• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Thousands of criminals created by the stroke of a pen.

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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/connecticut-pols-shocked-that-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.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
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.
 

Tackleberry1

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
86
Location
Camas
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:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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:
Top