Tens of thousands of Connecticut residents refuse to register guns under new law

[Teh One Who Knocks]

RT News


http://i.imgur.com/hNKSBXi.jpg

Tens of thousands of Connecticut residents could soon be considered felons by the state if they continue to ignore restrictive new gun control laws passed last year shortly after an armed rampage at an area elementary school left more than two dozen dead.

Last April, Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law a slew of new firearm restrictions that require, among other items, residents to register powerful assault weapons and high-capacity magazine with the state. Connecticutians had until the end of last year — almost one year to the day after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre — to license their arsenals. Only a fraction has followed the new law, however, and they could all soon face serious consequences if the state decides to take action.

On Thursday this week, journalist Dan Haar of Connecticut’s The Courant newspaper wrote that state police had received only 47,916 completed registration forms by the end of last year. According to his reporting, that statistic is just a sliver of what it should be.

If the state has received 50,000 registrations by now, Haar wrote, then that could represent as little as 15 percent of the assault weapons now classified by the state as warranting new paperwork under last April’s law.

“No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” Harr wrote.

“And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies,” he added.

Other reports out of New England this week suggested that lawmakers there are wrestling with how to handle registration forms that weren’t sent in ahead of the end-of-year deadline and therefore now considered illegal unless officials find a loophole.

“We’re trying to figure a way to accommodate the small number of people. Do we do it legislatively? Can we do it administratively?” Rep. Stephen Dargan, co-chairman of the Public Safety Committee, told the CT News junkie website this week. “Whatever our focus is, it has to be narrow in scope because it might open it up to other people’s concerns.”

As Harr reports, however, officials may have a much larger problem: while an estimated few hundred residents may have sent their registration forms in a day or two past deadline, a group of people estimated to be several times that size reportedly show no interest in submitting applications at all.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said State Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R-Stafford) of the legislature's public safety committee said to Harr. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

But even if some Connecticutians find the gun law improper, federal courts have so far said that’s not the case. Late last month United States District Judge Alfred Covello issued a 47-page ruling calling Gov. Malloy’s legislation constitutional, even though it imposed some restrictions on firearm owners.

"While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control," Covello ruled.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:fu:

[Hal-9000]

"...residents to register powerful assault weapons and high-capacity magazine with the state."

So what's the big deal? They're still allowing responsible gun owners to have the weapons...does registering a weapon make it any less effective? Or will this law actually help cull out some of the people who don't have registered weapons...

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Its bullshit to get you on a list, so they can "keep an eye on you" does nothing to protect anyone

[FBD]

no, this is just for when they decide to stage another fking shooting, they already know who has what and where they need to go for confiscation

[Hal-9000]

FBD you DO NOT believe that they staged shootings at elementary schools and fast food places...


do you?

[KevinD]

I do find it a bit of a stretch that one of the "parents" from Sandy Hook was/is an actor, and the timing of some of the "interviews" was very suspect.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

FBD you DO NOT believe that they staged shootings at elementary schools and fast food places...


do you?

I wouldn't doubt it, do you really think the US had nothing to do with 9/11 and just happened to have the patriot act ready to go

[Hal-9000]

I thought a law like this would be beneficial for the 'good' gun owners...meaning legit, responsible folks. I know you guys are a little sensitive to having a law enforcement official randomly stopping you on the street to ask if your weapon is registered, but would that behavior at least catch a couple of the fuckwads with semi-autos who are out to do harm?

[Hal-9000]

I wouldn't doubt it, do you really think the US had nothing to do with 9/11 and just happened to have the patriot act ready to go

9/11 is a different thread and I do have theories...I've never doubted the acts themselves, just the financing/backing....and all of that stuff about the Bush admin getting Bin Laden's family members out of the country and the financial deals between the US and the brown folk....I question that part of it for sure


but random gun killings where innocents get mowed down? That's a lot of collateral damage just to table a motion in the senate IMO

[KevinD]

Point of fact. Gun registration will do nothing to stop criminals using guns. Empirical data backs this up. I personally would not have a problem with registration, if it was across the board, ie: all guns, not just so called assault weapons. Then there's the fact that no, I don't trust the federal government ( not just the president). This is IMHO just the first step down the road to confiscation.. there's also that unique thing we have in our constitution. You know, that pesky 2nd amendment.

[Hal-9000]

Point of fact. Gun registration will do nothing to stop criminals using guns. Empirical data backs this up. I personally would not have a problem with registration, if it was across the board, ie: all guns, not just so called assault weapons. Then there's the fact that no, I don't trust the federal government ( not just the president). This is IMHO just the first step down the road to confiscation.. there's also that unique thing we have in our constitution. You know, that pesky 2nd amendment.

I don't know about Empirical data because it seems you guys rarely change any of your laws to find out :lol:

I'll have to say we'll agree to disagree. From an outsider's view I can not see how it wouldn't stop some of the bad guys. If random checks were instituted the legal guys should have no issues. The other guys with illegal guns would get them confiscated and charged = possibly preventing a crime. Or in the least, it would delay them and make it harder for them to carry out whatever illegal action they were planning. Not ideal, but a step..

And the unique Constitution thing is another problem from an outsider's point of view....if you didn't teach every person in your country that it's their god-given right to have a gun from the time that they're born, maybe everyone wouldn't feel so entitled to have a gun :lol: To me...it should be a privelage, not a right and the data to back that up is in your newspapers every day.

We've been here before Kevin...I'm not ragging on you and I have come to understand/change my views on gun ownership, just from conversations here. But there remains this huge elephant in the room that I've never really addressed...you guys have a problem and it won't get better. It's an escalation thing using the argument - well the bad guys will always have guns so I should get strapped as well, to protect myself (which I do partially understand). If you could see your (meaning USA'ers) reactions to proposed laws, it seems like you get personally offended about things like registering your guns or exerting control over who has them. If you're legally using them in a responsible fashion for protection or whatever, I can't see how proposals similar to the above hurt you or affect your ability to own the gun.

I understand you that don't want an Orwellian state where law enforcement can violate every single right you have, but at the same time...is your butthurtedness overtaking whatever good measures that can come from law enforcement?

eg The night Boston was bombed they knew a suspect was in a certain neighborhood. The police executed a house to house search and some people here got offended by the very thought of having their privacy invaded. In cases like that, if I'm a law abiding citizen and some lunatic is running through my hood, I wouldn't get upset if the police showed up to clear my home.

What I'm trying to say is there has to be a happy medium where law abiding gun folks can own and use their firearms, while at the same time weeding out those that don't. If I saw a guy in a trenchcoat walking down a street with an obvious bulge under his coat (shotgun or automatic rifle) I would welcome the cops to come and shake the guy down.

I'm an adult and realize the bad guys will get weapons....you just gotta make it more difficult for them to do the nefarious deed. It won't stop, but sometimes a wrench in the plan makes it harder for them. A step...

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Registered guns don't keep guns out of criminals hands. Period. It's a worthless futile effort for politicians to make a name

[Godfather]

Registered guns don't keep guns out of criminals hands. Period. It's a worthless futile effort for politicians to make a name

I agree to a large extent... here in Canada we just had a massive DE-registration within the last couple years. All non-restricted weapons no longer have to be registered. That leaves anything that's an assault rifle or pistol still registered, and all gun buyers do still need a Firearms License (received by taking a test a 15 hours safety course and background check). The registry cost a substantial amount of money and even the Police were advocates of getting rid of the so-called 'Long Gun Registry' that made hunters and hobbyists register weapons not designed for combat. Speaking with an Uncle of mine who was in the RCMP, they'd generally run it before going to a house call but it doesn't mean much - they have to stay on their guard no matter what.

[Loser]

"...residents to register powerful assault weapons and high-capacity magazine with the state."

So what's the big deal? They're still allowing responsible gun owners to have the weapons...does registering a weapon make it any less effective? Or will this law actually help cull out some of the people who don't have registered weapons...

Every single gun registration in history has led to confiscation. Every single one. Even new yorks "Safe Act" :roll:

[Loser]

I'll just leave this here...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/indiana&id=9430380

http://nwigazette.com/2014/02/13/mass-shooting-thwarted-by-armed-patrons-in-senior-citizen-club/

[FBD]

I don't know about Empirical data because it seems you guys rarely change any of your laws to find out :lol:

I'll have to say we'll agree to disagree. From an outsider's view I can not see how it wouldn't stop some of the bad guys. If random checks were instituted the legal guys should have no issues. The other guys with illegal guns would get them confiscated and charged = possibly preventing a crime. Or in the least, it would delay them and make it harder for them to carry out whatever illegal action they were planning. Not ideal, but a step..

And the unique Constitution thing is another problem from an outsider's point of view....if you didn't teach every person in your country that it's their god-given right to have a gun from the time that they're born, maybe everyone wouldn't feel so entitled to have a gun :lol: To me...it should be a privelage, not a right and the data to back that up is in your newspapers every day.

We've been here before Kevin...I'm not ragging on you and I have come to understand/change my views on gun ownership, just from conversations here. But there remains this huge elephant in the room that I've never really addressed...you guys have a problem and it won't get better. It's an escalation thing using the argument - well the bad guys will always have guns so I should get strapped as well, to protect myself (which I do partially understand). If you could see your (meaning USA'ers) reactions to proposed laws, it seems like you get personally offended about things like registering your guns or exerting control over who has them. If you're legally using them in a responsible fashion for protection or whatever, I can't see how proposals similar to the above hurt you or affect your ability to own the gun.

I understand you that don't want an Orwellian state where law enforcement can violate every single right you have, but at the same time...is your butthurtedness overtaking whatever good measures that can come from law enforcement?

eg The night Boston was bombed they knew a suspect was in a certain neighborhood. The police executed a house to house search and some people here got offended by the very thought of having their privacy invaded. In cases like that, if I'm a law abiding citizen and some lunatic is running through my hood, I wouldn't get upset if the police showed up to clear my home.

What I'm trying to say is there has to be a happy medium where law abiding gun folks can own and use their firearms, while at the same time weeding out those that don't. If I saw a guy in a trenchcoat walking down a street with an obvious bulge under his coat (shotgun or automatic rifle) I would welcome the cops to come and shake the guy down.

I'm an adult and realize the bad guys will get weapons....you just gotta make it more difficult for them to do the nefarious deed. It won't stop, but sometimes a wrench in the plan makes it harder for them. A step...

Did you read what actually happened in the aftermath of Boston? They abused the fkn shit out of a ton of residents 4th amendment rights, broke into peoples homes and illegally searched them, ordered people off the streets without any sort of declaration of martial law...

they KNOW they wont be able to get rid of the guns. Why do you think the federal government is trickling down tons of weapons and instruments of war onto our local police forces, making them resemble a goddamed paramilitary force? TPTB know things are fucked and a veritable hair trigger away from a real fkn catastrophe here.

Look at how people were fighting in the south over AN ICE STORM. What do you think will happen in the event of a supply chain failure? Orchestrated and designed.

And if you look at empirical data, NOT one IOTA of it supports disarming populations, EVERYWHERE it is implemented becomes a hotbed of crime. The crime is there regardless, all this gun restriction BS does is make sure that 85 year old granpda has no way to defend himself when thugs decide to beat him senseless.

I know, I know, guns are dangerous.

Life is dangerous, hoss. Reality. I've got a pot brewing over here, want a cup? :razz:

[FBD]

I wouldn't doubt it, do you really think the US had nothing to do with 9/11 and just happened to have the patriot act ready to go

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-02-13/are-millions-business-people-risk-dying-collapsing-buildings

sooner or later you pull your head out of the sand to the fact that your government is run and controlled by a bunch of sociopath criminals, they remember what happened in the french revolution, and the way to keep that from happening to them once the masses find out how badly our "rulers" have fucked us is the security police state - they knew by the late 90s that the financial world was set up to blow up. 911 was cutting the population off at the pass.

no honest man can conclude that the official report on 7 is factual.

and it must just be a coincidence that there was a big project to remove asbestos from the steel frames in the years before 9/11.

just like it was a coincidence that measured temps were far higher than anything the ingredients in the report could have produced. if it wasnt thermite, what was it? sure as fug wasnt jet fuel, and there's no way in hell friction could have provided a thousandth of the necessary heat.

[Hal-9000]

In summary...create laws that don't punish the responsible gun owners (like you guys here, who I happen to have a lot of respect for) and use those same laws to catch the unregistered owners. Even if it catches something like 5%, at least that night they won't use their AR-15's to mow down a bunch of people.

[FBD]

...kinda like most of the laws already on the books that are actually compatible with the constitution...

[PorkChopSandwiches]

In summary...create laws that don't punish the responsible gun owners (like you guys here, who I happen to have a lot of respect for) and use those same laws to catch the unregistered owners. Even if it catches something like 5%, at least that night they won't use their AR-15's to mow down a bunch of people.

The point is WE DONT NEED MORE LAWS

[Hal-9000]

:lol:

*got some people reading over my shoulder and made a prediction

hal -1
brick wall - 0

everything is fine down there, you're right :tup:

[FBD]

who said it was fine, we've got fuckers trying to take our guns! :x


:lol:

[KevinD]

Not to mention the rest of the Bill of Rights, lol

[Hal-9000]

"residents to register powerful assault weapons and high-capacity magazine with the state"


I bet 3 of my coworkers that at least 2 of you would post vehemently against the above proposal...you gotta understand, we Canadians think that registering high powered weapons is the very LEAST you should do when owing a weapon..................



thanks for not letting me down :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:dance: :pewpew:

[FBD]

"residents to register powerful assault weapons and high-capacity magazine with the state"


I bet 3 of my coworkers that at least 2 of you would post vehemently against the above proposal...you gotta understand, we Canadians think that registering high powered weapons is the very LEAST you should do when owing a weapon..................



thanks for not letting me down :lol:

well that depends hal, are you talking an actual automatic assault weapon, or are you talking anything that even looks like it can give the remotest possibility of being dangerous = assault weapon? :razz:

[DemonGeminiX]

"residents to register powerful assault weapons and high-capacity magazine with the state"


I bet 3 of my coworkers that at least 2 of you would post vehemently against the above proposal...you gotta understand, we Canadians think that registering high powered weapons is the very LEAST you should do when owing a weapon..................



thanks for not letting me down :lol:

Powerful assault weapons... you mean rifles that look like military machine guns but operate exactly like all handguns...

[Hal-9000]

All super soakers and wiffle balls bats must be registered with the state [-(

[Pony]

I don't think it's having a registered firearm is the problem, The big issue is no one trusts the government to not use the new "laws" as a stepping stone toward stricter and stricter regulation ending in confiscation of ALL firearms.

It's a pattern we are all too familiar with.

If there was a registration with a guarantee that it won't be used against the citizens or lead to any other mandatory restrictions I think the general public would see it as more favorable. But that wont ever happen. Just look at the guy who just got pulled over and detained only because he was a registered gun owner.... He wasn't even in possession of the handgun and was held for hours.

[Muddy]

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-02-13/are-millions-business-people-risk-dying-collapsing-buildings

sooner or later you pull your head out of the sand to the fact that your government is run and controlled by a bunch of sociopath criminals, they remember what happened in the french revolution, and the way to keep that from happening to them once the masses find out how badly our "rulers" have fucked us is the security police state - they knew by the late 90s that the financial world was set up to blow up. 911 was cutting the population off at the pass.

no honest man can conclude that the official report on 7 is factual.

and it must just be a coincidence that there was a big project to remove asbestos from the steel frames in the years before 9/11.

just like it was a coincidence that measured temps were far higher than anything the ingredients in the report could have produced. if it wasnt thermite, what was it? sure as fug wasnt jet fuel, and there's no way in hell friction could have provided a thousandth of the necessary heat.


I did not know about the asbestos removal and all that jazz.. Do you think Al Queda is in on it? Because the Arabs sure arent saying they didnt commit the crime.. You would think if they wanted to overthrow our govt. they would say.. "HEY GUYS, WE DIDNT DO THAT SHIT... QUIT BLAMING US, "..

[FBD]

"some study came out" and they halted installation after a certain floor level when they were being built, and then I recall hearing them go back in after the fact in like 99 to do a removal project.

ya know, cuz that shit was all out in the open where there's people and not on the inside of the building's structure and all...

why do you think bin laden was saying he was going to come tell the truth and shock america as to who's really behind this?

that is the exact reason why they killed him when capture would have been a piece of cake.

these people blame us for electing the people we do, that go and do the shit that our government thinks "is in our best interests"

although some of them have came out and said its our government and not necessarily the people.

why do you think "they hate us for our freedoms"

who do you think they is in that context?

it was meant to sound like the arabs, but really...its the .001%

[Muddy]

"some study came out" and they halted installation after a certain floor level when they were being built, and then I recall hearing them go back in after the fact in like 99 to do a removal project.

ya know, cuz that shit was all out in the open where there's people and not on the inside of the building's structure and all...

why do you think bin laden was saying he was going to come tell the truth and shock america as to who's really behind this?

that is the exact reason why they killed him when capture would have been a piece of cake.

these people blame us for electing the people we do, that go and do the shit that our government thinks "is in our best interests"

although some of them have came out and said its our government and not necessarily the people.

why do you think "they hate us for our freedoms"

who do you think they is in that context?

it was meant to sound like the arabs, but really...its the .001%

It sounds like a great theory man, but really.. I haven't heard the Arabs saying anything like that.

[FBD]

read up :tup: that you still accept the "official story" (even though no sane person really denies the fuggin thing isnt riddled with holes) is enough to say you havent. no offense of course, I mean, I believed it for too long also, basically until I started digging through AE911 and shit like that and you find out there was basically no way in hell it WASNT a preplanned demo.

[Acid Trip]

Ya'll still have time to move to Texas. Bring as many guns with you as you want because the more the merrier.

[Loser]

Indiana has constitutional carry and gun ownership.

[Hal-9000]

so tell me....in movies, what is the reasoning of turning a gun sideways while shooting it?

advantages, disadvantages....stupidity?

[KevinD]

3rd reason. It looks cool. Absolutely worthless for aiming. Hal, you k now your scenario with guns vs knives? If the guy pointing the gun towards you is holding it sideways, chances are you could damned near walk up and take it away. Come to think of it, if I'm up against a guy with a knife, and he's holding it blade down or back against his wrist, I'm running away. He knows what he's doing.

[Loser]

so tell me....in movies, what is the reasoning of turning a gun sideways while shooting it?

advantages, disadvantages....stupidity?

Stupidity.

Guns recoil with the path of least resistance. If you shoot a gun sideways like "gangstas" It will recoil down and to the left. You will have to cover more distance for follow up shots.

If you shoot an isoceles or weaver stance with both hands on your firearm, your left hand accounts for the leftward travel, so the gun recoils up and back, and with proper control, will fall directly back on target after recoiling.

[Muddy]

read up :tup: that you still accept the "official story" (even though no sane person really denies the fuggin thing isnt riddled with holes) is enough to say you havent. no offense of course, I mean, I believed it for too long also, basically until I started digging through AE911 and shit like that and you find out there was basically no way in hell it WASNT a preplanned demo.

I read Al Jazeera and have read Bin Ladens transcripts..

[FBD]

I hear ya muddy...but can you make it through AE911truth with a clear conscience? ;)

[Muddy]

No, not totally clear.. Not with our history...