Connecticut members?

[downtownv]

What are the legalities of "Holding" or "Storing" a Gun out of state for a Ct friend or forum member. Obviously, in the hopes that this unconstitutional law gets pushed out of the way.

[JohnR]

Don't ask, don't tell?

[TheTman]

I saw that some 350,000 were refusing to register their weapons. This will be interesting to watch and see what the CT Govt. response is. I hope they don't choose a heavy handed approach, or things could get out of hand. God Bless those patriots.

[Tilos]

Escaped Ct in '94
whew:001_tt2:

[muggsy]

Anyone that has a gun that they want to hide from the powers that be should send it to old Muggsy. He's a scofflaw with no scruples and he promises not to shoot them too often. Just enough to keep them from getting rusty. He'll give them a good home and you might even get them back when the heat is off.

[RevRay]

I live in Connecticut, so this is real life stuff to me ... even though I don't own anything "illegal". I posted the following on a different thread ...

It has recently become news here in Connecticut that thousands & thousands of people have failed to register their guns and magazines as our new law requires. It will be interesting to see what the state government's next step is going to be. Will they seek to encourage people to obey the law. Or will they pick a handful of people in their data base and make an example of them. AND ... if they choose to do that, how will the search and arrest be made? Will it be a polite knock on the door by a couple of uniforms, or will it be a SWAT team breaking down the door in the middle of the night? To be honest, I believe it could go either way ... and that is my point. All the police who would be the ones to have to carry out a SWAT team order would probably know in their hearts that a heavy hand would probably not be necessary. BUT ... will they then choose to ask to be excused from the squad about to carry out the order ... or will they simply follow orders and break down the door, etc., etc. We will all have a ringside seat to see what "the state" is going to do.

[itsthelaw]

Times are CRAZY.

[AIRret]

Might be a good question for: http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/our-journal.

Other folks on this forum may need advise in this same area……sad to say!

[JohnR]

What's so telling of their motives is, everyone knows that scary black rifles are not things real criminals use enough to matter. They have to know that. So their motives are obvious, disarm potential insurrectionist militias. There can be no other explanation. The "for the children" ruse is such a big fat lie it's not even funny.

If they did succeed in taking scary black rifles, then they'd go after the next tier of firearms, then the next. We're not stupid.

[downtownv]

The people that are screwed and will made an example out of are those that admitted by submission that they are in possession.....
Those are the folks that better get them out before they kick in the doors.
A simple bill of sale to a friend or relative out of CT (Or NY ) should save them....

[itsthelaw]

What is the charge for not having a bill of sale for a firearm you sold?

[TheTman]

Regarding storing a gun for someone in CT. It seems that I read on the letter they sent out, or on something or another, that you were ok if you had them stored out of state. I think you still had to register them or something, but that storing them out of state was ok. Check it out for yourself though, my memory isn't what it used to be.

[Tilos]

I don't think it's about enforcement at all, but more the use of "banned" stuff.
You know there won't be any black gun matches scheduled anytime soon.
Who would chance taking a "banned" gun to a range...a match?
Who likes looking over your shoulder at the range, or wondering who THAT Guy over there is?
About all anyone could do would be go somewhere remote (not easy in Ct) shoot off a few rounds and quickly move on.
jmo

[RainingAgain]

Just saw a story on one of my FaceBook pages. Said Cops were cross checked for their weapons and 68% had not complied with registration.

[Bawanna]

Oh the horrors!

I heard the guvna believes the ownership numbers are skewed. I mean who would disobey the guvment and not register ol betsy so they can come get it.

Word and fair warning guvment gun collectors. DO NOT KNOCK OR GO ANYWHERE NEAR bawanna's place.

[JohnR]

The question keeps arising, how does CT know who has scary black rifles, and therefore where to send the JBTs?

It's more than just a list of people who tried to register after the deadline, apparently.


Registration required for assault weapons purchased before October 1, 1993/April 1, 2014 and for machine guns. There is a de facto registry of the sale (including the serial numbers) of handguns and long guns purchased in state that is maintained by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP). Any transfer, be it from a dealer or private party, must be accompanied by an authorization number issued by the DESPP and a form containing personal and weapon identification (DPS-3-C) must be submitted to DESPP and local police. This form is collected and maintained on all guns purchased from FFL dealers as well. Firearms purchased out of state have no special requirements (other than they cannot be "assault weapons") and are not required to be regrestired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut

[RevRay]

As a pastor, I called my state senator's office today to ask about what kind of discussions are being had regarding confiscation procedures. I expressed my concern as a pastor at the possible use of force to arrest people who were not criminals two months ago but are criminals today. I was told two things, one which is true and one which may be true. The first point that is true is that the law as written did not have anything written into it specifically dictating confiscation of the unregistered weapons as the required outcome of non-compliance. In fact, I have read in a newspaper article in the Hartford Courant the fact that the Dems wanted to actually put required confiscation into the wording of the bill, but that in the end that did not fly. The second thing that was said was that there are no plans being discussed by the AG or State Police to begin confiscation. Rather, if and when people with unregistered weapons are discovered (i.e. through routine traffic stops, etc.), then they will be arrested and prosecuted for non-compliance.

[itsthelaw]

This is ironic if true...


http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/

[JohnR]

As a pastor, I called my state senator's office today to ask about what kind of discussions are being had regarding confiscation procedures. I expressed my concern as a pastor at the possible use of force to arrest people who were not criminals two months ago but are criminals today. I was told two things, one which is true and one which may be true. The first point that is true is that the law as written did not have anything written into it specifically dictating confiscation of the unregistered weapons as the required outcome of non-compliance. In fact, I have read in a newspaper article in the Hartford Courant the fact that the Dems wanted to actually put required confiscation into the wording of the bill, but that in the end that did not fly. The second thing that was said was that there are no plans being discussed by the AG or State Police to begin confiscation. Rather, if and when people with unregistered weapons are discovered (i.e. through routine traffic stops, etc.), then they will be arrested and prosecuted for non-compliance.
Good work, RR. Sounds like all the Democrats' schemes - all bark and no bite. They make criminals of us just to make themselves feel good.

It's like the Gun Free School Zone - despite what anyone says about it, the law exists but isn't enforced because it can't be.

[Tilos]

As a pastor, I called my state senator's office today to ask about what kind of discussions are being had regarding confiscation procedures. I expressed my concern as a pastor at the possible use of force to arrest people who were not criminals two months ago but are criminals today. I was told two things, one which is true and one which may be true. The first point that is true is that the law as written did not have anything written into it specifically dictating confiscation of the unregistered weapons as the required outcome of non-compliance. In fact, I have read in a newspaper article in the Hartford Courant the fact that the Dems wanted to actually put required confiscation into the wording of the bill, but that in the end that did not fly. The second thing that was said was that there are no plans being discussed by the AG or State Police to begin confiscation. Rather, if and when people with unregistered weapons are discovered (i.e. through routine traffic stops, etc.), then they will be arrested and prosecuted for non-compliance.
It's all incremental, it'll be ratcheted up to confiscation soon after the next incident, even if it's unrelated to the guns in this law.
jmo

[AJBert]

This is ironic if true...


http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/
I've been saying this all along. LEO's and the military will not follow unlawful orders. Too many of them are firearms owners and believe in not only the 2nd Amendment but the entire Constitution.


You know, the same Constitution they swore an oath to support and defend?

[RRP]

... LEO's and the military will not follow unlawful orders. Too many of them are firearms owners and believe in not only the 2nd Amendment but the entire Constitution.


Maybe. Maybe not.

These folks are conditioned to follow orders, without question. That begins at basic training and is ingrained in every one of them. Add to that the need to support and provide for their families, and the price tag of disobeying orders becomes much more than a philosophical issue.

Will they choose to put their families in financial ruin to protect our gun rights? They'll be able to keep their guns, either way.

[JohnR]

That "callthecops" site is satire, you all know that, right?

At the bottom of the page it says, "This site is a satire of the current state of Law Enforcement, Fire Fighting and Emergency Medical work. Stories posted here are not real and you should not assume them to have any basis in any real fact."

But that story probably has a kernel of truth in it.

[AJBert]

Maybe. Maybe not.

These folks are conditioned to follow orders, without question. That begins at basic training and is ingrained in every one of them. Add to that the need to support and provide for their families, and the price tag of disobeying orders becomes much more than a philosophical issue.

Will they choose to put their families in financial ruin to protect our gun rights? They'll be able to keep their guns, either way.
I can tell you this, when the "assault weapons" ban back in 1994 was passed by the Clinton administration I was at a small Navy command smack dab in the center of Seattle. The CO and XO gathered everyone up to discuss the matter, about 30 folks. We were posed with the question of what would we do if we were ordered by the gov't to go door to door to confiscate these evil weapons.


To a person, including the CO and XO, everyone said they would REFUSE the unlawful order...period. Yes, we worried about our families and about being court marshaled and such. But we also knew it would have been an UNLAWFUL order. We swore an oath and any order counter to that oath is unlawful.


I still believe the military and state and local LEO's WILL NOT go door to door. Fed LEO's is one I'm not to sure of. Just keep in mind there are MANY more local/state LEO's and military/National Guard than all Fed agencies.


I just don't see it happening. Obummer claiming Marshal Law? Yes. Obummer calling in the UN? Yes. The American people standing together against the gov't? Yes. The People prevailing? Yes, most assuredly!

[downtownv]

I can tell you this, when the "assault weapons" ban back in 1994 was passed by the Clinton administration I was at a small Navy command smack dab in the center of Seattle. The CO and XO gathered everyone up to discuss the matter, about 30 folks. We were posed with the question of what would we do if we were ordered by the gov't to go door to door to confiscate these evil weapons.


To a person, including the CO and XO, everyone said they would REFUSE the unlawful order...period. Yes, we worried about our families and about being court marshaled and such. But we also knew it would have been an UNLAWFUL order. We swore an oath and any order counter to that oath is unlawful.


I still believe the military and state and local LEO's WILL NOT go door to door. Fed LEO's is one I'm not to sure of. Just keep in mind there are MANY more local/state LEO's and military/National Guard than all Fed agencies.


I just don't see it happening. Obummer claiming Marshal Law? Yes. Obummer calling in the UN? Yes. The American people standing together against the gov't? Yes. The People prevailing? Yes, most assuredly!

I'd like to believe that would occur today but these young DHS Leo's are a different breed they were indoctrinated into an "Us vs. Them" Mentality. They are extremely aware of a large public distrust and carry a high rate of paranoia, imo.

[knkali]

welcome to Kalifornia boyz.....the water is fine.

[TheTman]

LZ made an excellent post about if it ever came to him being ordered to confiscate guns, that it would be time for him to retire.
I think CT will have the same thing happen, some will be eager to join the confiscation effort, hoping to see some "action", and have a chance to shoot people, and others will turn in their badge. It boils down to each individuals attitude, whether they want to be a jack booted thug, or whether take their vow to defend the Constitution seriously.
I keep looking back at Katrina, and how they went door to door, confiscating weapons and forcing people to evacuate. I'll never forget the video of the very large LEO tackling a little old lady, weighing maybe 90 lbs, because she showed officers she had a pistol to defend herself. She was holding it with her hand wrapped around the cylinder and frame, not by the handle with a finger on the trigger or anything, yet this big ass Cop tackled her, knocking her to the floor, knocking some teeth out and causing a lot of damage to her, when any one of then could have grabbed her wrist and taken the gun away from her without going all ape sh*t on her. But that is the mentality that some will have. Use all the force you want. You have the Govt. behind you so why not. Although in this instance, I expect bullets to fly instead of tackling someone.

[AJBert]

LZ made an excellent post about if it ever came to him being ordered to confiscate guns, that it would be time for him to retire.
I think CT will have the same thing happen, some will be eager to join the confiscation effort, hoping to see some "action", and have a chance to shoot people, and others will turn in their badge. It boils down to each individuals attitude, whether they want to be a jack booted thug, or whether take their vow to defend the Constitution seriously.
I keep looking back at Katrina, and how they went door to door, confiscating weapons and forcing people to evacuate. I'll never forget the video of the very large LEO tackling a little old lady, weighing maybe 90 lbs, because she showed officers she had a pistol to defend herself. She was holding it with her hand wrapped around the cylinder and frame, not by the handle with a finger on the trigger or anything, yet this big ass Cop tackled her, knocking her to the floor, knocking some teeth out and causing a lot of damage to her, when any one of then could have grabbed her wrist and taken the gun away from her without going all ape sh*t on her. But that is the mentality that some will have. Use all the force you want. You have the Govt. behind you so why not. Although in this instance, I expect bullets to fly instead of tackling someone.
Very good point about NOLA after Katrina. What wasn't widely known is that a LOT of officers quit the force immediately when ordered to go door to door to confiscate legal firearms from law abiding citizens. Many more, afterwards, who did participate, from the top down were fired and sued...successfully.


Of course, that didn't help the law abiding citizens at the time. Also, many LEO's were being fired upon while trying to help the good folks of NOLA. This is why the order was given.


The Chief of Police and many more "stepped down" afterwards. The mayor, though not over this, is waiting to find out how many years he'll be spending at Club Fed over 23 counts (I believe) of bribery and corruption he was convicted on for activities both before but primarily after Katrina. I believe they are dusting and cleaning up Edwin Edwards cell for him over in Texas.

[Sheepdog689]

LEOs in CT are not required to register assault weapons or Large Cap Mags until after they retire/separate from service. At that point they have 90 days to register. Same thing for active duty military moving in to CT. LEOs can still purchase assault weapons and Large Cap Mags under the new law.

[muggsy]

As a pastor, I called my state senator's office today to ask about what kind of discussions are being had regarding confiscation procedures. I expressed my concern as a pastor at the possible use of force to arrest people who were not criminals two months ago but are criminals today. I was told two things, one which is true and one which may be true. The first point that is true is that the law as written did not have anything written into it specifically dictating confiscation of the unregistered weapons as the required outcome of non-compliance. In fact, I have read in a newspaper article in the Hartford Courant the fact that the Dems wanted to actually put required confiscation into the wording of the bill, but that in the end that did not fly. The second thing that was said was that there are no plans being discussed by the AG or State Police to begin confiscation. Rather, if and when people with unregistered weapons are discovered (i.e. through routine traffic stops, etc.), then they will be arrested and prosecuted for non-compliance.

Don't by that crap Rev. In Ohio we were told that the state wouldn't target the seat belt law. They said that they would only ticket you if you were caught in non-compliance when pulled over for a traffic offense. Now they pull you over for not wearing a seat belt. And, if you like your doctor you can keep him.

[knkali]

Don't by that crap Rev. In Ohio we were told that the state wouldn't target the seat belt law. They said that they would only ticket you if you were caught in non-compliance when pulled over for a traffic offense. Now they pull you over for not wearing a seat belt. And, if you like your doctor you can keep him.

well said

[Bawanna]

Same here. Used to be not wearing a seat belt wasn't grounds to pull you over. Same with talking on your cell phone, not grounds to pull you over.

Now you get pulled over for both.

If you like your ticket you can pay it.

[downtownv]

Freedom's being taken away everyday!
The time is near to stand and fight!

[VN Vet]

The Government in the State of Connecticut may just spark the fight. We should wait and see if their Government Officials are brave enough to enforce the Laws they passed or man enough to say "we goofed" and resend their stupid Laws. I hope it is the second option.

[downtownv]

The Government in the State of Connecticut may just spark the fight. We should wait and see if their Government Officials are brave enough to enforce the Laws they passed or man enough to say "we goofed" and resend their stupid Laws. I hope it is the second option.

Nam Vet,
These spineless weasels don't face the fire! they send they're state run goons in to clean up their mess! I know for 2 reasons:

That's the way Viet Nam war was run

That's the way The NY, MD, MA, CA, IL and NJ Democrats operate. I think they were extras in the James Bond Movie "Pussiegalore"

[ltxi]

Long as they pay market, I'd be happy to have the gov't pick up at least half my guns....prolly more like two-thirds plus. At most, I really don't need more than a dozen but would like to keep a few more than that.

[rjt123]

Long as they pay market, I'd be happy to have the gov't pick up at least half my guns....prolly more like two-thirds plus. At most, I really don't need more than a dozen but would like to keep a few more than that.


I'm pretty sure that the word "confiscate" indicates that they seize your property without any compensation for it.

[Richardh]

I think you are right rjt :
confiscate |ˈkänfəˌskāt| verb [ with obj. ]
take or seize (someone's property) with authority: the guards confiscated his camera | (as adj. confiscated) : confiscated equipment.
• take (a possession, esp. land) as a penalty and give it to the public treasury: the government confiscated his property.

I can not believe this is real.
Hang on to your hats (and your guns) this could get interesting.:Amflag2:

[Captquest]

I'd like to hear from more LE on this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuDRIpER4TM

[AJBert]

Though I totally agree with her stance on the issue, she blind sided the LEO trying to get him to make a political decision. I felt he did very well and answered what his position allowed and would not answer what he was not "authorized" to.


All eyes (of the non-47%ers) are on the state at the moment.