“By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in. That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents.”

As of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

Translation: the vast majority of Connecticut’s semi-automatic rifle and standard capacity ammunition magazine owners are practicing “Irish democracy”: ignoring a law with which they do not agree. [Click here for a pdf of FAQs on the Act in question.] As we wondered even before the Constitution State reacted to the Newton massacre by disarming its citizens, what happens next?

Apparently this question didn’t occur to the ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety committee. “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,” said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford. “If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”

When a politician says the word “honestly” you know he’s FOS. But Tony’s not wrong to be concerned about the next phase of the Constitution State’s crackdown on otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.

“A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it,” said Mike Lawlor, the state’s top official in criminal justice. “They could send them a letter.”

An aggressive hunt isn’t going to happen, Lawlor said, but even the idea of letters is a scary thought considering thousands of people are now in an uncomfortable position.

To be clear, Mr. Lawlor is the Undersecretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning at the Office of Policy and Management for the State of Connecticut. The Agency concerns itself with prisons, mostly. I’m not sure that Reuben F. Bradford, the head of Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (which includes the State Police and the aforementioned firearms unit) would agree that Mr. Lawlor gets the final say in this matter.

Even if Lawlor is the man staying the hand of the State Police when it comes to enforcing the Act and confiscating now-illegal “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines,” who’s to say he won’t get steamrollered by the Governor or the legislature or God knows who when the political climate changes? Say, after the next spree killing. Or a protest over a confiscation gone wrong.

Or nothing at all. Maybe the Governor wakes up one day and thinks…right, that’s it. These gun owners are law breakers. We know who they are. Let’s go get their illegal guns. While the odds of that may seem small, the odds that Connecticut gun owners who haven’t registered their semi-automatic rifles or standard capacity magazines up to this point will do so – without some sort of threat and/or display of force – are nil.

The odds that Connecticut will repeal the Act are lower still. Don’t count on the U.S. Supreme Court to upend the recent federal court decision that the Act is GTG, either. In short, anyone who doesn’t see this situation as a powder keg is in deep denial – a fact that Courant writer Dan Haar seems to grasp well enough.

Lt. Vance compared the noncompliance to motor vehicle registrations, in which some people choose not to follow the law and pay the consequences. Lawlor compared it to speeding — the law is still the law even if many people flout it. But those are infractions and, at worst, misdemeanors. Here we’re talking about turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons.

No matter how you look at it, this will not end well.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It’s the UK model.

    First , get everyone with a firearm documented.

    Once each gun has a paper trail, tighten the regs until the outcry dies down .Don’t enforce them right away, simply wait until the NEXT law is passed. Once the next reg is passed , then start sending nastygrams .

  2. There is one and ONLY one reason to register firearms: to eventually confiscate them. PERIOD. There is no crime fighting utility — gang members aren’t lining up to register their “assault weapon” (a.k.a. scary looking black rifle) — and there is no crime prevention utility in a registration. A deranged bugnut opens fire in a school and authorities make laws that… HASSLE THE INNOCENT. The law is a failure before it’s even a year old. Like the Canadian gun registry, it needs to be scrapped as soon as possible.

    • Canada got rid of its non-restricted (most long guns, including semiautos) registry, but still has the restricted (handguns, some firearms like AR-15s) registry. And Canada still has the rest of the 1995 Firearms Act, which created a POSSESSION licensing system. Previously (since 1977), there was only a licence for acquiring firearms. Allowing the PAL to lapse (five years), and continuing to possess firearms could result in jail time. Compliance with both the old long-gun registry and licensing have been very poor. But the Conservative government does not intend to scrap the licensing system.

      • Someone just need to put the State Police roster, with home addresses, on the internet.

        There will be no “leader” because they are too easy to find. But there will be lots of independent action.

        • This is turning into something very similar to what I’ve read in the fiction novels “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross and “Enemies Foreign and Domestic” by Matthew Bracken. If you haven’t read them yet, now’s a great time to start.

  3. I actually believe Tony Guglielmo when he claims to have “honestly” thought more people would comply. His problem is that, as a politician, the world he lives in up in his head has no basis in reality and so he doesn’t actually know what his constituents want.

    tl;dr: Honesty and incompetence are not mutually exclusive.

    • “His problem is that, as a politician, the world he lives in up in his head has no basis in reality…”

      It’s not what’s in a politician’s head, but where a politician’s head is in, that usually causes a problem with their constituency.

    • The world he lives in is not only “up in his head” — it’s also up in a very dark, malodorous place that his sphincter apparently failed to guard. (Stretch that O-ring, Tony! Ignorance makes good lubrication, but this cranium aint’ gonna slip past the gate all by itself!)

      So people don’t appreciate being turned into felons by the stroke of some politico’s magic pen. Who’d a thunk it?

      • They’ve been doing it for a hundred years. Prohibition was so unconstitutional, but popular, that they actually amended the Constitution to pass it, and we all know what a Utopian paradise that turned out to be.

        I’m confident that when push comes to shove, that there are enough Constitution lovers who will say NO!

        <sorry – I lost control of my inner imp when I saw that looking for the real clip.>

    • Yet, he discounted the fact that we the public have seen the politicians flouting and ignoring the law. Particularly on immigration, sanctuary cities, refusals to deport, licencsing and IDs, in-state college tuition etc.

      All for an entire class of criminals violations.

      Add to that the states whose citizens vote against marriage and then have their duly elected AGs refuse to defend the laws in court?

      Also, the discrepancies between federal and state laws on marijuana? Whatever side you are on the issue- politicians have completely disregarded the law at the federal level. Instead of getting it changed, they’re ignoring it.

      Yet somehow the public is supposed to respect the law?

  4. “Translation: the vast majority of Connecticut’s semi-automatic rifle and standard capacity ammunition magazine owners are practicing “Irish democracy”: ignoring a law with which they do no agree. ”

    And to show his support, Robert is practicing Irish english!

  5. Those big signs in the photo should say “Change the conversation…to cars.” Because that’s what always seems to happen.

    • There is in fact a procedure that would allow the only LEGAL way to accomplish what they wish – civilian disarmament. Propose and present for passage a Constitutional amendment repealing all or part of the Second Amendment.

      But wait! The Bill of Rights identifies those particular rights that the Founders thought were important enough that they needed to be listed in the Constitution itself and prohibited from interference by the new government. In all of our history no amendment to the Constitution that I am aware of has EVER attempted to repeal, alter or re-define any of the Bill of Rights. To do so would automatically set the precedent that these were NOT in fact: “…natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional rights subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.” (L. Neil Smith, paraphrased.)

      Such a precedent, if accepted, would mean that each and every one of our protected rights was now subject to revision or alteration or repeal. This would signal the absolute end of The Constitution of the United States of America as a guarantee of our liberties as a free people.

  6. I doubt this is a watershed moment.. I don’t think think gun owners in Conn. have the fortitude to stand up against felony arrest..

    • It certainly does provide a watershed moment.

      The gun owners are practicing civil disobedience. The government is promoting unconstitutional tyranny (I don’t give a shit what a bunch of politically appointed federal judges say). The two groups are at a stand-off and it only remains to see who blinks first.

      The government, of course, can choose to aggressively enforce the law since they have the manpower, the firepower, and the supposed authority to use whatever level of violence they desire to pick and choose enforcement targets until the balance acquiesce in fear.

      The real question then becomes, what level of tyrannical violence is the state willing to throw into this effort and what political repercussions will they face. At a minimum it will reveal to all of the rest of the country EXACTLY what the civilian disarmament agenda really is and to what level of violence and subjugation they are willing to resort to achieve their unconstitutional ends.

      Do they have the political will to undertake this assault? Maybe they do, and I feel deep sorrow for the victims of their fanaticism, but I think it the long run such a move would be political suicide for them and their anti Second Amendment cause.

      • All it takes is one house raid where the primary reason for said raid was to strip “illegal firearms” from felonious owners and the country would strap up the aresenals they have been building. One house raid and the police would then only over-take another house through a stream of bullets.

      • It would go way beyond “political” suicide.
        Tyrant, You light that fire and the world you know is gone….beyond repair.

      • I don’t think it is the political repercussions they should be worrying about. They should be worrying about surviving once Malloy starts having people killed with SWAT raids in the middle of the night. While there is some percentage who would be willing to shoot back at the Brown Shirts kicking in their door, there are also going to be some willing to go after the source of their misery. Bill Clinton never considered that his Rules of Engagement would apply to his fellow travelers.

    • This is not a question of fortitude, but rather intelligence. If I lived in CT I would have already secured my “assault rifles” and magazines. The state would need a lot of time and gadgets like ground penetrating radar to find my firearms.

      The State Police may do some searched, but it is very unlikely they will find anything.

        • That’s the whole point of getting organized. Taking 1 guy down in the middle of the night is one thing. Taking on 30 or 40 guys in the middle of the day is another. United we stand divided we fall. When it gets to the point where forced evictions are happening in major metropolitan areas across the nation because some tyrant has decided he doesn’t like the Second Ammendment, it won’t be long before the rest of them come under attack. Let’s hope sanity prevails before we get there but it better start prevailing pretty damn soon because we aren’t far from it.

    • Why do you think that? A fair percentage (2/3 to 9/10’s of those who own these weapons by the government’s own estimate) have just decided to put themselves directly in jeopardy of a felony charge, fines and/or jail time.

      Are you also of the opinion the non compliant owners will quietly hand over those weapons when the state police send them a letter, or eventually, a SWAT team?

      You need to look up these terms, as used to describe cognitive bias in humans:

      Projection bias

      False consensus effect

      Selective perception

      The “watershed moment” is actually going to occur if the state politicos decide to enforce their new law.

      • That would be the moment that Bill Clinton’s Bosnian Rules of Engagement take effect.
        I believe the commie Bill Ayres said that 25 million would have to die to create his National Socialist State.
        Prepare…they are committed to stupidity….they will eventually try to enforce the “law”.

        • There’s a big difference between a Socialist and a National Socialist. Bill Ayres can’t be a National Socialist because he isn’t a nationalist– he doesn’t give a damn about America and doesn’t think there’s a meaningful difference between Americans and aliens.

  7. Were not done yet, were still fighting in the courts and at the polls!

    The last election was very close, close enough that between the CCDL and NRA if we get a decent Republican candidate they could get it. Gun owners this time around will vote where their organizations tell them. I can assure you CCDL’s 12k members will vote in lock step against Malloy.

    • Pretty sure those people voted against him the last time. It’s the independent or registered-Democrat gun owners who will have to vote against him for change to happen.

        • Even if we get the Gov’s office, we’d still need to get both houses too, and that seems like a tough hill. Repealing a law like this is very hard – Bloomberg would open the money taps wide, every action-less mon would rush to the state, etc. The lefties had to wait decades for the perfect storm to pass this crap.

          Unless a family of half-black, half-Hispanic, new-age lesbians use a couple of AR-15s to defeat an attack by an entire chapter of the Hells Angels live on News 12 Connecticut, I don’t see us having the momentum to pass anything.

      • There were not 12k CCDL members last time…. Their ranks and the NRA’s ranks have beyond swelled since the last election in CT.

  8. The citizens are simply showing the same lack of respect for the rule of law as Eric Holder, Barrack Obama, and the rest of the Democratic party. They aren’t held accountable and so neither should those who disregard this illegal gun law. Those citizens are true heros!

    • Or, one could say that the voters aren’t really breaking the law…they’re just temporarily delaying the implementation of certain portions of the law, namely the registration requirement.

      • “Or, one could say that the voters aren’t really breaking the law…they’re just temporarily delaying the implementation of certain portions of the law, namely the registration requirement.”

        Or that they’re not breaking the law because an unconstitutional law isn’t any law at all.

  9. Those damn boating accidents, 100,000 in one year./// Yeah lawler, thousands of people are in an uncomfortable position, but your law enforcement/grabbers are sitting pretty. Remember the cop that got it with an AK, the owner was half asleep, something you might want to think about. & leave the women & kids & dogs out of this(a for the kids grabber should understand this).

    • Unfortunately this. All it will take is a minimal show of force, and the keyboard kommandos will be calling the courts begging to get their names off of the list in exchange for their rifles.

      Stock up on 80% lowers, and when confiscation happens, at best, show up with a bag full of stripped lowers.

    • Yeah, I agree. I think that they’ll make an example out of some non-sympathetic types, then they’ll generously extend the deadline anywhere from 6 months to a year, and just about everyone will comply. These people aren’t stupid, they managed to get where they are today by knowing how to work on people.

  10. “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,” …

    As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.

  11. They could send them a letter.

    Maybe a love letter?

    “I’ll send you a love letter, straight from my heart, fvcker! You know what a love letter is? It’s a bullet from a fvcking gun, fvcker! You receive a love letter from me, you’re fvcked forever! You understand, fvck? I’ll send you straight to hell, fvcker!”

  12. It costs about $60K/yr to keep someone incarcerated. If 100,000 gun owners are incarcerated for not registering, that would cost the state $6B (not counting the cost of prosecution).

    That’s gonna take a tax increase or a repeal of the law. Do you think the gun grabbers will put that much money where their mouth is?

    • That’s what I thought. At some point, it will become clear to the people who misguidedly voted for this that they will be responsible, morally AND financially, for imprisoning many of their neighbors. But think of this; every person arrested will be depicted as having been in possession of “illegal firearms,” and god forbid they should have any ammo in their safe as well, it will be called an “ammo stash.” They will discuss it over tea, “did you hear, Bob from the street over had machine guns and an ammo stash!?! And to think, he seemed so normal…”

    • No its okay. They can take the massive amount of confiscated firearms and sell them to neighboring states. They would probably have a surplus if anything!

    • Forfeiture. It’s a felony. They’ll make enough money selling the possessions of the people they imprison to pay for it. Then the SWAT teams will expand and get new gear, which will require more forfeiture dollars for training and maintenance..

    • House arrest. Problem solved. Really all they need to do is convict people and give them suspended sentences to achieve their goal.

  13. Upon “loss” they’ll be asking for proof of disposition. People joke about boating accidents, but if you can’t document it, they’re going to presume you still have them.

    And your backyard with a metal detector will be the first thing the search warrant specifies.

    • Betcha it won’t specify my gun-hating neighbor’s backyard, though.

      (Just to be clear, this is a joke. I don’t live in the Nutmeg State.)

    • I have always preferred the ‘watertight container, 10 meters of of seawater, and a lobster trap’ method.

      “Wow, that’s a horrible place to put a lobster trap! That guy isn’t going to catch ANYTHING there!”

      • While I understand the idea of burying your gun so it can’t be taken, you can’t use it if it is buried either. If you need to bury your gun it is too late in my opinion.

      • <joke>
        “An old man lived alone in Idaho. He wanted to spade his potato garden, but it was very hard work. His only son, Bubba, who used to help him, was in prison. The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament.

        Dear Bubba:
        I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won’t be able to plant my potato garden this year. I’m just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. If you were here, all my troubles would be over. I know you would dig the plot for me.

        Love, Dad

        A few days later, he received a letter from his son.

        Dear Dad:
        For heaven’s sake, Dad, don’t dig up that garden. That’s where I buried the BODIES.
        Love, Bubba

        At 4 a.m. the next morning, FBI agents and local Police showed up and dug up the entire area without finding any bodies. They apologized to the old man and left.
        That same day, the old man received another letter from his son.

        Dear Dad:
        Go ahead and plant the potatoes now. It’s the best I could do under the circumstances.
        Love, Bubba”

      • Or maybe their history of supporting any and every unconstitutional gun law in existence, as long as it’s already been passed. “We have to enforce existing gun laws” is practically their motto.

        • This brings up one of my worst fears: That the Rs will sweep the elections on a soft 2A, “Yes, I support the RKBA, but not personal grenade launchers, har har!” and then enlist the stereotypical macho knickle-dragging Redneck Hillbilly crowd as Brownshirts as they double down on the war on (some) drugs, the war on women, the perpetual Mideast wars, and the surveillance state.

          To protect you from terrorists, of course.

        • Yup. I’m basically a “one issue voter” when it comes to my gun rights… but damned if that doesn’t leave a foul taste in my mouth sometimes.

  14. This might be one of the biggest turning points in our country’s inane “gun conversation” yet.
    And honestly, this could be the one that decides whether cooler head prevail, and some of this stupidity gets rolled back (at least for now,) or if this is going to be something that could tip every state with gun control on the docket into a brawl that’s going to leave a lot of good people dead.

    Fingers crossed for the first one, but I’m beginning to dread the second as a “when,” not an “if.”

  15. If we had safer, rational gun laws, then CT would not have passed this law. Now they can deal with citizens getting SWAT teams busting their doors down at 2am for owning what should be a legal firearm.

    • “safer and rational laws”? Yep. it’s called the 2nd Amendment, works great. The problem we have is stupid people and people who think they know better than the rest of us and feel it “needs to be done for our own good”. If you feel that the laws are not safer or rational here, feel free and move to Mexico where the laws are safer and more rational. Mexico has major gun control, yet I see the drug cartels slugging it out with the federales all the time, kidnappings and assassinations.

      Now tell me how that’s going to work here?

  16. Ms. Lawlor is not “staying” anyone’s hand, nor is he the slightest bit inclined to. He’s a rabid Progressive who outright hates the 2A and firearms owners generally. He’s sooner see us in prison for life than give us the time of day. Just follow him on Twitter to see what I mean…..

  17. What year did the British do this to a colony now known as the United States of America?

    If they start cracking down, they should start with those that pay the highest in taxes. Once the state body realizes that some of their fundraising money comes from felons, they will sing a different song.

  18. LOL no serial number= no registration
    this state is such BS the state police refuse to say what makes a gun legal or illegal in their opinion.
    People have permanently fixed magazines to their AR15s the state police says its not illegal verbally but refuse to put it in writing.

  19. Wow, if there are that many in the state it looks like there will be a good chance at some jury nullification in Connecticut soon.

  20. I am proud of those folks. I also believe that something similar is happening here in NY. The powers that be are a little more cagey than those in Connecticut, however. They will not release the numbers, thus keeping noncompliers guessing as to the support they really have.

    • I think they’re planning on letting aging deal with the problem. Every generation that dies, more of those weapons will be turned in by the descendants. After 3 generations of oppression of the shooting culture and anti-gun indoctrination in the public schools, significant numbers of those weapons will have been turned in and destroyed.

      And, of course, they get to make an example of any of those folks who run afoul of the law in the meantime.

      You don’t have to abolish a right to get rid of it, you just have to erode it.

  21. Sometimes there’s nothing more powerful than a peaceful protest. When images of responsible men and women in their Sunday’s best, getting hauled by the truckload into local jails flashes across the silver screen maybe people will wake up. “Oh these laws didn’t catch the bad guys at all… Wait there’s my history teacher!”

  22. I absolutely hate it when people say “Change the culture” or “It’s not the guns that are the problem, it’s the gun culture”, when they don’t know jack sh*t about what ‘The Gun Culture’ actually is.

    From many of the anti’s I’ve talked or listened to, they seem to equate ‘The Gun Culture’ with gang violence and mass shootings, as if these are somehow condoned by gun rights supporters.

    In many of the cases, they are just so genuinely uninformed that they don’t see how you could be for gun rights and not be okay with these things occurring, when in reality it is the proliferation of armed, responsible citizens that should lead to these things declining.

    I could go on for pages about the incorrect usage of terms by the antis, like promoting “gun safety”, or the fixation on “gun violence” as opposed to just all violence, but I’ll just stop here.

    All I’ll say is this: it makes me both sad and sick when people’s assumptions couldn’t be farther from the truth, but it makes me even sadder and sicker when I see politicians spreading the same ignorance by the promotion of these incorrect, inaccurate, half-baked terms and concepts

  23. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote on April 16, 1963 in a letter from the Birmingham jail, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

    A few paragraphs later, he notes, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.”

    Germany, of course, went from seemingly innocuous gun registration during the Weimar Republic to confiscation followed by genocide during the Hitler regime.

    On our own soil, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Gage, ordered the Redcoats to seize the people’s arms and ammunition, and King George required permits that were never granted for Colonists to import weapons. Thank God our forefathers disobeyed those unjust laws! For that, we owe them a debt we can never repay.

    Friends, any laws that limit your ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property are unjust laws. Any laws that could help the government confiscate your weapons – the last check against government tyranny – are unjust laws.

    This registration law in Connecticut is an unjust law, and we owe it to future generations to resist it and any law like it. Refusing to register weapons is not just the right thing to do. It is our moral responsibility!

  24. No matter how you look at it, this will not end well.

    This is not the first time, there are precedents. The pattern seems to be quiet non-compliance, not shootouts with the police. A few excerpts from an excellent article that is worth reading in whole – :

    — “The high water mark of American compliance with gun control laws may have come with Illinois’s handgun registration law in the 1970s. About 25 percent of handgun owners actually complied, according to Don B. Kates, a criminologist and civil liberties attorney, writing in the December 1977 issue of Inquiry. After that, about 10 percent of “assault weapon” owners obeyed California’s registration law, says David B. Kopel …
    That one-in-10 estimate may have been generous. As the registration period came to a close in 1990, The New York Times reported “only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered.””

    — “Whatever the motivation, Kopel found no more than one percent compliance with Denver’s law requiring registration of semi-automatic weapons, as well as Boston’s and Cleveland’s bans on such guns.”

    — “Likewise, in New Jersey, said The New York Times in 1991, after the legislature passed a law banning “assault weapons,” 947 people registered their rifles as sporting guns for target shooting, 888 rendered them inoperable, and four surrendered them to the police. That’s out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 firearms affected by the law. The Times concluded, a bit drily, “More than a year after New Jersey imposed the toughest assault-weapons law in the country, the law is proving difficult if not impossible to enforce.””

    See also:

  25. I can see this sad situation.

    Someone thoroughly cleans upper and mags.
    Then collects vacuum cleaner bag from your favorite anti’s garbage.
    Puts it in bag and shakes.
    Then gifts an anti with it – remembering the gloves – dropping it in a purse, an open car window, etc.
    Then an anonymous call – for the children.

    Now thats shake and bake.

  26. Just worry when lumber and barbed wire are suddenly in short supply. All those prisoners have to be detained and undergo (enhanced) interrogation.

  27. <em"Or a protest over a confiscation gone wrong."

    As opposed to one going un-wrong…

    Sometimes truly problematic overreach my the State gets corrected, althoughim not holding my breath on this.

    Are private sales still permitted in Connecticut?

    “Hello there. We’re here for your AK74.”

    “Yeah, I sold that a couple months back to a kid in a hoodie. Nope, didn’t get a name. Nope, didn’t really look at ’em. Him or her? Not really sure on that, either. Sorry, officer…”

    Were I a carpenter in Connecticut, I s’pect I’d be putting lots o’ cache trapdoors in lots o’ houses ’bout now.

  28. I highly recommend reading Mike Vanderboegh’s open letters to CT’s Mike Lawlor. They can be found over at Sipsey Street Irregulars. Well worth your time. The massive non compliance we’re seeing in CT is indicative of things to come. Lawlor and his ilk really don’t comprehend what a dangerous game it is that they’re playing.

  29. IF things go so far south that confiscation raids begin, I would like to see all of us in CT flaunt our rifles in front of the capitol building and take it by “force” then hold up there until we get our way. Occupying the legislative office building couldn’t hurt either.

    If students can do the same to their universities as a political protest why can’t we do the same?

    Unfortunately the outcome would likely be the beautiful capitol building getting Wacoed…

  30. 20 or 30,000 of them should march on the state capital with their guns slung barrel down and unloaded. (Magazines handy though). Then dare the state to arrest them.

  31. “the odds that Connecticut gun owners who haven’t registered their semi-automatic rifles or standard capacity magazines up to this point will do so – without some sort of threat and/or display of force – are nil.”

    They’ve ALREADY seen the threats and displays of force; Boston, after the bombing. The thuggish ploi cf – state tactics made it clear what is coming to ALL gun owners. And this is why so few bothered to “register.” The non-complying gun owners have decided that registration will occur house-by-house… and only when there is a valid target.

    Gun – grabbing collectivists don’t want to understand, but they will, sooner or later: we vastly outnumber you. We will NOT comply. You cannot convince us, you cannot force us. We will NOT negotiate. And if you force the issue, we WILL use lethal force against you.

  32. And so it begins.. Just like I have been warning everyone I know that this would come about and it frustrated me so much when I would here…it would never happen in this country…our government could never get away with such a thing…we have rights, LMAO.
    So many people are just so blind to the coming events in this country and many think our government would not hurt innocent law-abiding Constitutional loving Americans.
    I said…look across our country at “our” law enforcement, which is suppose to help and protect the citizens. Why do you think our police force is now geared and dressed up like the military, using military type actions in our own towns and cities.
    Police brutality on it’s citizens is out of control. They are getting ready to take on the citizens of this country and will be set to go when some politician tells them to. Well it is just around the corner now and seems to be happening earlier than I predicted. There will be a flash point soon and then the beginning of a bloody nightmare for this country and it’s people.

  33. Sen. Guglielmo, if you pass laws that do not respect the people and that do not respect freedom and the U.S. Constitution, then YOU’VE got a problem – especially when the people vote you tyrants out of office.

    “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would
    register,” said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator
    on the legislature’s public safety committee. “If you pass laws that
    people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a
    real problem.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here