More Lawlor -- he must like poking the bear

http://wtnh.com/2014/02/11/gun-registration-failure/

“Presumably, some people, after the Newtown incident decided that owning an assault weapon was more trouble than it’s worth and lawfully got rid of them, which is an option and continues to be an option…over time, we’ll find out,” said Lawlor.

Clearly he is stating that they will be examining the DPS-3 forms to the AW application forms and see whats missing and try to match up folks to find out who did not register.

A FOIA request to this guy sent.

Look how he says "got rid of them, which is an option and continues to be an option" ...

His statements are a threat in my book.

Officials Stunned! Possible State-Wide “Act of Disobedience” by CT Gun Owners

Fox news has reported (video below) that only approx. 50,000 guns were registered under Connecticut's new Stasi law, meaning that as many as 350,000 guns are still not in compliance. Tens of thousands of people are now felons.

I was disgusted when I saw the photo of sheeple lining up to register their guns, but this story gives me new respect for Connecticut gun owners.

COME AND TAKE IT IN CONNECTICUT!

Officials Stunned! Possible State-Wide “Act of Disobedience” by Connecticut Gun Owners! (2:29)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO7pNjoDL4A

CT Gun Owners Revolt Against Registration Law (2:55)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEE7SaMv8Es

Well, I have a thread running about some of the state's response... http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?120322-More-Lawlor-he-must-like-poking-the-bear

Not impressed with the state.

In CT a ffl is supposed to (although I never sent any form to the state when I was a dealer~I saw issues of doing so violating the 2nd amendment, so I never sent a DPS-3 form to the state ) send a form, DPS-3, to the state police when a gun is sold..it details the gun sold and who it was sold to.

Looks like the state is going to try to match up DPS-3 forms to the registration forms, find which ones are "missing" from being registered. If they want to go that route, and have a night of knifes, they can expect some push back. Or folks will go by the old adage "when they are coming for you, don't wait - go and get them".

I'm not going to find anyone guilty of ANY gun crime or other crimes associated with the ownership of a gun until the laws are in harmony with the 2nd amendment.

As a previous dealer in several states I have always ignored laws, rules, and regulations that I thought violated the 2nd amendment as such things are void from the start. I have sold guns to people from Chicago (lots of guns actually--mostly handguns) and been threatened with imprisonment ~ did not affect me, I continued selling handguns to folks from Chicago in the 80's, 90's, and 00's. FBI, Tresury agent visits have had similarily no affect on my behavior--and I have had a lot of those visits, normally just ended with a slamming door in their faces.

In respect to CT's new laws I did not wait until the state produced their "forms" to send them my "declarations"...I sent my own form letter to them telling them its none of their business what arms, if any, I had. A DESPP attny back in May 2013 that I spoke to said "they don't know what to make of my declaration" but said they "accepted it".

And as I have stated before ... I declared & registered all that I can be required to: nothing.

davidmcbeth said:

Well, I have a thread running about some of the state's response... http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?120322-More-Lawlor-he-must-like-poking-the-bear

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't know. I can't be everywhere on this forum. Perhaps Grapeshot should combine our threads to prevent further duplication. Although, since yours is the only post I'd say the two threads have already effectively been combined.

Augustin said:

Sorry, I didn't know. I can't be everywhere on this forum. Perhaps Grapeshot should combine our threads to prevent further duplication. Although, since yours is the only post I'd say the two threads have already effectively been combined.

Click to expand...

Nah, I think the threads are different enough..

Breitbart getting in a few licks on this act of defiance.

Is this state senator one of the guys that also cheered Rhode Island for its 'holiday tree'?


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...n-t?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

HPmatt said:

Breitbart getting in a few licks on this act of defiance.

Is this state senator one of the guys that also cheered Rhode Island for its 'holiday tree'?

A Republican state senator sees trouble on the horizon:

"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."
​

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...n-t?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Click to expand...

Uh, please clarify the "you" you are referring to.

Did the good senator vote for, or against, the anti-liberty law?

OC for ME said:

Uh, please clarify the "you" you are referring to.

Did the good senator vote for, or against, the anti-liberty law?

Click to expand...

Sen. Tony Guglielmo voted NAY.

Freiheit417 said:

Sen. Tony Guglielmo voted NAY.

Click to expand...

http://www.cga.ct.gov/ASaferConnecticut/docs/pressrelease0115.pdf

read the record that memorialized the task force...^^ after reading it you should understand that there were 5 separate agencies produced by the legislature in the creation of the task force including:
1) task force itself (a committee)
2) gun violence subcommittee
3) school safety subcommittee
4) mental health subcommittee
5) the subcommittee of legislative leaders

All 5 are their own distinct "agency" under our law.

All 5 are subject to the open meeting requirements of our law.

How many secret meetings were held from these 5 subcommittees?

Clearly, ALL the meetings of the legislative leaders were -- they held zero public meetings...which they were required to by law to allow the public's attendance.

So, why did not ANY legislator file a complaint about these secret meetings?

I don't like any legislators at the present time...

Clearly some knew of these meetings...