Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners

[gregintenn]

Someone needs to put up a big billboard saying "We know what the law is".

or "Come get them you S.O.B.s!!!" It is a shame that when it is decided to enforce this law, the onus to enforce it will be on local officers, and not the a holes who passed the law.

 

I wonder if it won't be used as a political tool. They have a pretty fair record of who has them. Step out of line and they've got you. I say enforce it immediately or get rid of it altogether.

[Guest TankerHC]

Not sure if this was mentioned. But now that there are "up to " 150,000 Felons in CT. And according to what I heard on Patriot Radio tonight (Unless it has changed) the Governor is not giving amnesty, so anyone tries to register, they can and will be arrested. 

 

If that is the case, then there are 150,000 potential "Convicted" Felons who not only can be arrested for not registering their ARs, but will not be allowed to own any firearm, anywhere (If convicted of course)

 

. 

Maybe they will do a tin pot dictatorship move and just try all 150,000 en masse and in absentia. 

Edited February 15, 2014 by TankerHC

[K191145]

Not sure if this was mentioned. But now that there are "up to " 150,000 Felons in CT. And according to what I heard on Patriot Radio tonight (Unless it has changed) the Governor is not giving amnesty, so anyone tries to register, they can and will be arrested. 

 

If that is the case, then there are 150,000 potential "Convicted" Felons who not only can be arrested for not registering their ARs, but will not be allowed to own any firearm, anywhere (If convicted of course)

 

. 

[b]Maybe they will do a tin pot dictatorship move and just try all 150,000 en masse and in absentia.[/b]

 

That's probably when the (cold) civil war will becomes hot.

 

It will be interesting to watch what happens here, we haven't heard much from NY which may be a case of the left wing media not reporting the real story there or fabricating numbers of how many gun owners are actually obeying their law. Anyway, Connecticut is a hardcore blue liberal New England state which I assume had fairly restrictive gun laws in the first place, if they are having this many people up there standing up for their rights, like I said earlier, think about how some federal registration or ban law will be recieved in the southern or western states. I doubt there will be big lines to register or turn in your guns in Montana, Utah, Oklahoma, Alabama etc.

I'll bet the farm that the authoritarian minded socialist government of Connecticut has/had future plans to eventually confiscate these registered so-called assualt weapons and magizines. Why the hell would they pass a law to register them if that wasn't a future consideration? 1. Registration  2. confiscation.

[hardknox00001]

I don’t think they will wait. I think the Officers that participate will just seize them and make arrests as they find them. Vehicle stops, family fights, burglaries, etc.

They way to stop this would be if the Police Officers refused. The problem is that when they refuse no one (the legislators) will ever know.

 

^^ This

[leroy]

I predict this will go away like it never happened and the law will quietly be repealed while no one is watchin....

I lifted this from the Blaze article:

 

....Mike Lawlor, “the state’s top official in criminal justice,” suggested maybe the firearms unit in Connecticut could “sent them a letter.” However, he said an aggressive push to prosecute gun owners in the state is not going to happen at this point. ....

 

Remember this, no government can govern without the consent of the governed... I see this as a hopeful sign that i didn't think was out there... Even in a ratty, deep blue worker's paradise like Connecticut (...whose wealth was largely built on the firearms industry...) there are folks who have a backbone and are sendin a message... A similar thing is goin on in New York state with sheriffs and chief's of police openly sayin that they will not enforce the SAFE act...

 

I say; good for them...

Its about time...

leroy the refuseniks supporter

[Guest carter]

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: 

 The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of 

law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any 

statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law 

violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: 

 The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is 

in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality 

dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. 

Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not 

been enacted. 

 Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, 

confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no 

protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..... 

 A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot 

operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the 

fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. 

 No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it

[RobertNashville]

 

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: 

 The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of 

law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any 

statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law 

violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: 

 The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is 

in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality 

dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. 

Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not 

been enacted. 

 Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, 

confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no 

protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..... 

 A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot 

operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the 

fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. 

 No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it

 

At first glance I can't say I disagree with anything you said above but I do think you left out something important; that being the power of the state.  The power of the state to enforce a law, be it a constitutionally valid law or not, is significant and if anyone is going to chose to not follow that law it should be done with the understanding of the cost involved.

 

 

 

Luke 14:28: "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?" (I suggest that is pretty good advice regardless of what one believes about the Bible or the Christian religion!)

 

I'm not saying that people should comply with unjust, ill-advised, unconstitutional laws but I am saying that one needs to be prepared for the consequences which could include financial loss, loss of liberty (jail), even loss of life (not to mention the repercussions for a person's family).

Edited February 16, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest carter]

an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

  All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

  Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

[Chucktshoes]

At first glance I can't say I disagree with anything you said above but I do think you left out something important; that being the power of the state.  The power of the state to enforce a law, be it a constitutionally valid law or not, is significant and if anyone is going to chose to not follow that law it should be done with the understanding of the cost involved.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying that people should comply with unjust, ill-advised, unconstitutional laws but I am saying that one needs to be prepared for the consequences which could include financial loss, loss of liberty (jail), even loss of life (not to mention the repercussions for a person's family).

Some of us have counted the costs. The question I must ask is who has really counted the costs of continuing to allow the state to do as it pleases without consequence?

[RobertNashville]

Some of us have counted the costs. The question I must ask is who has really counted the costs of continuing to allow the state to do as it pleases without consequence?

While we can estimate; no one can really know the cost until they are faced with the bill. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else here but it's one thing to say we've counted the cost...that we understand the repercussions when all we are doing is talking about it. It's quite another thing altogether to have several armed men standing at our door demanding to come it to search our home for "illegal" (i.e. "mean looking" weapons) or "illegal high-capacity magazines" or some other such nonsense.  It's good to think about it before that moment in time is confronting us but can anyone know what they will do until that moment has arrived? I truly doubt they can know.

What are the consequences you think the average person can bring to the "state"?  Other than voting I can't think of any that can actually make a difference and I'm not sure even that can effect change anymore because I think we are too late.  What I'm expecting to happen is complete collapse of our economy which maybe...MAYBE will provide an opportunity to bring about real change for the good and a return to our founder's ideals (but with that opportunity also comes some very dangerous possibilities as well).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just like Dr. Carson's opinion about the 2nd Amendment, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either the 2nd Amendment has

teeth against a state's tyrannical attempt, or it doesn't. Just because there is a 9th and 10th Amendment doesn't mean it gives a

state carte blanch to stomp on another amendment to justify it's goals in something. The amendment was put there for the reason

of stopping a state from treading on an individual right. It wasn't to give a state a chance at trumping another constitutional amendment.

 

The good people of that state and the police in that state should fight that law until they overturn it. That may take time.

 

Individuals can make a difference when they see the problem and join together and fight laws like this. There were a few legislators in

Colorado who got this message lately. It happened in Wisconsin, also. There are people in several states finally seeing that their

representatives and senators are due to be turned out to pasture. The Tea Party is offering up challengers in primaries to accomplish

this. Picking apart a local event doesn't allow that others across the country are seeing. There are plenty seeing it, and they are

growing in number.

 

Don't forget to vote out Lamar in Tennessee, or you are missing the whole point.

[Chucktshoes]

While we can estimate; no one can really know the cost until they are faced with the bill. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else here but it's one thing to say we've counted the cost...that we understand the repercussions when all we are doing is talking about it. It's quite another thing altogether to have several armed men standing at our door demanding to come it to search our home for "illegal" (i.e. "mean looking" weapons) or "illegal high-capacity magazines" or some other such nonsense. It's good to think about it before that moment in time is confronting us but can anyone know what they will do until that moment has arrived? I truly doubt they can know.

What are the consequences you think the average person can bring to the "state"? Other than voting I can't think of any that can actually make a difference and I'm not sure even that can effect change anymore because I think we are too late. What I'm expecting to happen is complete collapse of our economy which maybe...MAYBE will provide an opportunity to bring about real change for the good and a return to our founder's ideals (but with that opportunity also comes some very dangerous possibilities as well).

I don't think I have ever been very coy about what I think the correct and appropriate consequences are for the legislators who seek to usurp the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda work.

You kill them. Edited February 16, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[gun sane]

This is what happens when people simply chose to not obey the law...

 

http://conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/12278653-video-this-is-why-they-still-call-oakland-the-wild-wild-west

 

The vid was posted to YouTube after the 9th Circus Court affirmed the constitutional right to carry arms.  Maybe the natives thought the 2A also meant "recklessly discharge" as well.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="gun sane" post="1112025" timestamp="1392575254"]The vid was posted to YouTube after the 9th Circus Court affirmed the constitutional right to carry arms. Maybe the natives thought the 2A also meant "recklessly discharge" as well.[/quote] You know, I think that video is actually a better representation of what happens when the majority of the people obey bad laws. It erodes respect for the law in general, emboldens the criminal element and leaves them free to do as they wish because the law-abiding are defenseless against them.

[Oh Shoot]

....

Don't forget to vote out Lamar in Tennessee, or you are missing the whole point.

 

I don't like Lamar for a lot of reasons, but can't say it's because of any gun grabbing on his part, what's that about?

 

Still pissed because he and Bob voted to end cloture on the Manchin-Toomey thing, I guess? If so, c'mon, they knew they had the votes to knock it down. It was actually good to have the vote, every senator there had to take a stand for all to see.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

I don't think I have ever been very coy about what I think the correct and appropriate consequences are for the legislators who seek to usurp the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda work.

You kill them.

I think that's called murder and I think that's illegal in most jurisdictions.

 

I see no "good" outcome for violent resistance; just a lot of dead people.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1112086" timestamp="1392581017"]I think that's called murder and I think that's illegal in most jurisdictions. I see no "good" outcome for violent resistance; just a lot of dead people.[/quote] I would call it justified self defense. If an individual or a group of individuals from the wrong end of town in tshirts and baggy pants seek to deprive me of my life, liberty or property by gun/knifepoint, I am well within my rights to seek to defend myself using whatever force I have available to me. What is the difference in the equation if those individuals that seek to deprive me of my life, liberty or property hail from the good end of town, wear suits and pay others to wield their guns for them? You say you see no good outcome from violent resistance, only a lot of dead people. I see no good outcome at all, just the same piles of dead folks. The only real difference I can find is that hopefully the piles I see will have more of the people that deserve to be in them than those who just want to be left alone. Edited February 16, 2014 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

I would call it justified self defense. If an individual or a group of individuals from the wrong end of town in tshirts and baggy pants seek to deprive me of my life, liberty or property by gun/knifepoint, I am well within my rights to seek to defend myself using whatever force I have available to me. What is the difference in the equation if those individuals that seek to deprive me of my life, liberty or property hail from the good end of town, wear suits and pay others to wield their guns for them? You say you see no good outcome from violent resistance, only a lot of dead people. I see no good outcome at all, just the same piles of dead folks. The only real difference I can find is that hopefully the piles I see will have more of the people that deserve to be in them than those who just want to be left alone.

You can call it that but it still isn't "self defense"; justified or otherwise.

 

You said. paraphrasing, that you think the correct and appropriate consequences for the legislators and the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda is to kill them. Well, unless those legislators and/or media types show up on your doorstep with guns blazing I don't see how you can call "killing them" as being "self defense".

 

You don't "kill" people because they have a different political philosophy than you do...you don't kill people because they violate the Constitution...you vote them out of office...maybe you put them in jail for crimes if they've committed any; but you don't "kill them".

Edited February 16, 2014 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

I would call it justified self defense. If an individual or a group of individuals from the wrong end of town in tshirts and baggy pants seek to deprive me of my life, liberty or property by gun/knifepoint, I am well within my rights to seek to defend myself using whatever force I have available to me. What is the difference in the equation if those individuals that seek to deprive me of my life, liberty or property hail from the good end of town, wear suits and pay others to wield their guns for them? You say you see no good outcome from violent resistance, only a lot of dead people. I see no good outcome at all, just the same piles of dead folks. The only real difference I can find is that hopefully the piles I see will have more of the people that deserve to be in them than those who just want to be left alone.

Because in this state (and I would guess most others) you don’t get to kill people that you think are trying to deprive you of something. You get to kill people when a reasonable person (That means a jury; not what you made up in your mind) believes that you were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.

I can remember when cops could shoot fleeing forcible felons…. And did. However, the bleeding heart criminal huggers put an end to that practice (for many states around the 80’s). So if you can’t shoot criminals that are in the act of a felony but fleeing, I doubt they will look favorably on you shooting those that you suspect of a crime.

See how it works.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1112105" timestamp="1392583095"]You can call it that but it still isn't "self defense"; justified or otherwise. You said. paraphrasing, that [i]you think the correct and appropriate consequences for the legislators and [/i][i]the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda is to [b]kill them[/b]. [/i]Well, unless those legislators and/or media types show up on your doorstep with guns blazing I don't see how you can call "killing them" as being "self defense". You don't "kill" people because they have a different political philosophy than you do...you don't kill people because they violate the Constitution...you vote them out of office...maybe you put them in jail for crimes if they've committed any; but you don't "kill them".[/quote] We are obviously never going to find agreement here as I don't believe in the validity of the state as an entity to even exist and you will defend its power over folks down to the ability to control what they choose to put in their front yard. I am a libertarian, an anarchist while you are an authoritarian statist. That is why when we do find agreement on an issue I always have to check my position to determine if I have built it on the solid moral grounds of freedom and liberty for the individual.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't like Lamar for a lot of reasons, but can't say it's because of any gun grabbing on his part, what's that about?

 

Still pissed because he and Bob voted to end cloture on the Manchin-Toomey thing, I guess? If so, c'mon, they knew they had the votes to knock it down. It was actually good to have the vote, every senator there had to take a stand for all to see.

 

- OS

Because he is part of the same group of individuals who have been pushing the progressive movement on us. Not that he has pushed an

anti-gun agenda on us, yet, but that is just around the corner.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1112112" timestamp="1392583799"]Because in this state (and I would guess most others) you don’t get to kill people that you think are trying to deprive you of something. You get to kill people when a reasonable person (That means a jury; not what you made up in your mind) believes that you were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. I can remember when cops could shoot fleeing forcible felons…. And did. However, the bleeding heart criminal huggers put an end to that practice (for many states around the 80’s). So if you can’t shoot criminals that are in the act of a felony but fleeing, I doubt they will look favorably on you shooting those that you suspect of a crime. See how it works.[/quote] I can tell you exactly how it will work out for me. At some point in the future I will most likely be murdered by agents of the state unless I choose cowardice and accept the chains of slavery the state wishes for all of us. Some folks will wear them gladly, some folks will die by exercising their last inalienable right, the right to an unfair gunfight. To be clear on something I think you may be misinterpreting me and I want to ensure that I am 100% clear. I am not speaking about simple, petty crime. I am speaking about the civil war that I think has already begun much like the War Between the States began long before Fort Sumter. At the point anyone engages in that last unfair gunfight, their war is over and their battle was with the wrong people. The government agents who will come knocking in the early morning clad in black like the assassins they are aren't the real enemy. The real enemies are the politicians who send them and their media lapdogs who sell their lies to the masses. They are the ones who are deserving of the citizen vote of last resort now that the ballots are meaningless. When they understand that the wages of their sins against the people are a few dozen grains of lead to the cranium then they might begin to reconsider their crimes. I'm admittedly not very eloquent in making my case for right of armed response to the crimes of the state. The folks at [URL]sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com[/URL] and [URL]westernrifleshooters.wordpress.org[/URL] as well as Matthew Bracken are much better at it than I am.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The people in the colonies didn't have a majority vote on the American Revolution, did they? The statists would have us believe

the only power resides from within government, exclusively. If there isn't a reason for the 2nd Amendment to defend against tyranny

then get rid of it and see how that works out.

[tnguy]

I can tell you exactly how it will work out for me. At some point in the future I will most likely be murdered by agents of the state unless I choose cowardice and accept the chains of slavery the state wishes for all of us. Some folks will wear them gladly, some folks will die by exercising their last inalienable right, the right to an unfair gunfight.

To be clear on something I think you may be misinterpreting me and I want to ensure that I am 100% clear. I am not speaking about simple, petty crime. I am speaking about the civil war that I think has already begun much like the War Between the States began long before Fort Sumter.

At the point anyone engages in that last unfair gunfight, their war is over and their battle was with the wrong people. The government agents who will come knocking in the early morning clad in black like the assassins they are aren't the real enemy. The real enemies are the politicians who send them and their media lapdogs who sell their lies to the masses. They are the ones who are deserving of the citizen vote of last resort now that the ballots are meaningless. When they understand that the wages of their sins against the people are a few dozen grains of lead to the cranium then they might begin to reconsider their crimes.

I'm admittedly not very eloquent in making my case for right of armed response to the crimes of the state. The folks at sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com and westernrifleshooters.wordpress.org as well as Matthew Bracken are much better at it than I am.

I see things this way, from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress":

I am free no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

[Randall53]

Because he is part of the same group of individuals who have been pushing the progressive movement on us. Not that he has pushed an

anti-gun agenda on us, yet, but that is just around the corner.

 

Conservative politicians know that there stand on abortion and gun control are the 2 strongest litmus tests used to judge their loyalty. Even if they are against one or both, they have to keep it on the low down until the time is right or they will be beat in elections.