Connecticut already considering an amnesty

[Tom Servo]

It looks like compliance rates for the gun and magazine registry in Connecticut are much lower than expected. Given the lack of success for such schemes in Canada, the UK, and Australia, that comes as little surprise. As such, the government is already considering an amnesty and a second chance at registration, less than a month after the original deadline.

[Aguila Blanca]

This Lawlor guy is a long-time political apparatchik. He currently holds a high-paid position that carries NO legal authority. He should not be making official-sounding pronouncements on what's legal or what's not legal. That should come from the attorney general or the courts.

Lawlor was also recently quoted in an article in a Connecticut newspaper, and a reader promptly responded with a letter to the editor pointing out that he (Lawlor) didn't have a clue.

The newspaper was the Waterbury Republican-American, and the letter was published on Sunday, January 12. I don't know if it is still available on-line. Looks like they only have letters available back to January 20. I've received a couple of e-mails about it -- I'll have to see if any of them quoted it.

[wogpotter]

Having survived & participated in several British Amnesties let me say if the first few worked why are they still doing them 40+years later.

[Colt46]

They might have to start going door to door to ferret out all those evil non compliers.

[Coach Z]

Don't give them any ideas

Edit: I'm still a bit baffled by the registry seeing as though we already have a defacto database with the four copies of the state DP-3 form we sign for every transfer that gets sent to multiple agencies. They already know what we have!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Real amnesty or California-SKS rifle amnesty where they declare amnesty, lose a civil suit filed by VPC and then confiscate all the rifles declared during the amnesty? I know which way I'd bet.

[kilimanjaro]

California is the lesson, we know what will happen, and the grabbers know what will happen. The important thing for them now is to get the list, tell the public anything, but get the list as big as they can. They will take them later.

The grabbers can take them to court just like California.

[Tom Servo]

In an article today, officials are speculating that between 20,000 and 100,000 people have failed to comply with the law.

[1stmar]

20k-100k is that all? I complied reluctantly, I only know of 1 more person who did. Might have to do with the fact that to had to have the documents notarized. Could they possibly make it more vague and more arduous, despite the stupidity of it.

[ronl]

I sincerely hope the legislators in CT fully appreciate the powder keg they are sitting on.

[1stmar]

Interesting article, lawlor wants to scare people into compliance. Comparison to prohibition, can only hope it ends the same way. Can only hope we are smart enough to vote Malloy out and get someone better.

[thallub]

Edit: I'm still a bit baffled by the registry seeing as though we already have a defacto database with the four copies of the state DP-3 form we sign for every transfer that gets sent to multiple agencies. They already know what we have!

^^^Bingo^^^ One copy goes to the state police, another goes to the chief law enforcement in the buyers community. That has been CT law for many years.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/sl...ms/dps-3-c.pdf

[Tom Servo]

I sincerely hope the legislators in CT fully appreciate the powder keg they are sitting on.

What powder keg? The truth most folks won't admit is that the people of Connecticut voted them into office. They weren't appointed by some shadow star chamber or radical junta.

If anything, this should be an abject lesson that local and state elections have consequences.

[1stmar]

Oh I admit they were voted in, just wasn't by me.. Or probably anyone frequenting this forum or in the circles I'm in. Truth be told the clown running against Malloy wasn't anything to brag about, sometimes your choices are bad and really bad. I'd rather have the crook Rowland in office.

[ronl]

I will clarify the point I insinuated in my prior post. What is happening in Ct. is, in all likelihood, an act of passive resistance against what is viewed by many as an unconstitutional law. If the figures I've seen are correct, then 40,000 out of a possible 350,000 are compliant. That leaves a rather large contingent who have decided to ignore the law. If, for some insane reason, the current admin. decided to get heavy handed in it's intent to implement the law, things could get pretty dangerous. That is the powder keg to which I was speaking.

[Pond, James Pond]

If, for some insane reason, the current admin. decided to get heavy handed in it's intent to implement the law, things could get pretty dangerous. That is the powder keg to which I was speaking.

What, exactly, do you think the gun owning public would do, though?

They have passive resistance, or the courts.
If passive resistance fails and the authorities decide to go in and take all illegal guns one at a time, then all they can do is go to court which is unlikely to succeed if the guns being seized are deemed illegal in the first place.

What is left?
Protest marches? By the stage we are imagining they would be likely to have the same success as the passive resistance...
Riots? They'd be dealt with in short order.

Not trying to be confrontational, I just genuinely don't see any other options as, IMO, there is no way that anyone in their right mind would mount an armed resistance against the state government.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by Coach Z

Edit: I'm still a bit baffled by the registry seeing as though we already have a defacto database with the four copies of the state DP-3 form we sign for every transfer that gets sent to multiple agencies. They already know what we have!

Let me get this straight, in CT the firearms you own are already in a State Controlled data base, basically registered?

Now with this New official Registration, you are required to register what is already registered?

It wouldn't take much for the State to cross reference your existing data base with the New Registration data and bingo, those that did not register are instant felons and a knock on the door may be on the horizon.

Maybe a stretch, but with Lawlor's recent comment, maybe not.

"Like anything else, people who violate the law face consequences. . . That's their decision. The consequences are pretty clear. . . There's nothing unique about this," Lawlor said. "The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation."

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/conne...2/13/id/552558

[1stmar]

Not everyone is sticking around for this bs, unfortunately I'm not so lucky. I'll need to wait till I retire to leave this state but once I do, I'm out. My wife is opposed to leaving as her family is here, my hope is as my kids grow older they enter the workforce elsewhere. This is a recent article about a couple that left. Actually a bit surprise the courant is publishing anything that even draws attention to how unfair this law is.

http://touch.courant.com/#section/-1.../p2p-79311762/

[bikerbill]

I saw that news elsewhere and I have to say that the refusniks give me hope that the 2nd Amendment will survive. Congrats to those in CT who are standing up to the government and refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law.

[Tom Servo]

Congrats to those in CT who are standing up to the government and refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law.

It's premature to shower people in glory for this. How many of the "refuseniks" are people who simply aren't aware of the law, or aren't aware that the law applies to them?

Furthermore, just not doing anything isn't really an effective mode of protest. It doesn't send any sort of message to the powers-that-be other than "hey, maybe we need to tighten up enforcement."

The very mentality also undermines the argument that we're a law-abiding bunch as well.

The idea of just leaving Connecticut doesn't help, either. All that's doing is reducing the pool of folks available to fight this.

[steve4102]

^^ Between a rock and a hard place for sure^^

Any suggestions other than the usual, writing, emailing, protesting etc.?

[ronl]

"What,exactly, do you think the gun owning public would do, though?" - Pond James Pond
I think some would choose to meet violence with violence. My statement is not without precedence, as this country exists because of a similar situation. The majority will cave in to the request of gov. to registed their rifles. If history holds true, which it usually does, there will be around 3% that will most certainly resist, and that is still a lot of people.
"The very mentality also undermines the argument that we're a law-abiding bunch as well." - Tom Servo
Generally, we are, but only to a point. The Declaration of Independence recognizes it, and leaves it up to the people to decide when the grievances have reached the point of breach of contract. Both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars were fought because of this principle and, oddly enough, because of the same cause; unjust taxes.
CT is a crucible and will reveal just how far gov., and the general public, will go in regards to their particular beliefs in the area of firearms ownership. Make no mistake about it, gentlemen, there is a war out there. Those of you who continue to deny the existence of it should extract your heads from the sand and wake up. If the Second Amendment falls, as it has in NY,CT,MD, etc., then every other freedom guaranteed by our Bill of Rights is subject to the same scrutiny and fate.

[Tom Servo]

I think some would choose to meet violence with violence.

...and that would utterly destroy our cause. A Ruby Ridge type of situation right now would be the tipping point in what is already a risky political atmosphere.

Before we wax all romantic about the idea of killing people, let's remember that this law was passed legally, by politicians who were elected legally. Resorting to violence because we're not happy of the outcome is not what civilized people do.

Let's stop with the revolutionary nonsense.

[Pond, James Pond]

I think some would choose to meet violence with violence.

Firstly, I would ask which violence is it that they are meeting? There is a law they don't like, but no violence has been committed against the Cn public as far as I know.

In any case, I don't believe this would never happen in the modern day, regardless of whether it happened before.

Times have changed and, I would wager, so has the national psyche of the US.
If there were armed resistance you would have martial law in the affected area before you could say "Perhaps this was a bad idea" and any resistance would meet the full force of both LE, judiciary and possibly even the military.
In addition all the anti-terrorist legislation that exists and the powers it accords those in office would be brought to bear. Hello Gitmo...

Any such resistance would be crushed, whether thought to be in the right or wrong and a lot of the rest of the population would doubtless support that action. With or without media input.

In this respect, I think the 2nd A is more effective in the principles it enshrines rather than the actual actions it would seem to allow. It's the courts that really govern which freedoms will be retained and which will be forfeit. I think the days of armed rebellion are long gone. And if the rule of law still stands, so they should be.

[SHE3PDOG]

I'll tread lightly as this conversation seems like it could quickly turn for the worse, but I tend to agree with James Pond in part. The courts and elections (i.e. actually getting off their butts and voting!) are a far more effective means of fighting laws like this. I'm not saying people should be a one issue voter, but 2A issues should be considered.

Any sort of violence as described would VERY quickly extinguish the already dwindling light of the second.