State orders owners of newly-banned, unregistered firearms to turn them all in
Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
The State of Connecticut is now demanding that gun owners across the state turn in all newly-banned, unregistered firearms and magazines or face felony arrest.
Connecticut is sending out this letter demanding that gun owners surrender their arms. Click to enlarge. Credit: capitalisminstitute.org
The State Police Special Licensing & Firearms Unit began mailing out notices to gun owners who attempted to register their firearms and accessories with the state but did not do so in time for the Jan. 1 deadline of Connecticut’s newly enacted gun control law.
The law bans the sale of magazines holding over 10 rounds and “assault rifles” manufactured after 1994 and requires that residents who possessed either before the ban to register them with the state.
“We are returning your application for [an] assault rifle certificate and/or [a] large capacity magazine declaration because it was not received or postmarked prior to January 1, 2014 as required by law,” the notice states.
The letter breaks down the gun owner’s “options,” including surrendering their firearms and magazines to the police, selling them to a gun dealer, removing them from the state or rendering them inoperable.
Because these owners attempted to register their guns and accessories, the state can now prosecute them at will because they know exactly who they are.
But when it comes to the vast majority of gun owners who did not register at all, Connecticut lacks clout.
Last month it was revealed that out of the over 2.4 million high-capacity magazines in Connecticut, only 38,000 have been registered.
“So, where did these millions of magazines go?” reporter Warner Todd Huston asked. “All that can be said is that it appears that gun owners in Connecticut are not quite the sheep that jackbooted government officials may have imagined they were.”
“After all, if there really were millions of high capacity magazines in the state – and it is very likely that there are – and they have now gone unregistered, that means that thousands of gun owners have refused to bow to this unconstitutional, anti-Second Amendment law.”
Likewise, only 50,000 semiautomatic rifles were also registered, further proof that Connecticut’s gun owners are revolting through civil disobedience.
These gun owners correctly realize that registration only leads to confiscation and that the overall agenda of gun control is to completely ban private gun ownership.
Last year, the New York Police Department began confiscating guns which were previously registered but are now banned under New York’s newest gun control law.
The NYPD knew exactly which gun owners to target by using the city’s centralized firearms registry which was already in place.
Connecticut’s anti-gun politicians want their own registry so they can eventually confiscate firearms in the exact same manner.
h/t to: capitalisminstitute.org
"There is no Left or Right. There is only Tyranny and Freedom."
Here’s “fun” fact: I have continuously held a Conn. permit to carry concealed for the past 37 years. I am seriously considering dropping it because there is now a part of the law that makes it possible for me to face felony charges in Conn. (I have been a Florida resident for several years) if I don’t report any firearms stolen HERE….WOW!!!
Since I rarely return to Conn., it seems kind of pointless to keep it except I’ve had it so long. Yet, do I want to possibly run afoul of law that some zealous prosecutor in Conn. might want to pursue? If I had a firearm stolen, which has not happened so far and never I hope, do I want to risk it?
Just another question to deal with in today’s increasingly wacky world…..:-/
LikeLike
Conn. has really become a leader in trying to suppress constitutional rights, maybe even worse than CA. I’m not sure which way I would go on this. I would kind of feel like tearing it in half and mailing it back to them with a nice little note. But then that’s exactly what they want…less guns and permittees on their streets. That being the case, I would probably keep it.
LikeLike
It is a bitter pill to see my former home state of Connecticut take this sort of Draconian action. One of many reasons I no longer live there. This has been on the radar screen for decades there and elsewhere.
I am aware there is much resistance with this law and others there. And in other places. The action continues as more incidents are reported, such as in this blog.
“Government” through this action, as well as many others, is causing a great push back among those they serve. The legitimacy government had fades ever more as they pursue actions such as this. Those in “power” can have great reversals in control when they ignore the will of the people.
Just ask folks in the Ukraine……………
LikeLike
“Just ask folks in the Ukraine……………”
Just ask the folks here!
LikeLike
Resist. Defy. Do not render unto Caesar that which he claims is his, but isn’t. We are under no moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. If I were called to sit on a jury where someone is tried for not registering, I would practice jury nullification. In fact, I would practice jury nullification for a wide variety of “crimes against the state.” Crimes that hurt people are quite different from crimes that involve resistance to tyranny. Do not respect or obey the latter.
LikeLike