The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Mr Mannn on January 24, 2014, 07:49:08 PM
-
Conneticut was one of those states that passed draconian gun laws last year, The registration deadline was New Years Eve. Guess what? Only 4% of the people registered. That means 96% ignored the democrat
confiscation/registration scheme.
--Maybe one of you brilliant types can show up here and tell us why a BLUE state is unable to get its own citizens to comply with an unconstitutional law like this. These are not rethugs, these are liberal rats just like you. So why didn't they comply with the new state law?
http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-scrambles-for-amnesty-plan-after-realizing-that-citizens-are-refusing-to-register-their-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_camp
Connecticut scrambles for amnesty plan after realizing that citizens are refusing to register their “assault weapons†and “high capacity†magazines
Governor Dannel Malloy and the government of the state of Connecticut are having their own “Oh, poop†moment, now that they’ve tallied the number of citizens who have registered their “assault weapons†and “high capacity magazines†required by the state’s unconstitutional gun laws, compared that to the estimated number of applicable weapons and magazines in the state, and realize they’ve been ignored.
Historically speaking, 90-percent or more of those required to comply with gun registration laws in the U.S. refuse to do so, and there is no reason to suspect that this registration attempt in Connecticut is any different. I’ve seen estimates of 1,000,000 firearm magazines that should have been registered under the law, but the state reports registering only 40,000… just 4 percent.
Against this backdrop of failure, the anti-gun government of Connecticut is contemplating an “amnesty†to encourage those who haven’t registered to do so, and the local media is more than willing to do their part in the spin game:
Amid concerns about gun owners who failed in their last-minute attempts to register now-illegal assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, lawmakers are considering granting an amnesty period for people who missed the registration deadline.
The comprehensive gun-control bill enacted last spring required owners of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to register the guns and declare ownership of the magazine if they wished to keep them.
About 50,000 assault weapons were registered last year, and close to 40,000 people declared possession of magazines – many of them doing so during the final days of December. But legislative leaders in recent weeks have raised concerns with the governor’s office that some individuals who attempted to register their weapons were prevented from doing so as a result of early post office closings on New Year’s Eve.
--snip---more at link
-
Welcome to the new "third rail" of politics, liberal pigs.
-
Welcome to the new "third rail" of politics, liberal pigs.
I agree, though "new" is relative. The libs tend to forget what happened in the mid 90s, to brooks and foley for example, or attribute those happenings to things other than the gun issue, even though slick willy eluded to the fact that it was indeed because of the gun issue.
DUmmies will be DUmmies.
CMD
-
This is what happened up in Canada when they tried to a gun registry - non-compliance. It's either that or residents of CT have had that common boating accident where all their firearms sank to the bottom of a deep river when the canoe capsized.
-
Something similar happened in NJ when they passed their AWB in the early 90s. Out of an estimated ownership somewhere around 200K (It was long before the heyday of the AR kit guns), the number actually registered was more like just 200. After that, if the cops had to enter a premises for any reason including emergency rescue and found one of the dreaded AWs, they'd write up the owner for that offense. The arrest was dutifully tabulated as an 'Assault weapon crime,' the crime being mere possession, and used as a crime stat to justify the law. IIRC all the magazines over a certain size (10 rounds maximum I think) were outlawed period, so there was no registration or grandfathering involved with them. There were some peculiar holes in their registration law, for instance if you moved there with non-AW guns you did have to get a firearms owner card but you didn't have to register those guns you had brought into the state with you.
-
Anecdotal evidence is saying that the only 'assault weapons' that were registered under the NY SAFE Act were ones that already belonged to LEOs.
-
Anecdotal evidence is saying that the only 'assault weapons' that were registered under the NY SAFE Act were ones that already belonged to LEOs.
Makes a lot of sense, most of them who did own such weapons would be aware that many of their co-workers would know that they owned one before the ban, and failing to comply would leave them very vulnerable to any pissed-off co-worker, rival, or just someone blabbing it around in the wrong places.
-
Just another democrat law to harangue a law abiding citizen with and if caught, to disenfranchise him/her of their right to vote.
-
Makes a lot of sense, most of them who did own such weapons would be aware that many of their co-workers would know that they owned one before the ban, and failing to comply would leave them very vulnerable to any pissed-off co-worker, rival, or just someone blabbing it around in the wrong places.
They were threatened with dismissal if they didn't comply.
-
They were threatened with dismissal if they didn't comply.
Yeah, that's kind of implicit in the employment, but that's actually the thing (Besides criminal prosecution) that would be held over their heads by the groups I was talking about if the boss didn't already know they had owned one before the ban...of course any criminal or person under investigation that got wind of it would be in a position to turn the tables on any LEO that hadn't complied, too, if the bad guy got wind of the weapon still being in possession.
-
Yeah, that's kind of implicit in the employment, but that's actually the thing (Besides criminal prosecution) that would be held over their heads by the groups I was talking about if the boss didn't already know they had owned one before the ban...of course any criminal or person under investigation that got wind of it would be in a position to turn the tables on any LEO that hadn't complied, too, if the bad guy got wind of the weapon still being in possession.
There's a few LEO organizations/unions in NYS that have said that they won't enforce it, and one DA (Columbia County, IIRC) has already thrown out one case based on it--and the SAFE Act was implied. Since the 7-round magazine limit was declared unconstitutional, almost all of the arrests made under the SAFE Act are now going to be dismissed.
-
There's a few LEO organizations/unions in NYS that have said that they won't enforce it, and one DA (Columbia County, IIRC) has already thrown out one case based on it--and the SAFE Act was implied. Since the 7-round magazine limit was declared unconstitutional, almost all of the arrests made under the SAFE Act are now going to be dismissed.
When did that happen?
What part of the law did they actually review?
Was the rest of the lay declared constitutional?
That is great news!
-
When did that happen?
What part of the law did they actually review?
Was the rest of the lay declared constitutional?
That is great news!
The decision was released Dec. 31. It's going to be appealed, for sure. The judge who upheld most of the rest of the law did say that 'assault weapons have legitimate sporting purposes.' That verbiage sets up the law to be struck down, IMHO. Remember that Heller and McDonald were losers until they hit the SCOTUS.
-
The main reason to own a Scary Black Rifle is that it's a lot of fun to fire a huge amount of ammunition at reasonable cost.
Doing that when you own the weapon illegally would not be much fun.
At any public range you would be a sitting duck. Even on private property you make a lot of distinctive noise that could attract anti-gun law enforcement.
Non-registration would only be useful if one expects the law to be repealed soon. Otherwise the law accomplishes its goal of taking the SBR out of your hands.
-
The main reason to own a Scary Black Rifle is that it's a lot of fun to fire a huge amount of ammunition at reasonable cost.
Speak for yourself. My firearms are tools, not toys.
Non-registration would only be useful if one expects the law to be repealed soon. Otherwise the law accomplishes its goal of taking the SBR out of your hands.
Given that you consider a rifle as a toy, your support of registration (which is the gateway to confiscation) is understandable.
Molon labe.
-
I'm going into my second childhood and a scary black weapon is my security blanket.... :-)
-
Speak for yourself. My firearms are tools, not toys.
Given that you consider a rifle as a toy, your support of registration (which is the gateway to confiscation) is understandable.
Molon labe.
What!?! Support of registration? I'm just saying the bastards are partially getting their way.
They force you to make a choice on whether to break the law.
I'm not interested a "firearms as tools" argument.
In any case, I think there are a lot better choices for personal protection than any rifle, unless you're a survivalist planning for the apocalypse.
I love to shoot, reload, try new combinations, shoot some more, and hunt anything legal.
Firing on people is as far from my mind as flying to the moon. If that means I'm an unworthy toy lover, so be it.
And that "molon labe" business sounds a little nutty.
-
What!?! Support of registration? I'm just saying the bastards are partially getting their way.
They force you to make a choice on whether to break the law.
I'm not interested a "firearms as tools" argument.
In any case, I think there are a lot better choices for personal protection than any rifle, unless you're a survivalist planning for the apocalypse.
I love to shoot, reload, try new combinations, shoot some more, and hunt anything legal.
Firing on people is as far from my mind as flying to the moon. If that means I'm an unworthy toy lover, so be it.
You're right! I just went back and re-read the Second Amendment, and it actually says "The right to target shoot and hunt shall not be abridged. But don't you dare protect yourself, your family, or your property, and don't you dare resist government tyranny. Don't you dare."
How could I have gotten it so wrong, for all these years?
:badmood:
And that "molon labe" business sounds a little nutty.
Indeed. In April of 1775, many men held the same opinion.
As Samuel Adams said in response to such a man, "go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.â€
Adams also said, “It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.â€
I'm irate and tireless; dedicated to individual liberty and busy setting brushfires of freedom. What are you?
-
I'm irate and tireless; dedicated to individual liberty and busy setting brushfires of freedom. What are you?
I'm afraid I'll get shot if you hear me laughing!
I see no reincarnations of the Founding Fathers around here.
I believe in the unfettered right of Americans, except for felons and nuts, to own any arms they see fit.
Unfortunately, there will never be agreement on what constitutes a nut, nor a reasonable way to prevent his access to weapons.
Democrat gun laws are only a burden to the law-abiding.
-
Democrat gun laws are only a burden to the law-abiding.
Guns in the hands of sane, law-abiding citizens is what democrats fear most.