Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

Thread: Ct. Says no!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991

    Ct. Says no!

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-disobedience/
    [I]
    On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.

    Police had received 47,916 applications for “assault weapons certificates” and 21,000 incomplete applications as of Dec. 31, Lt. Paul Vance told The Courant.

    At roughly 50,000 applications, officials estimate that as little as 15 percent of the covered semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state. “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,” the report states.

    Needless to say, officials and some lawmakers are stunned.

    Due to the new gun control bill passed in April, likely at least 20,000 individual people — possibly as many as 100,000 — are now in direct violation of the law for refusing to register their guns. As we noted above, that act is now a Class D Felony.

    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.

    Lawlor, the undersecretary for criminal justice policy in the state Office of Policy and Management, also suggested that the legislature should reopen the registration period to encourage more gun owners to register their firearms.

    You may recall the viral photo of Connecticut gun owners waiting in line to register their guns in December, which one person said reminded them of the “Weimar Germany.”


    Republican state Sen. Tony Guglielmo told The Courant he recently spoke to a constituent at a meeting in Ashford, who informed him that some of his friends with semi-automatic rifles are intentionally taking a stand.

    “He made the analogy to prohibition,” the lawmaker recalled. “I said, ‘You’re talking about civil disobedience, and he said ‘Yes.’”

    Guglielmo said he really thought the “vast majority would register.”

    Other officials think the low registration numbers are due to ignorance on behalf of gun owners who aren’t aware of the new law. It’s impossible to know the main reason why gun owners aren’t showing up to register their guns without hearing from them directly, though Guglielmo’s constituent indicates at least some are practicing “civil disobedience.”

    “Sorting out the number of potential new felons is a guessing game. State police have not added up the total number of people who registered the 50,000 firearms, Vance said. So even if we knew the number of illegal guns in the state, we’d have a hard time knowing how many owners they had,” the report concludes.
    Imagine some of the larger states taking a cue from them. That's a small hint we won't go without a whimper like the UK.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    The state of Connecticut will likely not be able to do anything in the way of enforcement or prosecution in light of this new information. As detailed by the article the firearms in question are unregistered and thus there is no way to know who has them or where there are. The number of individuals deliberately committing felonies by refusing to register their firearms is anywhere between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand and there is nothing the state can do about it. Even assuming the individuals could be located in order to seek prosecution the process would be incredibly difficult to achieve. Assuming the worst case scenario the state would be forced to hold one hundred thousand individual full trials and clog up the courts for months if not years. The likelihood of conviction will be minute if those selected for jury duty do not agree with the new law and seek to nullify it through jury nullification. The sheer amount of money and manpower necessary for prosecution will be a considerable investment with the state the economy is in. And that is to say nothing of how badly the court dockets will be clogged.

    Plea bargains can only be issued if those being prosecuted are willing to accept them. Under the worst case scenario a defendant could have to wait for several years before their trial can ever be gotten to and during that time they would have to be out on bail as the state could not afford to house and feed them during that time.

    A great many potential felony prosecutions would likely have to be dropped in the interest of justice. Under the worst case scenario the state of Connecticut will be proving that their own laws are unenforceable and eliminate whatever justification they may hold for maintaining them.
    Last edited by Xenamnes; 02-14-2014 at 05:05 PM.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    You guys seem rather proud of it!
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    You guys seem rather proud of it!
    As any true American should be that stands behind the Constitution and what it stands for. Notice I say stand behind and not on, as in trample.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    As any true American should be that stands behind the Constitution and what it stands for.
    Says it all. That you would applaud tens of thousands of unregistered weapons in the community comes as no surprise to me. No doubt, when your wife, child or loved one is the next to get a bullet through the head you'll be blubbing your tears and feeling sorry for yourself but not have the nounce to realise that YOU voted for it. Supporting your 'right' to have legal guns is one thing. Supporting the refusal to register firearms is quite another. There's no educating some people. Oh well...so be it!
    Last edited by Dani; 02-15-2014 at 04:06 AM.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    The state of Connecticut will likely not be able to do anything in the way of enforcement or prosecution in light of this new information. As detailed by the article the firearms in question are unregistered and thus there is no way to know who has them or where there are. The number of individuals deliberately committing felonies by refusing to register their firearms is anywhere between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand and there is nothing the state can do about it. Even assuming the individuals could be located in order to seek prosecution the process would be incredibly difficult to achieve. Assuming the worst case scenario the state would be forced to hold one hundred thousand individual full trials and clog up the courts for months if not years. The likelihood of conviction will be minute if those selected for jury duty do not agree with the new law and seek to nullify it through jury nullification. The sheer amount of money and manpower necessary for prosecution will be a considerable investment with the state the economy is in. And that is to say nothing of how badly the court dockets will be clogged.

    Plea bargains can only be issued if those being prosecuted are willing to accept them. Under the worst case scenario a defendant could have to wait for several years before their trial can ever be gotten to and during that time they would have to be out on bail as the state could not afford to house and feed them during that time.

    A great many potential felony prosecutions would likely have to be dropped in the interest of justice. Under the worst case scenario the state of Connecticut will be proving that their own laws are unenforceable and eliminate whatever justification they may hold for maintaining them.
    I don't think all that needs to be done. Just bring the law in and the first person found guilty of having an unregistered weapon, you fine them say...$50,000 and give him 3 years in prison. Subsequent guilty persons get the same. I don't think it will be long before people will be flooding to register their weapons.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    I don't think all that needs to be done. Just bring the law in and the first person found guilty of having an unregistered weapon, you fine them say...$50,000 and give him 3 years in prison. Subsequent guilty persons get the same. I don't think it will be long before people will be flooding to register their weapons.
    To be found guilty it will be necessary to go to full trial. A guilty verdict cannot be had without such thus illustrating the problem above. Furthermore it will be necessary for the jury to be unanimous in a guilty verdict and that will be difficult to achieve. That will require both time and money for each attempt at prosecution and the worst case scenario is one hundred thousand prosecutions. The first individual prosecuted and found to be not guilty would only serve to bolster the cause and inspire disobedience.

    The jury is not legally required to convict the defendant no matter how guilty they are. Nor can they be forced to find a defendant guilty or be punished for issuing what some would consider the wrong verdict. All it would realistically take is one juror who doesn't wish for their tax dollars to be used to house the particular defendant to result in a hung jury. A hung jury would require the judge to call a mistrial and would either require the prosecution to begin the process all over from the beginning again with a new jury and run the risk of a repeat or a not guilty verdict.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    Says it all. That you would applaud tens of thousands of unregistered weapons in the community comes as no surprise to me. No doubt, when your wife, child or loved one is the next to get a bullet through the head you'll be blubbing your tears and feeling sorry for yourself but not have the nounce to realise that YOU voted for it. Supporting your 'right' to have legal guns is one thing. Supporting the refusal to register firearms is quite another. There's no educating some people. Oh well...so be it!
    And the registration of firearms currently in circulation will prevent or at the very least inhibit this from occurring. Because a registered firearm cannot be used for the purpose of committing murder. Correct?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    =Dani;478549]Says it all. That you would applaud tens of thousands of unregistered weapons in the community comes as no surprise to me. No doubt, when your wife, child or loved one is the next to get a bullet through the head you'll be blubbing your tears and feeling sorry for yourself but not have the nounce to realise that YOU voted for it
    .
    Yes I applaud the tens of thousands(300,000-350,000 K)along with the millions of others across the country,so I don't feel to alone.I can defend my family can you?
    Supporting your 'right' to have legal guns is one thing. Supporting the refusal to register firearms is quite another. There's no educating some people. Oh well...so be it!
    How many thousands bought these so called "assault weapons" after Sandy Hook? How many thousands were already registered? Register twice? It's the lawful people they are after or should I say the lawful people's guns?And it's pretty much all semi-auto guns. Gosh do you suppose that the criminal element that make their living with them are standing in line to register them?
    So now you say supporting your right to have legal guns is one thing but not registering them is something else? Quite different? So if a law abiding person has an unregistered firearm it is more deadly then a registered one, so therefore registered is better or more humane or what ever it is that drives you?
    I think X Pretty well summed it up.
    Your right sometimes there is no educating people.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    I don't think all that needs to be done. Just bring the law in and the first person found guilty of having an unregistered weapon, you fine them say...$50,000 and give him 3 years in prison. Subsequent guilty persons get the same. I don't think it will be long before people will be flooding to register their weapons.
    You are a work of art,you really are. So where well maybe a quarter million newly minted felons be put?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    You are a work of art,you really are. So where well maybe a quarter million newly minted felons be put?
    You just don't read the posts do you...you just don't!!! Go read it again and this time LOOOOOOOOOOOOK at what the writing is saying.

    I suppose I'd better help you as interpreting what it written seems to be a problem for you. What I'm saying is that, you take say, the first 10 people that you find guilty and you make their sentence so harsh that people become so sh*t scared of being caught with an unregistered weapon that they get them registered. You don't need to incarcerate a quarter of a million people. Try to keep up for goodness sake!
    Last edited by Dani; 02-15-2014 at 11:23 PM.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    .
    Yes I applaud the tens of thousands(300,000-350,000 K)along with the millions of others across the country,so I don't feel to alone.

    Good for you homeboy. You must be very proud of yourself...and after all the shite you and your buddies have been spewing out about how you are 'good, law abiding citizens'. Yeah...looks like it. You have been here spewing the caca about how you only have guns because the law allows you to have guns yet now, when the law tries brings in gun control, you are advocating that hundreds of thousands disobey the law. Bravo hypocrite!

    I can defend my family can you?
    I have little to no need to. The country I live in is not populated by psychopathic, gun-totting clowns and the police are good enough at their jobs to protect my family anyway.
    Last edited by Dani; 02-15-2014 at 11:14 PM.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by zsu2357 View Post
    .

    Your right sometimes there is no educating people.
    Then don't try...just carry on being that fine, upstanding, law abiding hypocrite that you are and when your wife, your children or your loved ones are gunned down... then live with it because you deserve it. Keep your tears to yourself.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    And the registration of firearms currently in circulation will prevent or at the very least inhibit this from occurring. Because a registered firearm cannot be used for the purpose of committing murder. Correct?
    Not necessarily Einstein...but it would make it easier to identify the weapon used in the murder and thus trace the registered owner of the weapon. Correct? Oiy vey!!
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    You just don't read the posts do you...you just don't!!! Go read it again and this time LOOOOOOOOOOOOK at what the writing is saying.

    I suppose I'd better help you as interpreting what it written seems to be a problem for you. What I'm saying is that, you take say, the first 10 people that you find guilty and you make their sentence so harsh that people become so sh*t scared of being caught with an unregistered weapon that they get them registered. You don't need to incarcerate a quarter of a million people. Try to keep up for goodness sake!
    You may wish to research to concept of retributive justice that that united states recognizes. Furthermore the eighth amendment to the united states constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment for an unregistered firearms must be both reasonable and proportional to the crime of possessing an unregistered firearm. You cannot inflict a sentence so harsh that it can be used as an implement of government sanctioned terror for something that is essentially a paperwork violation. The only way such a punishment could be inflicted would be if the courts allowed such a crime to earn the death penalty.

    And that is to say nothing of the appeals process that would be involved in the immediate aftermath.

    No matter what you may plan you will have to take into account the possibility of the worst case scenario where you would indeed have to prosecute between one hundred thousand and a quarter million newly created felons.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •