Primus
Regular Member
Actually... its seized as evidence for your trial and charge the person with said firearm.
But seizure doesn't get the fear mongered up as well as "CONFISCATE". Aaahhhhhhhhh
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
-
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.
-
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!
- Thread starter Augustin
- Start date
But seizure doesn't get the fear mongered up as well as "CONFISCATE". Aaahhhhhhhhh
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Primus
Regular Member
Grape I hate to say it, but you have it going on in like two or thread threads at least. Some of these threads are posted with that exact thought in mind it seems.
As I said before kudos to David for doing the real leg work and trying to get real information to us. The propaganda I see and the "stirring" the pot certainly isn't helping anything or anyone.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Primus
Regular Member
"That comment from the CT state police could justify violent "pre emptive" action against the police .....".
Wtf? I thought you weren't for violence?
NO "COMMENT" but any person is a "justification for violent pre emptive strikes".
Its funny to hear that when only one SIDE is make threats and calling for bloodshed. The same side says oh we will kill you and make you pay in blood. But if you make comments we can also preemptively kill you. Just ignore those comments....
This is getting stupid really fast. I'm glad there is the internet and the documentation. So if something happens we can show are kids who really kicked it off and how it went down. And I sincerely doubt it'll go down in glory like the Boston common.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Tackleberry1
Regular Member
I'm not for violence Primus... I didn't say "I would" or "they should".
Just putting reality out there for consideration. Should this go south, there are those who will approach it "tactically"... Meaning that they will NOT wait for wolf to get around to them. Instead, they will target LEO's when the advantage is right, "guerrilla style".
The wise Cop will turn in his badge should the "confiscation" order be given. A blanket refusal to follow this type of order is the only step that will prevent violence.
...and booting a door to enforce this law IS VIOLENCE. The fact that it would carried out by agents of the state does not excuse it or in any way impede the Citizens right to fight back.
It is NOT up to the citizen to remain peaceful and lay down for the sake of officer safety. It IS up to the officer to maintain the peace, and that starts with the officer NOT picking a fight he can't win.
Tack
Just putting reality out there for consideration. Should this go south, there are those who will approach it "tactically"... Meaning that they will NOT wait for wolf to get around to them. Instead, they will target LEO's when the advantage is right, "guerrilla style".
The wise Cop will turn in his badge should the "confiscation" order be given. A blanket refusal to follow this type of order is the only step that will prevent violence.
...and booting a door to enforce this law IS VIOLENCE. The fact that it would carried out by agents of the state does not excuse it or in any way impede the Citizens right to fight back.
It is NOT up to the citizen to remain peaceful and lay down for the sake of officer safety. It IS up to the officer to maintain the peace, and that starts with the officer NOT picking a fight he can't win.
Tack
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Ok.. so are you saying they shouldn't take these pre emptive actions? What is your stance then?
And I addressed this before as far as numbers go..... start "pre emptive" violence and watch how fast your fellow citizens turn on you. There are entire cities that hate guns. I get it... gun guys "would come running with an armory". Guess what... it would just prove to the millions of antis and TURN even more people who have guns against the tide.
What some people fail to realize is the number of people who have guns, who could really care less about them. All those numbers of people who have guns, how many are just guys who have a target pistol they shoot every once in a while. You expect that guy to travel to CT to get shot? Never. Think of his wife " you idiot get rid of that stupid gun think of your kids!! Don't go there and help those terrorists". So yea.. crazy numbers.
Same in CT. They tote the 3% around because that's how many have guns or close. That's assuming every single person is willing to die for said gun. I'd bet you your looking at .5% that are willing to. And as soon as it breaks out and the media spins to the rest of the country how insane gun owners are picking of cops in their cruisers, it'll back fire. More and more "casual gun owners" if you will, will quickly become antis. They will and should quickly turn their back on that .5%.
And where does it end? Do you propose they keep killing cops till that repeal the laws? Hmmm where I have heard that before... let's kill people until we get our way...... oh yea. I deployed over seas and got into more then one "incident" with guys with the same mentality.
Again... "gun guys" are giving more and more "ammo" to antis everyday. And they are just turning guys in the middle against them.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Gallowmere
Regular Member
Interestingly enough, even the people advocating for an all out war, appear to be calling for patience. Neither side is going to want to fire the first shot, because whichever side does is going to lose a lot of support and embolden the other side. What concerns me is that such stalemates never really lead to a resolution, and just a lot of tension. Hell, just look at what the US dealt with from the Soviets for decades, and the same with North Korea and South Korea.
What actually scares me about it is the potential for any given event to be misinterpreted at this time, by either side. For example, if some ass decides that this would be a convenient time to carry out another mass shooting, it could very easily be twisted by the media and police to indicate that the people "resisting" have fired the first shot. The same could happen if a traffic stop involving a person with an AR-15 in their car happens to go south, and it could be twisted to make the police look like they have fired the first shot. Something completely unrelated could turn this really nasty, really quick. Hence my comment earlier about people needing to calm down until everyone knows exactly what the facts are.
Primus
Regular Member
davidmcbeth
Banned
You bet ... "I confiscate this in the name of the law." I remember this line from some forgotten movie (or my mind remembers it as this).
Pray I'm on the jury....not guilty. I think that this is the gravest concern that the Govt has---when they lose the ability to lock people up and it becomes widely known, their power is over. NEXT
Tackleberry1
Regular Member
My stance is irrelevant... I don't live in CT.
What I advocate for is Peace Officers with BALLS who will refuse this order even if it means dropping their badge on the bosses desk.
What I advise is a rethinking of past norms. The notion that LAC's would not fight LEO's flies out the window with many people the moment their State threatens Felony arrest for what currently amounts to "civil disobedience."
Last I checked, felony possession of a weapon carries a pretty stiff sentence. I'm not sure what that is in CT ... and I'm not advising action one way or the other, but, threatening LAC's in this manner over an issue a constitutionally "questionable" as this is NOT a prudent course of action.
Tack
What I advocate for is Peace Officers with BALLS who will refuse this order even if it means dropping their badge on the bosses desk.
What I advise is a rethinking of past norms. The notion that LAC's would not fight LEO's flies out the window with many people the moment their State threatens Felony arrest for what currently amounts to "civil disobedience."
Last I checked, felony possession of a weapon carries a pretty stiff sentence. I'm not sure what that is in CT ... and I'm not advising action one way or the other, but, threatening LAC's in this manner over an issue a constitutionally "questionable" as this is NOT a prudent course of action.
Tack
F350
Regular Member
I don't think you'll have to worry about leo's breaking down doors anytime soon here. They swore an oath, and I'm sure they'll abide by it.........
YUP; just like they stood by their oaths in New Orleans...
F350
Regular Member
And everyone one of them lives in the state, with neighbors who know who they are. If like most states they get to take their assigned vehicle home, so even a guy 5 miles away could know where they live, pretty good odds one of the 350,000 resisters know where they live.
Stop - cease - desist.
Do not advocate for any such physical response here, even against constitutional issues.
So far it appears that the "letters" are probably a hoax - that is being investigated.
Talk of armed resistance, even if by others, w/o speaking out against it, condemning it, is a serious violation of forum rules. There will be no more of it - it ends here.
Tackleberry1
Regular Member
Grape... Advocating violence is not my goal and I'm sorry if that's the impression you took from this conversation.
Dropping a bowling ball onto a parked car will result in a severely damaged vehicle. Stating that fact is NOT advocating vehicular vandalism.
Not trying to argue with you and I'm done with this thread anyway, it just that your post left what I believe to be an inaccurate interpretation of my values which I could not allow to stand.
Tack
Dropping a bowling ball onto a parked car will result in a severely damaged vehicle. Stating that fact is NOT advocating vehicular vandalism.
Not trying to argue with you and I'm done with this thread anyway, it just that your post left what I believe to be an inaccurate interpretation of my values which I could not allow to stand.
Tack
Rich B
Regular Member
Alabama. You could have found that pretty easily on the site you are talking about. And you are talking about Mike Vanderboegh.
Nothing stated in the news recently about letters is true. You have been fooled.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...icut-Carry-Gun-Talk-Radio-Confiscation-Rumors
Perhaps my previous post was poorly worded as the intent was not to accuse you of advocating violence. The problem araises when posts are made alluding to people that might take up arms against such as law/enforcement and actually shooting LEOs. It is hypothetical and without basis in fact, but it will be repeated and take on a life of its own as truth reported here. We will not and cannot be associated with such.
It is the old story of a lie told often enough.........
Okay. I found it. I overlooked it the first time I looked the site over. It does give an Alabama address. I still stand behind author Mac Slavo and his excellent writings. I've followed his stuff for quite a few years now. He is widely respected in the alternative media. If he mistakenly said the group was from Connecticut that doesn't necessarily discredit all of his journalism.
BTW, the Sipsey Street Irregulars posted the following on their blog about the article:
"Unfortunately they get (SIC) my state of residence wrong. although there ARE pleanty (SIC) of Three Percenters in CT." (spelling and grammatical errors are in original quote)
Thank you David. I found our resident cop's (Primus) remark quite disgusting and typical of the LEO mindset ("Actually... its seized as evidence for your trial and charge the person with said firearm. But seizure doesn't get the fear mongered up as well as "CONFISCATE".")
And you are right on target with your statements about jury nullification.
The problem is that the generally dumb public is completely unaware of this power, and few judges will let defense attorneys inform jurors of this authority. Why? Because the power of jury nullification is derived from the fact that acquittals cannot be appealed. You see, the "system" considers jury nullification as jury lawlessness. Still, the power of the jury to judge the law is very real and longstanding. Even if judges won't advise the jury of this power in the jury instructions, at a minimum the judge should impose no restriction or retribution on a lawyer who advises the jury on his own. And the system most certainly shouldn't criminally charge the jurors if they acquit because of nullification, but it has happened!
Gallowmere
Regular Member
Well, if this article is to be believed, as of 3/1, the letters are confirmed legit.
http://www.theday.com/article/20140301/NWS01/303019979/1070/NWS
http://www.theday.com/article/20140301/NWS01/303019979/1070/NWS
davidmcbeth
Banned
In most states the jury instructions tend to inform jurists that they HAVE TO make a guilty finding w/o even mentioning or considering nullification. Courts have said that this is OK as to discourage nullification occurrences.
davidmcbeth
Banned
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is among the groups appealing the constitutionality of the state gun law. Wilson said in addition to those who missed the deadline, there are those who simply refused to register their guns because they think the law was unconstitutional.
"As long as they're aware of the risks, that's up to them," he said Scott Wilson quoted I believe from art. above
Previously Scott said to register and leave argument to later ... nice to see he's being more flexible.