• 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.

CT Cops sign statement they will not enforce PA13-3??

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
From the article

Examiner article said:
But now these courageous citizens have key support in high places. With at least 250 law enforcement officers joining them in disobeying an unconstitutional law, the gunowners have a new weapon in their arsenal -- the support of hundreds of police officers.

Hardy reported that with the lack of support of police, Connecticut faces massive civilian resistance, with police officers refusing to enforce a law that to most citizens crosses a line that is unacceptable in a free society.

If such a thing can happen in a deeply blue state in New England, what would law enforcement encounter if they attempted such an ill-fated attack on Constitutionally-protected rights in Texas, Wyoming, South Carolina, Utah, or Kentucky?

I hope this is true, and I hope the "representatives are smart enough to at least repeal this foolish legislation, since I doubt they will resign willingly and will need to be voted out of office. Shame that traitors to this country and its people would have the audacity to wait until elections. If they had any decency, they would have never even entertained the notion of gun registration, let alone confiscation (I know it may not have been explicitly stated, but we can all read between the lines).
 

Grand Puba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
11
Location
not of this world, wa
I hope this is true, and I hope the "representatives are smart enough to at least repeal this foolish legislation, since I doubt they will resign willingly and will need to be voted out of office. Shame that traitors to this country and its people would have the audacity to wait until elections. If they had any decency, they would have never even entertained the notion of gun registration, let alone confiscation (I know it may not have been explicitly stated, but we can all read between the lines).

This is the best news Ever, since the beginning of this Fiasco!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
CT citizens must demand to see the document that is alleged to have been signed. The Founders put their names to the DoI as the proof of their commitment to liberty, by signing their names to a document that proved their treason to the Crown. No signed document, with real names of cops, then it is nothing but propaganda, from a source unknown. Besides, why would they need to sign if the state has no plans to confiscate any guns?
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Seems foolish to sign a statement. What's the point in that? You go on record for a thing that hasn't happened, in violation of your oath to obey the laws?
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
941
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
Seems foolish to sign a statement. What's the point in that? You go on record for a thing that hasn't happened, in violation of your oath to obey the laws?

Never took the oath yourself have you???

The one I took and all I have heard of state "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic".
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Never took the oath yourself have you???

The one I took and all I have heard of state "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic".
What does a/the constitution have to do with this situation in CT? ;)
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Never took the oath yourself have you???

The one I took and all I have heard of state "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Well maybe they should add 'obey the laws you're sworn to defend'? What could it hurt?
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Well maybe they should add 'obey the laws you're sworn to defend'? What could it hurt?

Because sometimes unconstitutional laws find their way into the books (infringements on religious practices, speech, assembly, the press, petition of government, infringements on the RKBA, infringements on the right to a speedy trial with a jury of one's peers, etc).

Just food for thought.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Per Wikipedia (I know, I know:rolleyes:), this seems to be the wording of the current oath of enlistment:

(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


President:
In the United States, the oath of office for the President is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Members of Congress:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Federal judges:
In the United States, federal judges are required to take two oaths. The first oath is this:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]

The second is the same oath that members of Congress take:
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]


I wonder when it will become acceptable to call the oath breakers by their earned title: traitors.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Per Wikipedia (I know, I know:rolleyes:), this seems to be the wording of the current oath of enlistment:


I wonder when it will become acceptable to call the oath breakers by their earned title: traitors.

The only one that is a true "oath" is the servicemen...because they can be jailed for nonperformance
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws

A showdown is developing between a sizable number of Connecticut state police officers and the politicians who passed into law highly restrictive gun control, gun bans, and bans on high capacity magazines. story accurate?

Here's a new Prison Planet article about a CT cop who stated that, "I cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in."

"Conn. Cop: I Will Kick Down Doors To Confiscate Guns

Mikael Thalen
Prison Planet.com
March 10, 2014

A Connecticut man revealed shocking comments made by a Branford police officer this week who has openly defended door-to-door gun confiscation."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/conn-cop-i-will-kick-down-doors-to-confiscate-guns.html
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Here's a new Prison Planet article about a CT cop who stated that, "I cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in."

"Conn. Cop: I Will Kick Down Doors To Confiscate Guns

Mikael Thalen
Prison Planet.com
March 10, 2014

A Connecticut man revealed shocking comments made by a Branford police officer this week who has openly defended door-to-door gun confiscation."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/conn-cop-i-will-kick-down-doors-to-confiscate-guns.html
http://www.infowars.com/conn-cop-i-will-kick-down-doors-to-confiscate-guns/

They IDed the cop ... seems like police dept did not like his statements .

. one of the state’s mostly highly decorated officers. http://www.infowars.com/conn-cop-i-will-kick-down-doors-to-confiscate-guns/

If they do start confiscation via breaking down folks doors ... they can not expect the gun community to be happy.

And as I have said before: I will convict no one of ANY crime until the gun laws are repealed.
 
Last edited:
Top