Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Bob Owens: Botched registration leads to confiscation in Connecticut

Gun owners sat on their butts and refused to register either arms or magazines, all but daring the state to do anything about it. Of the estimated 375,000-400,000 firearms deemed “assault weapons” by the state, more than 325,000 remain undocumented. Only about 50,000 were registered for future confiscation. The requirement to register standard capacity magazines was laughed at even louder by the citizenry; just 38,000 (less than 2 percent) of an estimated 2 million standard capacity magazines holding greater than ten rounds of ammunition were registered with the state.


Anonymous said...

If you didn't register on time, why would you register at all? That is the best way the government would discover you had one. Oh well, the CT people are stupid enough to elect gun-grabber democrats to the legislature, so they proved they are stupid in another way, too. To Hell with Connecticut!

Stupid is as stupid does.

Watchman III said...

A most pertinent reaction to those receiving the letters would be to literally wipe their a$$ with the letter and return it to the sender.

Sean said...

Ain't there something in that ole' Constitution thingy that mentions a Bill of Attainder? According to the plain language of the said Constitution, that Connecticut law is, uh, outside the law, M'kay?

Anonymous said...

I find it impossible to have any sympathy for the people getting these letters. They already tried to surrender but missed the deadline. The cowards are getting what they deserve.


Anonymous said...

Everyone who received this gag letter should write "GO FUCK YOURSELF" on it and return to sender.

Sam Manila said...

Today's Courant (an alleged newspaper) says "Thousands Ignore Law On Gun Registration. Then now is the time to increase the penalty and start rounding them up."- apparently, the Spirit of '76 is not dead, even in the belly of liberal Fascism. And apparently, the demonic inspiration for the Holocaust is still drawing breath among the elite of the Journalistas.

Anonymous said...

Does not ex post facto apply here:

Ex post facto

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).

Seems to me there are all sorts of avenues to quash this immoral, unconstitutional, illogical 'law'.

@ Watchman III- a most excellent idea.