Gun Confiscation Letters Sent Out in Connecticut!

[OC for ME]

How about this.

After the state illegally confiscates your guns/mags, because they can, because you failed to comply with a currently constitutional law, you then can sue to get your illegally confiscated guns back after you sue to have the currently constitutional law found unconstitutional. But, you will need to have your felony charge nixed because you would have been convicted of a felony, unconstitutionally, via a formally constitutional law for having guns/mags that are now legal;, that were once illegal as the result of a formally constitutional law being found unconstitutional.

Sheeze.....CT can confiscate you guns/mags, it will be found a legal/lawful act, because you did not follow current law. CT citizens had their chance to nix this BS law but CT citizens are serfs of the state and are comfortable in their serfdom.

 

[OC for ME]

FBI raid of DESPP to collect evidence is needed. Of course DESPP would deny that the letter would be sent out.

 

[Rich B]

but CT citizens are serfs of the state and are comfortable in their serfdom.

I can only roll my eyes at this kind of comment.

Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you...

 

[OC for ME]

​

 

[Slade McCuiston]

FBI raid of DESPP to collect evidence is needed. Of course DESPP would deny that the letter would be sent out.

I thought I was the only one that was thinking that.

 

[davidmcbeth]

FBI raid of DESPP to collect evidence is needed. Of course DESPP would deny that the letter would be sent out.

Saying that a record does not exist when it does is a crime in this state....under our FOIA Act.

If I find out that DESPP lied to me in respect to this, they know I would file a complaint and seek criminal charges so I don't think that they would chance this as if it was a lie or not would be found out.

Normally, when they don't want to cough up records, they do nothing - say nothing and hope a complaint is not filed about the lack of a response under our FOI Act...I know !!

Chance of them lying about the records? Slim in my opinion. I think that they never sent any out. Folks with skill in looking to see if its a fake through examination of the file may start their analysis now.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Letters were never actually sent out...I have thread on that in HOT NEWS section

 

[davidmcbeth]

Sounds good. I appreciate anything you can find out for us.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Well, filed a FOIA request with the Gov...his consul would not accept a request for one requested record (records relating to assault weapons) on the spot...so I filed a complaint ... from the complaint filed:

On 26 FEB 14 I requested records relating to “assault weapons” that the Governor had; this request was made to Mr. Drake on 26 FEB 14 at about noon. And I limited the time period of records produced or received by the Governor to 1 OCT 13 to the present.

Mr. Drake denied this request and demanded that I provide specific search terms to make his job easier to find such records. I argued that while I understood his desire to make his search easier, my desire to obtain records related to assault weapons would not find me modifying the request.

Mr. Drake denied access to the requested records immediately. His claim was that it would require research and the Act does not require research. I noted that I did not request him to do research but just to search for the records. I noted that records I am seeking are records as defined by the Act (CGS Chapter 14) and that he should use the Act as a guide as to the types of records available under the Act. Mr. Drake again demanded that I create a list of search words. I told him that I would not limit the search to specific terminology or verbiage. It was agreed at that point in time that the requested records are denied.

The Governor’s insistence on providing a specific list of searchable words, like “assault weapons” is meant to avoid compliance with the Act. It would be too easy for the Governor to hide records relating to assault weapons wherein the term “assault weapon” is simply termed another “code word”, like “sandals” for example to be used by the Governor and members of the general assembly or others. No one seeking records relating to assault weapons would include a search term such as “sandals” in such a word-specific search.

I'll win this one ... but it will take about a year to get these records.

I did also include search terms ... "assault weapons", and including words that contain the letters together of "confisc" to cover most derivatives of "confiscate".

Mr. Drake does not like me....but that's OK...

 

[Primus]

Well, filed a FOIA request with the Gov...his consul would not accept a request for one requested record (records relating to assault weapons) on the spot...so I filed a complaint ... from the complaint filed:

On 26 FEB 14 I requested records relating to “assault weapons” that the Governor had; this request was made to Mr. Drake on 26 FEB 14 at about noon. And I limited the time period of records produced or received by the Governor to 1 OCT 13 to the present.

Mr. Drake denied this request and demanded that I provide specific search terms to make his job easier to find such records. I argued that while I understood his desire to make his search easier, my desire to obtain records related to assault weapons would not find me modifying the request.

Mr. Drake denied access to the requested records immediately. His claim was that it would require research and the Act does not require research. I noted that I did not request him to do research but just to search for the records. I noted that records I am seeking are records as defined by the Act (CGS Chapter 14) and that he should use the Act as a guide as to the types of records available under the Act. Mr. Drake again demanded that I create a list of search words. I told him that I would not limit the search to specific terminology or verbiage. It was agreed at that point in time that the requested records are denied.

The Governor’s insistence on providing a specific list of searchable words, like “assault weapons” is meant to avoid compliance with the Act. It would be too easy for the Governor to hide records relating to assault weapons wherein the term “assault weapon” is simply termed another “code word”, like “sandals” for example to be used by the Governor and members of the general assembly or others. No one seeking records relating to assault weapons would include a search term such as “sandals” in such a word-specific search.

I'll win this one ... but it will take about a year to get these records.

I did also include search terms ... "assault weapons", and including words that contain the letters together of "confisc" to cover most derivatives of "confiscate".

Mr. Drake does not like me....but that's OK...

Were you able to ask this dude right out about whether they sent the letters? Also, has anyone with a letter able to show the envelope/ return address?

You would think the governor or his officer would be pissed if someone is doing rhis

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Rich B]

Were you able to ask this dude right out about whether they sent the letters? Also, has anyone with a letter able to show the envelope/ return address?

You would think the governor or his officer would be pissed if someone is doing rhis

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

There are no letters.


Just silly media rumors.

 

[Primus]

Just saw on Fox tonight on Kelly file they are going to cover this. Wonder if they will talk about letters

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Rich B]

Just saw on Fox tonight on Kelly file they are going to cover this. Wonder if they will talk about letters

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Well, if they say it on fox, it must be true.

 

[Augustin]

DESPP has sent NO LETTERS at all out per DESPP.

This article includes a recording of a phone call (7:43 minutes long) by a lady named Ashley to Lt. Vance of the CT State Police in which she claims her husband received such a letter. After she explains the letter to the officer he replies "Yep."

And the officer goes on to say, quote, "That letter was sent out with the intent to tell people that umm you know basically we know you have the weapon and if that is in fact accurate and you haven't gotten rid of it uhh here is what you need to know to be within the boundaries of the law."

Listen for yourself to the conversation. It sure sounds real enough to me.

http://breakingdeception.com/offici...lice-participate-door-door-gun-confiscations/

 

[Running Wolf]

The recording does sound real, however it could be easily faked. I can't help but think if there were thousands of these letters, perhaps tens of thousands, there'd be more of them posted online. After an exhaustive (well at least a 10 minute cursory) internet search it appears there has only been the one posted so far. And the posters all state the authenticity can't be verified.

I'll wait for more info before jumping to conclusions.

 

[davidmcbeth]

The recording does sound real, however it could be easily faked. I can't help but think if there were thousands of these letters, perhaps tens of thousands, there'd be more of them posted online. After an exhaustive (well at least a 10 minute cursory) internet search it appears there has only been the one posted so far. And the posters all state the authenticity can't be verified.

I'll wait for more info before jumping to conclusions.

Hey Wolf, I filed a FOIA request with the agency that purportedly produced the letter...they said they did not send it out and have ? about it.

If they had such a record, they would have had to disclose its existence under our FOIA Act by either producing it or claiming it was exempt under the Act. I'll get a confirmation of this in a few days...right now, all the facts that I have point to it being either a) a draft that was leaked or b) a fake

 

[Primus]

This article includes a recording of a phone call (7:43 minutes long) by a lady named Ashley to Lt. Vance of the CT State Police in which she claims her husband received such a letter. After she explains the letter to the officer he replies "Yep."

And the officer goes on to say, quote, "That letter was sent out with the intent to tell people that umm you know basically we know you have the weapon and if that is in fact accurate and you haven't gotten rid of it uhh here is what you need to know to be within the boundaries of the law."

Listen for yourself to the conversation. It sure sounds real enough to me.

http://breakingdeception.com/offici...lice-participate-door-door-gun-confiscations/

Well this settles it.. it was on breaking deception.com so its true.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[davidmcbeth]

Were you able to ask this dude right out about whether they sent the letters? Also, has anyone with a letter able to show the envelope/ return address?

You would think the governor or his officer would be pissed if someone is doing rhis

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

No, the Gov.'s lawyer would not be the person to ask....there have been no letters sent out per a FOIA request response by the agency that purportedly produced it.

I don't think the Gov would think anything of these letters too much. I think that Lt. Cooke might be miffed but he'll move on.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Well this settles it.. it was on breaking deception.com so its true.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

ROFL...I'm guessing Vance was duped by reading the letter on the web...or by water-cooler talk.

Or talking about the content that was within the letter...and the options people have

 

[since9]

Hey Wolf, I filed a FOIA request with the agency that purportedly produced the letter...they said they did not send it out and have ? about it.

If they had such a record, they would have had to disclose its existence under our FOIA Act by either producing it or claiming it was exempt under the Act. I'll get a confirmation of this in a few days...right now, all the facts that I have point to it being either a) a draft that was leaked or b) a fake

I've been following this recent turn of events with more than a passing interest, particularly after what actually did happen here in Colorado. The story gained so much traction because it's entirely plausible. Similar events have happened many times over the last thirty years. Not a year has gone by in the last ten that a handful of states have propose outright bans on assault weapons.

Kudos to you for filing the FOIA and following up on this, and I'm glad you're keeping an open mind that they may indeed have sent out a few such letters, but are back-peddling due to the backlash. Other articles I've seen say the letters were received by the 107 people who registered their firearms late, and that they couldn't send out any more letters, because they don't know who owns the firearms.

In related news, Lt. Paul Vance of the CT State Police was recorded telling a woman that she sounded anti-American for questioning the state's new gun control law. Thus, the registration law is out there. That alone is cause for alarm, as such laws are an infringement against the right to keep and bear arms.

Something to keep in mind...

 

[davidmcbeth]

I filed another FOIA request today ... seeking, amongst other records, the chatter that DESPP employees and other gov't folks who contacted DESPP about this issue...