Chucktshoes

To Officials of the State of Connecticut: Either Enforce or Repeal 2013 Anti-gun Laws. Rocky Hill CT, March 3, 2014: A recent media tidal wave based on false reports and bad journalism has proven a few things about the 2013 Gun Ban: people from Connecticut and around the nation are tired of being threatened; are ready to make a stand; and the State of Connecticut does not have the stomach to enforce the edicts and laws with which they threaten gun owners.   For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives’, government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.   Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws. Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand. Throughout the Legislature and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), there is only talk of "amnesty" and possibly boiling the frog at a slower rate.   It comes as no surprise that the talks of relaxing enforcement expectations go along with legislators trying to get past their re-election deadlines. If the anti-gun laws they passed are so good for everyone in this state, then why are elected officials requesting increased security, both at the LOB and at their private homes? The anti-gun legislators and officials are scared to implement their tyranny because they know that they did not have any sort of ‘consent of the governed’. Those officials violated their oaths of office, as the Executive and Legislative branches of our Connecticut government overstepped their moral and constitutional responsibilities by passing those laws: they acted and voted contrary to our Rights and against our Constitution.   Now, State officials look down the barrel of the laws that they created, and it is very probably that they now tremble as they rethink the extremity of their folly. Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision: Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or else repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety. As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it's time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.   There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws. Connecticut residents should not have to live in perpetual fear of "the jack boot" coming down on them. Unenforced, frequently repeated threats fall on deaf ears. By passing laws that they cannot or choose not to enforce, State officials tell the public that this State is ignorant, immoral, blind, and impotent in its legal and decision making processes. The passage of such foolishly conceived, insufferable laws is an affront to every law-abiding citizen. Every official who supports such legal foolishness mocks our State and the Constitution they swore to uphold.   If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence.   “From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to ####, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” - Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta   If officials of the State of Connecticut opt to get ‘froggy’ (jumping on citizens) and start to enforce the new laws (as officials have claimed a desire to do), Connecticut Carry stands ready to do whatever it takes and whatever it can do to represent and defend anyone impacted by the State’s violence.   “As citizens of Connecticut, we have a right to bear arms. With that right comes responsibility. The responsibility to stand in defense of ourselves and our fellow citizens is paramount.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

  Thanks for bringing up Iraq as it does pose the question of where do we have standing to criticize Russia for its actions? So it invaded a smaller, weaker nation on a very thin manufactured pretext? Why does that sound so familiar to me for some reason?    The U..S has zero credibility on this subject as long as we reserve the right to lob missiles from drones into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. and meddle in the internal political affairs of these and other countries. The only difference between Russia and the U.S. right now is that Russia doesn't have an ineffectual pussy in the executive office. 

[quote name="sigmtnman" post="1119759" timestamp="1393896878"]wall of text. :D ETA. although wide open throttle could apply as well![/quote] Haha. I'm on my phone, did it not break it into paragraphs?

[quote name="sigmtnman" post="1119752" timestamp="1393896425"]W.O.T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] Que?

Mark your calendars here folks as I wouldn't expect to see this happen again. It is no secret that Robert and I don't exactly see eye to eye on most matters and a good chunk of the more heated flare ups occur between him and I. I've never been one to hold my tongue when expressing my opinion to and of him, but in this case I think going after him is barking up the wrong tree. For the most part he has just stated simple facts and laid out the different options that face the citizens of CT.   Where I would disagree with Robert's assessment is on one specific point. I wouldn't say that this law is the will of the majority of the citizens. The simple truth is that most folks are indifferent on guns and the laws, good or bad, are lobbied for and passed by small minorities at either end of the spectrum. It is within those small minorities where the opportunities and the dangers lie.   In this case there is a majority of a minority that has taken a stand and that stand can have far reaching, national repercussions regardless of what some may think. The majority of owners of the now banned weapons have chosen to no longer allow the title of "law abiding citizen" to be used against them. They have instead chosen to ignore this law and become criminals, felons in the eyes of the state. This is no small step and its magnitude should not be overlooked. Tens of thousands of CT citizens (possibly 100,000 or more) have taken that step. The question that must be considered is (as Robert put it) how many of them really are willing to die on that hill? If even only a very small percentage of those who are now felons according to the state are willing to use violence in defense of their rights it is still likely several thousand who will exercise their right to engage in an unfair gunfight. The CT state police only number 1300.   If they do start stacking officers and kicking in doors it will change the game nationwide. The gun grabbers will have crossed the Rubicon and the consequences will be severe for all sides. I'm far from the only person who thinks in terms of targeting the political class. They asked for this fight and they will have it brought to their front door. I think some of them have realized the vipers nest they stepped in. There are reports of CT state Reps and Senators who voted for this law asking for security details after their names and home addresses were circulated in a nice easy to use list.    Some want to pretend that this is CT's problem and we have our own in TN. I guarantee that if shots get fired and gun owners and politicians start dying over this law that the consequences will be felt everywhere. The state won't be able to back down after that and every gun owner or activist in every state will suddenly have a giant bullseye on their back. The federal government will say that they have all the proof they need that we really are the potential terrorists they said we are. It only goes from bad to hell from there. We are standing on the brink here and Lord willing, the CT state government will pull us back because only they can right now.

[quote name="daddyo" post="1119459" timestamp="1393867891"]This is also what I believe. However, if the baker is going to be denied the same right, then equality is a little one-sided.[/quote] That's my point.

I support this stylist's decision to voluntarily disassociate with someone and decline to provide their services to a potential client.

Normally the cows start off in lingerie. They get the tip after stripping out of it.

So Dave, Robert, which one of y'all is a government agent?    :screwy:

Say goodbye to cheap Wolf and Tula ammo. The importation of that is going to be cut off as an "economic sanction" against Russia. You know, like Clinton did with the Chinese and their cheap ammo and firearms imports in the 90s.   :wave:

It's a lot cheaper ($20B+/-) to run a pipeline through Crimea that to have to build it completely submerged in the Black Sea.

I have plenty of spare Magpul anti-tilt followers as I generally use aluminum mags and sometimes have to replace an outdated follower. If you want, PM me your address and I will throw one in the mail to you just to see if it helps the mag work better for ya.

What color is the follower in the metal mag?

You can bring it over my place and we can annoy the neighbors.  :rofl:

If Mt. Gox had been a bank dealing in USD, it would have received a bailout.    Let that marinate for a bit.

After midnight! After midnight!

I don't think that is Matthew's character, I think that is just Matthew. :tough:

[quote name="ncldwell" post="1117065" timestamp="1393441203"]I believe it's the same in Mississippi. Open carry is legal state wide for those 18 and over. [color=rgb(51,51,51)][font=verdanna][size=1][b]Mississippi State Constitution: Article 3, Section 12 ~ [/b][/size][/font][/color][color=rgb(51,51,51)][font=Georgia][size=4]The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in the aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.[/size][/font][/color][/quote] It is now that the state legislature clarified that a holster does not count as partially concealing.

[quote name="45guy" post="1116764" timestamp="1393382357"]I sure long for the day when what one does in ones bedroom is kept there.[/quote] If you are keeping it only in the bedroom, you aren't very creative. :dirty:

Did you see MVB's most recent post on the matter? http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-sipsey-street-public-service.html

I do wish them success, but they sure need to up their game from the Jetta my wife had. Our experience with that car was so bad we will never purchase another VW product ever again. 

Ditto.  :hat:

It's good manners.

What does government have to do with the rule of law? Our government has long abandoned operation by the rule of law and is almost completely lawless now. Rule by diktat and fiat is the modern MO. Only the thinnest lip service is given outdated ideals such as "rights" or "liberty" that belong to the individual free from infringement by the state.