Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Thousands of criminals created by the stroke of a pen.

  1. #1
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Thousands of criminals created by the stroke of a pen.

    Sorry if this has been posted before. I know we had a thread about those who have caved into the violent coercive nature and threats of the state in Connecticut in registering their "scary weapons".

    It warms my heart to see the spirit of resistance alive an well with what appears to be thousands who have decided not to follow a few government rules they disagree with, it appears to be quite a bit more than those who caved.

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/12/co...hat-tens-of-th

    FUQ-"Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be classified as "assault weapons," and two million plus high-capacity magazines. Many more have been sold in the gun-buying boom since then. But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state officials received around 50,000 applications for "assault weapon" registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines."

    I am also well aware that OCDO policy is to encourage the law abiding only. Yet I feel these folks are paying attention to true law over positive law.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Didn't they start falling all over themselves in an attempt to declare the unregistered owners/weapons have amnesty or some such?

    Off topic, but it reminds me of the health care debacle. Sh!t doesn't go down the way they envisioned it would, and, facing mass non compliance, extend deadlines and grant amnesty to save face.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Yep, simple non compliance does wonders to the machinations of the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I registered all that I could be required to register ... nothing.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Tackleberry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Camas
    Posts
    88
    I'm no legal scholar but it seems to me than anyone arrested for non compliance could have themselves a nifty lawsuit for 5A violations...

    Given the current climate of Government attitude toward owners of these specific, legal, products and examples of confiscation in other States... IE CA...

    Is registration not "compelled self incrimination" with "unknown" future consequences?

    I too applaud all those who have refused to comply.
    Last edited by Tackleberry1; 02-15-2014 at 12:26 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    I haven't followed it but what exactly is the political climate for these states that are doing this? His hard would it be to get rid of the present gov. Or party that is ramming this stuff through?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
    I'm no legal scholar but it seems to me than anyone arrested for non compliance could have themselves a nifty lawsuit for 5A violations...

    Given the current climate of Government attitude toward owners of these specific, legal, products and examples of confiscation in other States... IE CA...

    Is registration not "compelled self incrimination" with "unknown" future consequences?

    I too applaud all those who have refused to comply.
    Well, they cannot find you guilty of not registering (they cannot arrest for that-5th amendment)... but they can get you tried for having a banned firearm.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I haven't followed it but what exactly is the political climate for these states that are doing this? His hard would it be to get rid of the present gov. Or party that is ramming this stuff through?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Well, I discovered that democrats were meeting in secret to pass these laws; so I filed a complaint with the agency that handles this type of offense. I argued that they violated our state's open meetings requirements of: a) not noticing the meeting b) not allowing the public access to the meetings and c) not producing minutes of the meetings d) not making such minutes public. Had a hearing on 4 FEB 14 and a preliminary report was issued. Nothing in the report except regarding notices...nothing on the secret meetings & not allowing the public to attend the meetings or lack of minutes...nada, like it needs not to be addressed. The attorney general, who represented the state legislative committee, only argued that the members of the general assembly and its committees are completely exempt from the open meetings requirements...but the ruling itself, by ruling and not dismissing the case, indicates otherwise.

    Now, I only discovered about 3 or 4 secret meetings back in March 2013; in January & Feb of 2014 I discovered about 150 more secret meetings and I filed another complaint before the agency regarding these meetings...and am seeking civil and criminal penalties for those who attended these secret meetings. In the hearing of this month concerning the 4 meetings discovered in March 2013, I asked for witnesses to be present and was denied...now that I am seeking civil and criminal penalities the individual assemblymen will be forced to be called as parties to the case(s) (my request to add the individual assemblymen to the case heard this month was denied).

    So they think that they won something with the current preliminary ruling...we'll see. Secret meetings to produce legislation is not see as being very good against our due process rights of the 14th amendment.

    Our Act states, 1-225(b)"

    (b) Each such public agency of the state shall file not later than January thirty-first of each year in the office of the Secretary of the State the schedule of the regular meetings of such public agency for the ensuing year and shall post such schedule on such public agency's Internet web site, if available, except that such requirements shall not apply to the General Assembly, either house thereof or to any committee thereof. Any other provision of the Freedom of Information Act notwithstanding, the General Assembly at the commencement of each regular session in the odd-numbered years, shall adopt, as part of its joint rules, rules to provide notice to the public of its regular, special, emergency or interim committee meetings. The chairperson or secretary of any such public agency of any political subdivision of the state shall file, not later than January thirty-first of each year, with the clerk of such subdivision the schedule of regular meetings of such public agency for the ensuing year, and no such meeting of any such public agency shall be held sooner than thirty days after such schedule has been filed. The chief executive officer of any multitown district or agency shall file, not later than January thirty-first of each year, with the clerk of each municipal member of such district or agency, the schedule of regular meetings of such public agency for the ensuing year, and no such meeting of any such public agency shall be held sooner than thirty days after such schedule has been filed.


    So, do they have to notice meetings in accordance with their joint rules; ie the joint rule's notice requirements incorporated into this statue? I would say yes, making them mandatory.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-15-2014 at 02:30 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •