Registration of high capacity confiscation is coming to Connecticut . 50,000 mags!!!

Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
89
Likes
40
Location
Communist State of Connecticut.
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
So who ever registered their high capacity magazines will be losing their high capacity magazines turning them to the state or facing jail time ....

Don't be surprised if the state of Connecticut is in the works to pass a law from owning a high capacity magazine that has been registered.

Joe Courtney and Easy is in the wagon for it ....they are already for the ban of high capacity mags nationwide with the new bill that

  • HR 4052 ban magazines greater than 10 rounds
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4052/cosponsors
 
hqdefault.jpg
 
Guys,
I don't want to be a ball buster or anything like that but I see whats going on here. I put the blame on CCDL Blog here in Connecticut for telling the gun owners to register when the meetings held place, and the lawyers saying to stay within the law thinking that the courts will resolve this, it was a sham and the government of Connecticut had it fixed with the judge panel they did when it was in the courts and they combined New York State in it too. NOBODY should have registered their guns and mags it should have been a 100% non compliance. PERIOD!!!

I can't believe the populace is so blind. Thats what Hitler said to register the guns because of the children.....They are doing in incremental steps, chipping it here and there until we don't have a 2nd amendment. I remember I had a thread when Connecticut had to register the guns and I said I would not do it and would move my guns out of state leave them with a friend or put them in a storage unit. I am glad I took that decision.
The 10% that did register their guns and mags have to options when SHTF here either move out of state or turn your mags and guns to state police. When they put a law in place like Maryland that only police and military can own a semi-automatic rifle.
This is also a message for the citizens in others states.. DO NOT REGISTER, DO NOT COMPLY. PERIOD!!!!
 
CT residents who've registered mags are LESS at risk from HR 4052 than the rest of us

[devil] Devil's advocate would say CT residents with registered standard capacity magazines are less likely to be successfully prosecuted under HR 4052 (as currently written) than residents of free states.
they are already for the ban of high capacity mags nationwide with the new bill that [*]HR 4052 ban magazines greater than 10 rounds.
While that isn't what HR 4052 actually says, I agree that much of the blame lies squarely on CT (and MA) if the bill actually progresses. [angry]
 
Funny how Connecticut has any money laying around to enforce this when they are half a billion + in the red. [rofl]
 
Moulton,tsongas,and Clark, all D MA co signers.

please take notes and action, voters of their districts.
 
Wow.

Lots of misinformation here.

There was no registration. There was a "declaration". You sent in a form that said you had X number of Y mags.

That was it. There are no serial numbers on mags.

SO WORRYING ABOUT THIS IS UTTER, TOTAL IDIOCY.

Lets look at it two ways if they pass a law prohibiting all possession.

1) you didn't declare any mags. nothing happens. You are a felon if you keep them. You are not if you get rid of them.

2) you did declare mags - DESPP sends you a letter telling you that you are a felon if you keep them. You are a felon if you keep them. You are not if you get rid of them.

Get it??? No difference.

In both cases, they can't enter your home unless they have RAS that you have illegal possession.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't, they will send you a letter to turn them in or you will be a felon....easiest way to bring in the populace that take the fluorinated water.

No, they will send you a letter telling you that you need to get rid of them.
1) turn them in
2) sell them out of state
3) destroy them.

Again, no registration, no serial nubmers. Worrying about this is pure foolishness.
 
Guys,
I don't want to be a ball buster or anything like that but I see whats going on here. I put the blame on CCDL Blog here in Connecticut for telling the gun owners to register when the meetings held place, and the lawyers saying to stay within the law thinking that the courts will resolve this, it was a sham and the government of Connecticut had it fixed with the judge panel they did when it was in the courts and they combined New York State in it too. NOBODY should have registered their guns and mags it should have been a 100% non compliance. PERIOD!!!

I can't believe the populace is so blind. Thats what Hitler said to register the guns because of the children.....They are doing in incremental steps, chipping it here and there until we don't have a 2nd amendment. I remember I had a thread when Connecticut had to register the guns and I said I would not do it and would move my guns out of state leave them with a friend or put them in a storage unit. I am glad I took that decision.
The 10% that did register their guns and mags have to options when SHTF here either move out of state or turn your mags and guns to state police. When they put a law in place like Maryland that only police and military can own a semi-automatic rifle.
This is also a message for the citizens in others states.. DO NOT REGISTER, DO NOT COMPLY. PERIOD!!!!

This displays a fundamental ignorance of CT law prior to the 2013 AWB.

Whenever you purchase a firearm from a dealer a DPS-3 form is completed. That is sent to the DESPP who enters the info into a database.

If you bought any kind of banned firearm from a dealer prior to the 2013 ban, THEY ALREADY KNOW YOU HAVE IT.

In that case, there is no reason not to register it. They know you have it, why not register it?? So you can tell your friends what a tough guy you are?? Refusing to register does NOTHING.

If you were smart and didn't have a lot of money, you purchased a banned firearm in a private sale prior to PA13-3's passage. A private sale of any long gun in CT, even AWs did not require any paperwork.

The resulting gun needed to be registered to remain legal, but at least there could be some justification for not registering, since the Government didn't know you owned it.

If you had the bucks, purchasing a pre-94 gun that was affected by the AW ban, privately without any paperwork, would be legal and the resulting gun would be legal to keep with no registration.

This would cost you. But you would have an invisible gun that was legal to possess.

Don
 
Well, I think the deck chairs look better over there.

No, they look better here, or maybe over there.

How far from the water line are we now?

About 6 feet maybe 7.

Ok, put half the deck chairs over there, and half over here.

The ship is still sinking folks.
 
v) (1) (A) (i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

“(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
 
The last time MA gun owners defied new gun law was when they "expired" lifetime FIDs and few if any even noticed.

Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands simply kept possession of their newly illegal firearms in the secure knowledge that they had lifetime FIDs.

The anti-gun crowd publicized this as a win, saying that we had a massive drop in the number of licensed gun owners.

Only the actual drop was in the number of gun owners that were licensed, not so much a drop in the number of gun owners.

Point being, whatever we do, will not make any difference. Chances are if new bans in MA or CT are simply ignored, nothing will happen. If this is widespread enough, maybe THAT could effect some change.
 
Next time someone says "Thsi registration will never lead to confiscation", someone on our side should offer an amendment "In the event this registration list es ever used for confiscation, the state shall pay the owners an amount equal to the value of the item's weight in gold, backed by the full faith and credit of the state.". Funny thing.... lists will "never be used for confiscaction", but they would never agree to this clause to give that statement meaning.
 
I pray that when all this shit finally makes it to the SCOTUS it's put to rest for good !! I hope.

we need a few members to resign/retire/....whatever so they can be replaced by people who actually support the constitution and the bor's.
 
This is a difference without a distinction

The fact of the matter is that everyone that did so is now in a "registry" as being a target of future law enforcement action.

Wonder who the poor slob will be that they make an example of with a swat team kicking in the door at 3am and shooting the dog and likely the evil gun owner and family

Nope. Its a huge distinction and difference.

Tell me how LE would target future magazine owners who declared magazines any differently than those who did not? Seriously. Run me through a scenario.

And again, please tell me how choosing to not register an AW that the state ALREADY knew about through the DPS-3 database would have helped someone.

Thanks,

Don

p.s. I'm all for civil disobedience if it actually GETS YOU SOMETHING. If its just symbolic and puts you at greater legal risk, its just stupid.

p.p.s. And yes, there was / is always a third option which is to simply move everything to a free state where CT has no legal authority.
 
Next time someone says "Thsi registration will never lead to confiscation", someone on our side should offer an amendment "In the event this registration list es ever used for confiscation, the state shall pay the owners an amount equal to the value of the item's weight in gold, backed by the full faith and credit of the state.". Funny thing.... lists will "never be used for confiscaction", but they would never agree to this clause to give that statement meaning.

People pick gold exactly because they DON'T have "full faith and credit of the state" [laugh]


I was watching a vid from Forgotten Weapons on 1968 MG amnesty. There were similar fears about MGs being registered. Funny part was that amnesty was so broad that in one case it was used to register an essential stolen service rifle. [laugh]
 
I think the right question is same as one for mass gun owners.....when are Ct gun owners going to make a significant effort to stop dumb legislation/punt these turds from office

If folks think that the NRA or some other group is going to help them I wouldnt hold my breath

I don't expect you to know this, but CT gun owners put up a HUGE resistance to the proposed gun legislation that came as a result of the Sandy Hook murders.

Thousands rally'd at the state house.
Hundreds signed up to testify at hearings

I took my state legislator to the range and showed him a nice walnut mini 14 and then in minutes converted it to a scary AW with a 40 round mag.

I am actually very very proud of how CT gun owners reacted to this threat. But the simple matter is that we are outnumbered.

Don
 
We just need a really big earthquake/tsunami that takes out Boston/NY/DC and all of Kalifornia.....

that's the last thing you need

Rats-Running-Titanic-1.jpg


Moonbatism seem to correlate with high population density (reliance on tasty .gov tit) which explains Houston and Shitcago. You can't wash those away.
 
People pick gold exactly because they DON'T have "full faith and credit of the state" [laugh]


I was watching a vid from Forgotten Weapons on 1968 MG amnesty. There were similar fears about MGs being registered. Funny part was that amnesty was so broad that in one case it was used to register an essential stolen service rifle. [laugh]

I sure as hell would not have ant faith in the stat even if they agreed to the gold deal. As for that episode of FW, even an MG with deface serial #'s got in, that amazed me.
 
Back
Top Bottom