-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Connecticut Governor to Sign Gun Confiscation Bill
- Thread starter Bfatz
- Start date
Parker Duofold
NES Member
Sure.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
"About 14 domestic homicides occur annually in Connecticut, half of which are caused by guns."
So about 7 a year....sounds like an epidemic to me....
I'm not condoning it but cripes....what are they dong about the other 7?
So about 7 a year....sounds like an epidemic to me....
I'm not condoning it but cripes....what are they dong about the other 7?
allen-1
NES Member
Whutmeworry
NES Member
FIFY.
All violent crimes are caused by dirt bags who must be removed from free society. Guns don't cause crimes.
Yeah, I know, I used to be proud to have been born and raised here in CT and I was proud that it was the Constitution state. It used to bug me a lot when people called it the Nutmeg state. Now there is no way it can be called the Constitution state but instead of Nutmeg state I think I will start calling it the Nutjob state. Not that we are all nutjobs here but more than half are and 99% of the jerks in the state capital are. Sad and disgusting.
I tell you what, if I had some bogus temporary restraining order issued against me and my guns taken, only to have the order denied 7 days later when I prove my innocence and my guns returned to me 5 days later (yeah right) I would sue this freakin state silly if something happened during that time where I was unable to defend myself or my family.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,321
- Likes
- 108,776
FIFY....and WTF
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Of those 7 a year, I wonder how many were committed by someone already possessing a gun illegally... and how many are crazy enough to just choke their "partner" to death instead?
5? 6?
5? 6?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,686
- Likes
- 1,084
What did the gun do to cause a homicide? I'm confused. Maybe if we as humans were nicer to guns they would kill less of us?
A whole lot more than guns. Here's a thought, anyone who has to surrender their guns because of this gets to have Malloy's security team until their guns are returned.
Personally, I try to do my part by giving as many lonely and empty firearms of all colors a good home as possible. I don't even discriminate on color, some of my best guns are black...
Varmint
NES Member
And how many of those by LTC owners. I'm willing to bet zero.
don't be fooled, CT voters, fascism doesn't come bearing a flag.
Mass has the same rule. Someone files a R/O on you turn in your guns or we come get them
Firearms, rifles, and shotguns must be surrendered to police and the license or FID suspended whether the restraining order is temporary, permanent, or an emergency restraining order. These orders are issued when the applicant can demonstrate to a judge’s satisfaction that there is a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse. If you have a Firearms Identification Card, once the G.L. c. 209A restraining order is lifted, you are entitled to have your FID card reinstated and your rifles and shotguns returned to you. This is because a Licensing Authority cannot deny you a FID card based on “suitability.”
Firearms, rifles, and shotguns must be surrendered to police and the license or FID suspended whether the restraining order is temporary, permanent, or an emergency restraining order. These orders are issued when the applicant can demonstrate to a judge’s satisfaction that there is a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse. If you have a Firearms Identification Card, once the G.L. c. 209A restraining order is lifted, you are entitled to have your FID card reinstated and your rifles and shotguns returned to you. This is because a Licensing Authority cannot deny you a FID card based on “suitability.”
Horrible
NES Member
Danl is an epic pussy. Passed his massive confiscation bill in 2013 and now will only selectively enforce it.
- - - Updated - - -
As of August 2014, they can!
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/deval-patrick-gun-bill-massachusetts/2014/08/14/id/588660/
Last edited:
Lank
NES Member
I laugh every time I see that BS on a license plate.
I skimmed through the bill again last night and what isn't totally clear to me is how they intend to treat the "transfer" of guns from the accused to authorities and back again. It seems they have to run a new authorization number through the state because they are treating it like a transfer of ownership to get them back. That is problematic for folks who have to surrender a legally owned and registered assault rifle because by CT law passed after Sandy Hook they cannot be transfered anymore. So this certainly looks like it is partially a back door assault rifle confiscation scheme.
Also, since records are not supposed to be kept for firearm purchases how do they know what guns you have or don't have, especially since prior to Sandy Hook long gun sales could be done face to face with no paperwork. Some of my rifles were purchased that way so how are they to know if I just decide to surrender the guns I bought through a dealer where there is a record of the purchase? It seems they are relying again on compliance with a law to prevent someone from shooting someone else. So law abiding citizens that get hit with a bogus RO will surrender all of their guns, leaving themselves defenseless, where the criminal who actually does intend to hurt someone will not surrender all of their guns and the state has no way to know it. So how does this help potential victims?
Here is a fun little hypothetical. What if Joe sleeps with Bob's wife because Bob is an abusive gorilla and she leaves Bob for mild mannered Joe. Bob wants to beat the hell out of Joe but he knows Joe has guns. So Bob goes to a judge and makes up a story that he loves his wife more than life itself but Joe seduced her, he confronted him and Joe threatened to shoot him so now he wants a RO against Joe. Judge issues this ex parte RO and Joe has to surrender his guns. Bob shows up the next night and beats the now defenseless Joe to death. So a murder was enabled by this law instead of prevented.
Also, since records are not supposed to be kept for firearm purchases how do they know what guns you have or don't have, especially since prior to Sandy Hook long gun sales could be done face to face with no paperwork. Some of my rifles were purchased that way so how are they to know if I just decide to surrender the guns I bought through a dealer where there is a record of the purchase? It seems they are relying again on compliance with a law to prevent someone from shooting someone else. So law abiding citizens that get hit with a bogus RO will surrender all of their guns, leaving themselves defenseless, where the criminal who actually does intend to hurt someone will not surrender all of their guns and the state has no way to know it. So how does this help potential victims?
Here is a fun little hypothetical. What if Joe sleeps with Bob's wife because Bob is an abusive gorilla and she leaves Bob for mild mannered Joe. Bob wants to beat the hell out of Joe but he knows Joe has guns. So Bob goes to a judge and makes up a story that he loves his wife more than life itself but Joe seduced her, he confronted him and Joe threatened to shoot him so now he wants a RO against Joe. Judge issues this ex parte RO and Joe has to surrender his guns. Bob shows up the next night and beats the now defenseless Joe to death. So a murder was enabled by this law instead of prevented.
dhuze
NES Member
Bob can't get a restraining order against Joe because he didn't live with him.
The NUTJOB State!
Well, my example is not a good one then because I don't know the RO laws but you get my point. What if Bob and Joe were housemates though? I knew someone who had no place to go and moved in with his best buddy and his wife. He was the best man at their wedding but he ended up stealing the wife from his best friend while he was away for work. What a mess that was but lucky for him his best friend (a big guy) was also a peaceful person by nature and a Christian and decided not to pummel him. There was still a divorce and the friendship ended but there was no violence. Anyway, does a situation like that constitute living with them so a RO would be possible?
I checked the CT general assembly website to see the vote tally for this abomination. As I expected my state representative Doug Dubitsky (one of the few republican reps in CT) voted no. I have spoken with Doug before at our local gun shop and he is definitely pro 2A and a smart guy with a lot of common sense and traditional values. I expected him to vote no but he also led the 5 1/2 hour opposition prior to the vote. I will have to watch the footage of that debate later.
I also saw that my state Senator, Cathy Osten, a democrat also voted no. I was not entirely surprised by this. Despite her being a democrat she also voted no to the Sandy Hook gun laws a couple of years ago. I had asked her why she did that as a democrat. She said she was in favor of some gun control but she felt the Sandy Hook law was unfair to law abiding gun owners, was poorly written and it was rammed through via emergency certification as opposed to normal legislative process which she didn't like. While it's still not good that she wants some gun control that's pretty good for a democrat in CT. It shows she has a functioning brain, not just a Nazi-esque devotion to a party affiliation like most of her democrat colleagues.
I also saw that my state Senator, Cathy Osten, a democrat also voted no. I was not entirely surprised by this. Despite her being a democrat she also voted no to the Sandy Hook gun laws a couple of years ago. I had asked her why she did that as a democrat. She said she was in favor of some gun control but she felt the Sandy Hook law was unfair to law abiding gun owners, was poorly written and it was rammed through via emergency certification as opposed to normal legislative process which she didn't like. While it's still not good that she wants some gun control that's pretty good for a democrat in CT. It shows she has a functioning brain, not just a Nazi-esque devotion to a party affiliation like most of her democrat colleagues.
Similar threads
