January 22, 2013

CT gun owners soon to enjoy more de facto gun free zones!

Typical liberal political maneuvering: your first set of irresponsible legislation set the stage for mass slaughter of innocents. So naturally the answer is to express outrage, then double down by punishing law-abiding gun owners, turning many of them who will almost assuredly refuse to comply into instant criminals. And maybe “crazy people.”

– Which seems to be the progressive’s tack: turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals with mental health issues as an excuse to deny them the right to own guns.

It looks to me like many leftist politicians are willing to take the casualties that an insurrection will lead to, confident that they’ll be able to spin the narrative in such a way that those resisting the government are part of a violent fringe element — potential terrorists even, if you believe a recent West Point “study” — if in the end they can finally do away with, under the aegis of “crisis,” the 2nd Amendment as a natural right, rather than a privilege granted and regulated by those who most prosper from such an arrangement.

I happen to think they underestimate public resolve, but then, I also thought the public would never have re-elected the cultish demagogue now occupying the Oval Office.

So, grain of salt and all that.

From No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money:

Legislators in Hartford are in the process of destroying your Second Amendment rights by exploiting recent tragedies. Gov. Malloy, Sen. Beth Bye, and Rep. Bob Godfrey want outright bans and onerous restrictions on your rights through an enormous number of Anti-Gun Bills. Here are a few of the items included in one of their proposals:

* An outright ban on ALL modern sporting rifles classifying them as “Assault Weapons.”
* Restricting your ability to defend yourself and family by arbitrarily restricting the magazine size to 10 rounds.
* Confiscating ALL magazines holding more than 10 rounds, pistols included.
* Statewide gun registration for ALL firearms; knowing full well criminals won’t ever register their guns.
* Re-registration every 2 years with ever increasing fees.
* Requires permit for any rifle with a pistol grip.
* Limiting how much ammunition you can purchase AND possess.
* Registration of all ammunition purchases.
* Bans internet sales of ammo in Connecticut.
* Mandatory gun storage laws, like the one the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in the Heller decision.

There will only be a few opportunities for discussion and opposition as many in Hartford are trying to pass legislation as quickly as possible. The first hearing (and may be the only time to testify) will occur next Monday, Jan. 28, at 10 a.m. at the Legislative Office Building.

Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing
Monday, Jan. 28, 2013
Legislative Office Building
10 a.m., Room 2C

NSSF is urging all gun owners, sportsmen and hunters to attend Monday’s public hearing to be held in the Legislative Office Building in Room 2C at 10 a.m. and to contact their state representative, senator and all members of the Committee immediately, urging them to oppose knee-jerk reaction legislation.

Find your elected officials here.

If this bill passes, law-abiding gun owners will have to begin surrendering their magazines and possibly modern sporting rifles, or face confiscation by the state police and a felony charge. Again, this proposal would make simple possession of a legally owned firearm or magazine a felony.

This draconian measure will also affect non-gun owners as all Connecticut tax payers will be forced to foot the bill for the extraordinary process of having police confiscate — from law-abiding citizens — AND registration databases.

Making matters worse, Connecticut manufacturers including Colt, Mossberg, Stag Arms, Mec-Gar, OKAY Industries, Ruger and Metalform will be directly affected by this legislation. That means a loss of jobs and tax revenue to the state.

Here are a few of the other pieces of legislation under consideration:

HB 5268, SB140 – To require firearm owners to maintain liability insurance and establish a sales tax on the sale of ammunition at a rate of 50 percent and require all ammunition to be purchased in person.

SB 122 – A class C felony offense for any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round.

SB 124 – Prohibit the possession of magazines that accept more than ten rounds.

Don’t let legislators trample your rights. Let your voice be heard now.

Please contact members of the Task Force listed below. These are the main numbers so please ask for the legislator’s office.
Sen. Martin Looney, Co-chair 860-240-8600
Rep. Craig Miner, Co-chair 860-240-8700
Rep. Gerald Fox III 860-240-8500
Rep. Stephen Dargan 860-240-8500
Rep. Bob Godfrey 860-240-8500
Rep. Toni Walker 860-240-8500
Rep. Rosa Rebimbas 860-240-8700
Rep. Janice Giegler 860-240-8700
Rep. Dan Carter 860-240-8700
Sen. Eric Coleman 860-240-8600
Sen. John Fonfara 860-240-8600
Sen. Joan Hartley 860-240-8600
Sen. John Kissel 860-240-8800
Sen. Scott Frantz 860-240-8800
Sen. Tony Guglielmo 860-240-8800
Sen. Kevin Witkos 860-240-8800

The leftists believe we lack the will to protect a Constitution they’ve spent the last hundred years trying to diminish and delegitimate. And they may be right, were the Constitution open to populist sentiment driven by temporary demagogues.

It isn’t. And those of us who know this simply must resist. If not now, when?

(thanks to Geoff B)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:58am
42 comments | Trackback

Comments (42)

  1. Of, course you’d have to be crazy to want to have a gun. Is that how the argument will go?

  2. Has anyone else noticed how fast we went from 0 to 60 with the gun control frenzy.

  3. I think politicians have to be crazy to care whether — or why — I want to have a gun. ‘Tain’t none of their business.

  4. Another good reason, were one needed, to stay the fuck out of Connecticut.

  5. I’m curious as to what comes of this. Do they move the legislation, criminalizing thousands of residents and chasing out thousands of jobs? Do the state police comply with the order to confiscate? Do the citizens cooperate? How many move out of state, or hide their weapons, or openly refuse to surrender them? How many cops are forced to shoot those they’ve sworn to protect and serve (and vice-versa)? What effect when the blood starts flowing?

    What happens to those who push the bill? Are they lauded as heroes for rooting out the crazy gun people, or are they booted from office? Does the statute stick around long enough to go through the courts, or is overturned promptly following the next election?

    And what of the other states? As they witness the happenings in Connecticut, what lessons do they draw? Do they look for more effective ways of disarming the rabble their voters, or do they run away as fast as they can?

    In short — whither Connecticut? And what effect on the rest of the Republic?

  6. And what effect on the rest of the Republic?

    Rightly, none. Only the lunatic shooter at Sandy Hook made Connecticut’s futilely draconian gun laws and its lethal gun-free zones relevant to the other 56 states.

  7. Has anyone else noticed how fast we went from 0 to 60 with the gun control frenzy.

    “Don’t be ridiculous! Obama isn’t coming after your guns, ya paranoid wingnut! He’s expanding gun rights, stupid!”

    /3 short months ago

  8. Magazine capacities increased to seven rounds!

  9. SB 122 – A class C felony offense for any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round.

    So, possession of 99.5% of all guns would be a felony? It’s almost as if they really, really want to be sued.

  10. They want an insurrection, don’t they?

  11. SB 122 – A class C felony offense for any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round.

    Making matters worse, Connecticut manufacturers including Colt, Mossberg, Stag Arms, Mec-Gar, OKAY Industries, Ruger and Metalform will be directly affected by this legislation.

    They should all pack up and move to a friendly State like Texas.

  12. I think politicians have to be crazy to care whether — or why — I want to have a gun. ‘Tain’t none of their business.

    Minding your business IS their business McGehee.

  13. And what effect on the rest of the Republic? — Rightly, none.

    What I meant was, what will voters in other states gather from watching Connecticut? Will they insist that their legislators pass similar 2nd Amendment-crushing legislation? Will they insist that their local sheriffs pledge not to obey any such unconstitutional laws? Will they organize a local defense of the powder and weapons at Lexington and Concord? Will they succumb to the media’s constant drumbeat on the “inevitability” of confiscation?

    On one hand, we could see a resurrection of states standing up for their sovereignty. On the other, we could see everybody knuckle under a la ObamaCare. On the gripping hand, we could see open insurrection.

    Interesting times, I’m afraid.

  14. Minding your business IS their business McGehee.

    They sure don’t seem to appreciate me minding theirs. I suspect a double standard.

    Maybe I should ask Eric Erickson.

  15. They should all pack up and move to a friendly State like Texas.

    I can imagine Texas sucking up businesses and workers from New England and the West Coast, and then laughing as those states go bankrupt. I can see the bankrupt states banding together to force bailout bills through the Congress, and Texas saying “good luck with your collection efforts, guys.”

    Interesting times.

  16. What I meant was, what will voters in other states gather from watching Connecticut? Will they insist that their legislators pass similar 2nd Amendment-crushing legislation? Will they insist that their local sheriffs pledge not to obey any such unconstitutional laws? Will they organize a local defense of the powder and weapons at Lexington and Concord? Will they succumb to the media’s constant drumbeat on the “inevitability” of confiscation?

    Idiots will emulate Connecticut, sure. States that are majority-idiot will drive jobs and families away so their electorates consist exclusively of single dole-riders.

    Without guns.

    Like you say: interesting times.

  17. Not a double standard so much as impertinence –on your part.

  18. Pingback: Resistance Is Not Futile « The Camp Of The Saints

  19. As a member of a family that claims close blood ties to the present day Chief of Clan Gregor, which clan was so defiant that the King of Scotland ordered them wiped out, I’m sure I don’t know what you mean by “impertinence.”

  20. Did I mention we’re still here, and the King of Scotland not so much?

  21. “Don’t be ridiculous! Obama isn’t coming after your guns, ya paranoid wingnut! He’s expanding gun rights, stupid!”
    /3 short months ago

    Pablo I think most of knew that gun control was a secret desire of the regime and are not particularly surprised at the current situation. My comment was meant to invoke consideration of if they can spin gun control up so quickly, what other things are waiting in the wings for the ‘appropriate crisis’ supposedly justifying more transfer of power to the ruling class.

  22. “Magazine capacities increased to seven rounds!”

    I hear the chocolate ration is going to be increased as well.

    “Did I mention we’re still here, and the King of Scotland not so much?”

    It’s a Queen right now, right? :-)

  23. iron308, I just meant to point out another proof of the fact that every word they say is a lie and they know it.

  24. It’s a Queen right now, right? :-)

    Some say the King was a bit of a queen, actually. But not only is he gone, so’s his dynasty and since 1701 also his kingdom.

    (Fun fact: until the Act of Union England and Scotland shared their kings but were still separate kingdoms.)

  25. (Fun fact: until the Act of Union England and Scotland shared their kings but were still separate kingdoms.)

    Only since James VI of Scotland / James I of England became one and the same in 1603. Prior to this the crowns and countries were separate.

  26. “McGehee says January 22, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    Did I mention we’re still here, and the King of Scotland not so much?”

    From what I hear the new king of Scotland is hashish. (Sorry Idi)

  27. “since 1701 also his kingdom.”

    These guys disagree:

    http://www.jacobite.ca/

    Of course, they’re Canadians. Heh.

  28. Wasn’t James VI/James I the son of Mary, Queen of Scots who had her head removed by Elizabeth I?

  29. Right, SW. I meant to say between 1603 and 1701. Got too caught up in trying to be clever.

  30. Leigh, that’s the one.

  31. Barak Obama is destroying this country and you people are taking about stuff that happened in Europe a hundred years ago! Why can’t you stick to the issues!?!?!?

    /disgruntled call-in radio show caller

  32. His son was Charles I, who was so obnoxious he soured the English on the whole “King” thing, and the topped his ass.

    But then they got a load of Ollie Cromwell’s ideas (“good and hard”), and quickly reversed the decision.

  33. Minnesota too:

    Minnesota: “An Eagan lawyer is suspended indefinitely after having an affair with a client whom he represented in a divorce, then billing her for time they spent having sex.

    Braggart.

  34. Ernst, it’s still the old issue…

    All we have of freedom, all we use or know–
    This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.

    Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw–
    Leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the Law.

    So they bought us freedom-not at little cost–
    Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost.

    Over all things certain, this is sure indeed,
    Suffer not the old King: for we know the breed.

    Give no ear to bondsmen bidding us endure.
    Whining “He is weak and far”; crying “Time will cure.”

    (Time himself is witness, till the battle joins,
    Deeper strikes the rottenness in the people’s loins.)

    They that beg us barter–wait his yielding mood–
    Pledge the years we hold in trust-pawn our brother’s blood–

    Howso’ great their clamour, whatsoe’er their claim,
    Suffer not the old King under any name!

    Here is naught unproven–here is naught to learn.
    It is written what shall fall if the King return.

    He shall mark our goings, question whence we came,
    Set his guards about us, all in Freedom’s name.

    He shall take a tribute, toll of all our ware;
    He shall change our gold for arms–arms we may not bear.

    He shall break his Judges if they cross his word;
    He shall rule above the Law calling on the Lord.

    He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring
    Watchers ‘neath our window, lest we mock the King –

    Hate and all division; hosts of hurrying spies;
    Money poured in secret, carrion breeding flies.

    Strangers of his counsel, hirelings of his pay,
    These shall deal our Justice: sell-deny-delay.

    We shall drink dishonour, we shall eat abuse
    For the Land we look to–for the Tongue we use.

    Here is nought at venture, random nor untrue
    Swings the wheel full-circle, brims the cup anew.

    Here is naught unproven, here is nothing hid:
    Step for step and word for word–so the old Kings did!

    Step by step, and word by word: who is ruled may read.
    Suffer not the old Kings: for we know the breed–

    All the right they promise–all the wrong they bring.
    Stewards of the Judgment, suffer not this King !

  35. Scotland now proudly proclaims to be “devolved”.

  36. And some English have complained, “Why can’t we have our own devolved Parliament?”

    It’s because the one in Westminster is your Parliament, Swampy. All that “united kingdom” jazz and your empire stuff? That was England getting too big for its trews.

  37. Scotland now proudly proclaims to be “devolved”.

    If you’ve seen our First Minister, you could easily believe he had devolved. Possibly from some human-like ancestor.

  38. Will they insist that their local sheriffs pledge not to obey any such unconstitutional laws?

    I maintain this is our best chance.

    I can imagine Texas sucking up businesses and workers from New England and the West Coast, and then laughing as those states go bankrupt. I can see the bankrupt states banding together to force bailout bills through the Congress, and Texas saying “good luck with your collection efforts, guys.”

    I can see a mass influx of New England and West Coasters turning Texas into something resembling Oregon or Colorado.

    I’m just glad, as a West Coaster, I have some family there. ‘Cuz, just in case.

  39. “If you’ve seen our First Minister, you could easily believe he had devolved. Possibly from some human-like ancestor.”

    He looks like a waxworks-chimera. Top half of his head looks like Ralph Bellamy. Lower-half looks like Richard Nixon.

  40. “I can see a mass influx of New England and West Coasters turning Texas into something resembling Oregon or Colorado.”

    Well, if they’re ignoring the national government anyway there’s no reason for them to grant these people the franchise.

  41. If you’ve seen our First Minister, you could easily believe he had devolved.

    It’s still shite being Scottish, apparently.

  42. Pingback: ZION'S TRUMPET » Gun Confiscation Already Starting in Communist Connecticut – Are We Going to Wake Up?

Leave a Reply