• 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.

Gun Confiscation Letters Sent Out in Connecticut!

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
Breaking News: Gun Confiscation Letters Sent Out in Connecticut!

Posted on February 25th, 2014 by Conservative Daily

"Since last year’s tragic Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut lawmakers have “led” the nation in violating their citizens’ second amendment rights!

In Connecticut, the state legislature passed a bill banning so-called “high capacity” magazines (anything above 10 rounds) and semi-automatic rifles with certain prohibited cosmetic attachments.

Anyone who owned a magazine or rifle before the law was passed was grandfathered in, but they were also forced to register these “dangerous weapons” with the state before January 1, 2014. Well, the registration deadline came and went and the registration numbers are quite interesting…

Just like in neighboring New York, gun owners in Connecticut are refusing to register their firearms with the state. These law-abiding citizens became felons overnight when the Connecticut legislature passed a law that arbitrarily outlawed their previously legal firearms. A total of 47,916 people registered their firearms and another 40,000 people registered their “high capacity” magazines with the State of Connecticut by the January 1st deadline. However, that could represent as little as 4% of the total number of “assault weapons” and prohibited magazines owned in the state.

In a massive show of civil disobedience, gun owners have refused to comply with the mandated registration and, as a result, Connecticut’s unjust law has created upwards of 100,000 felons who have otherwise committed no crime!

Now, however, the State is going after these gun owners and has begun sending out gun confiscation letters!

Tell Congress that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

You see, many gun owners tried to send in their registration forms by the deadline but did not account for the fact that the post office would be closed for New Year’s. This led to a number of registration forms arriving after the deadline. Rather than introduce new legislation to extend the registration window, Governor Dannel Malloy unilaterally decided to extend the deadline for three days. That means that all registration forms received by January 4th would still be accepted.

Well, a few hundred applications still arrived after this second arbitrary deadline and the State of Connecticut has decided to go after these law-abiding gun owners!

As we speak, a little over two-hundred confiscation notices are en route to Connecticut citizens who own semi-automatic rifles and prohibited magazines. Rather than treat the late registration forms as applications, the state is treating them like notarized admissions of guilt!"

Full article:

http://www.conservative-daily.com/2...-confiscation-letters-sent-out-in-Connecticut
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Ok so let me get this straight... that article quoted the letter. Nothing in the letter said anything about confiscation. It listed the 4 options for the owner. Destroy , sell, etc..

Then the article says "they won't trust them so they will go door to door".

So these aren't "confiscation" letters. Not remotely. They are a notice that they are supposed to get rid of it. IF they don't and are caught some other way... then they will be charged accordingly since they were notified.

Still time to repeal the law or get it struck down.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Ok so let me get this straight... that article quoted the letter. Nothing in the letter said anything about confiscation. It listed the 4 options for the owner. Destroy , sell, etc..

Then the article says "they won't trust them so they will go door to door".

So these aren't "confiscation" letters. Not remotely. They are a notice that they are supposed to get rid of it. IF they don't and are caught some other way... then they will be charged accordingly since they were notified.

Still time to repeal the law or get it struck down.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Oh boy ... you're stepping into it now ....

They are confiscation letters (IF they are shown to exist) IMO ... removing the items from your possession.

Now, if they are smart, they'll just remove the gas tube, make a homemade lower, and send the banned-by-name lower somewhere else or sell it. Not hard to get around the AW bill.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Oh boy ... you're stepping into it now ....

They are confiscation letters (IF they are shown to exist) IMO ... removing the items from your possession.

Now, if they are smart, they'll just remove the gas tube, make a homemade lower, and send the banned-by-name lower somewhere else or sell it. Not hard to get around the AW bill.

David can you copy and paste or cite a full copy if the letter?

I'm only going off that article and the 4 things they listed. The writer of the article even said (after declaring then confiscation letters) that he has non idea what will happen now or if the cops will attempt to knock and talk.

Your a bit more versed in the CT stuff so any help understanding and cutting through the BS is much appreciated.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
David can you copy and paste or cite a full copy if the letter?

I'm only going off that article and the 4 things they listed. The writer of the article even said (after declaring then confiscation letters) that he has non idea what will happen now or if the cops will attempt to knock and talk.

Your a bit more versed in the CT stuff so any help understanding and cutting through the BS is much appreciated.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

If I find a copy of the letter, I'll provide it .. note I said IF they existed ... I did not get one....I filed what I could be required to file: nothing.
 

davidmcbeth

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

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Ok glad someone posted this.... so can someone please show me where it says anything about confiscation?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Confiscation neither confirmed or denied.

Only the requirements of the law are listed. Logically, if the now known AW owner does not respond with verification of compliance with the law, what will the cops do? Nothing? Cuz the letter does not state what they will do?.....mmm'k.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Confiscation neither confirmed or denied.

Only the requirements of the law are listed. Logically, if the now known AW owner does not respond with verification of compliance with the law, what will the cops do? Nothing? Cuz the letter does not state what they will do?.....mmm'k.

I would disagree ... if one does nothing with the gun (sell it or move it) then one needs to:
a) destroy it
b) turn it over

These two actions are the taking of the gun; even if they do not come over to the house in person.

Confiscation need not be in person where the person comes physically and takes property. Ask any guy who went through a divorce.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I would disagree ... if one does nothing with the gun (sell it or move it) then one needs to:
a) destroy it
b) turn it over

These two actions are the taking of the gun; even if they do not come over to the house in person.

Confiscation need not be in person where the person comes physically and takes property. Ask any guy who went through a divorce.
Uh, that made absolutely no sense. Read my post one more time please. The answer is in there.

Hint.....confiscation is implied.....
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Confiscation neither confirmed or denied.

Only the requirements of the law are listed. Logically, if the now known AW owner does not respond with verification of compliance with the law, what will the cops do? Nothing? Cuz the letter does not state what they will do?.....mmm'k.

This is speculation and assumption no more no less.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
True, if there is no penalty for not complying with the law. The answer remains in my posts.

What I didn't see in the letter was any mandate that you submit proof of said destruction, selling , etc.

So if a PD wants to get a warrant they literally have to go to the magistrate/ judge and say I want a warrant because they HAD these guns at some time. The magistrate will ask... "what makes you think they STILL have it?".. .. what's their answer going to be? Uummmm

At least if the letter said "submit proof by such and such date" they could TRY and say that by them not submitting said proof that they still currently have it.

This letter and the law seems to take the word of the citizen. Its one MORE charge to hit someone with if they are caught with said rifle at some other incident. For example.. a domestic. They show up , wife says you have rifle not registered. They somehow see said rifle, not registered, then you go to jail.

Almost like a secondary offense.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
It would appear some preparations have been made by people in charge of carrying out the desires of the governed to enforce rather than negotiate the new forced disposal of commonly used firearms.



Some public service fliers could be put up to help gain compliance....

 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
It would appear some preparations have been made by people in charge of carrying out the desires of the governed to enforce rather than negotiate the new forced disposal of commonly used firearms.



Some public service fliers could be put up to help gain compliance....



Great posts brother. Real helpful for conversation.

Appeal to emotion of the year I'd say.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Top