• 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.

CT governor wants "grandfather clause" eliminated and existing "assault weapons" confiscated

Well, even in Windham and Litchfield counties there wasn't a strong R presence. Only Hartford, Fairfield and New Haven counties matter anyway. I don't think that even all of the remaining 5 counties' populations combined equal that of one of those three. Litchfield was carved up real nice to make sure CT 05 will not elect a Republican to the House.
 
Last edited:
So when is SWAT coming door to door to take those properly registered ARs and "hi caps" beto style? These poor saps should have buried theirs and shut up like the other quarter million AR owners in CT who didn't comply.

gun-registration-line.jpg
 
Jsfitzgerald85 said:
Ex Post Facto would prevent this wouldnt it? You cant retroactively make something illegal.
Click to expand...
That refers to activities in the past. A person who used to own a banned item, but sold it, would be protected by that principle.

Continuing to own it after the law change (and some warning) would be the alleged crime here. This is why people argue this is a taking: you told me it was legal, now you're saying it's not. The state's position is that you can sell it elsewhere, so it's not a taking.

They'll probably prevail, until AWBs are defeated at SCOTUS.
 
Mesatchornug said:
That refers to activities in the past. A person who used to own a banned item, but sold it, would be protected by that principle.

Continuing to own it after the law change (and some warning) would be the alleged crime here. This is why people argue this is a taking: you told me it was legal, now you're saying it's not. The state's position is that you can sell it elsewhere, so it's not a taking.

They'll probably prevail, until AWBs are defeated at SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
gotcha. Thanks
 
“They should not be allowed in the state of Connecticut,” Lamont said. “I think they’re killers. We found out they’re cop killers. I think they’re incredibly dangerous in our community. You’re not serious about crime if you leave them on the street.”

This week, he reiterated an intention to repeal the grandfather provision.

“I think it’s a loophole that makes our society here in Connecticut a little less safe,” he said.

ctmirror.org

A ban on AR-15s in CT? Gov. Lamont may go alone in seeking it

CT Gov. Ned Lamont intends to pursue repealing the exemption that allows residents to possess AR-15s bought before the ban on sales.
ctmirror.org ctmirror.org

Sucks to all those in CT who registered their 'assault weapons' like gud bois. Wonder if Lamont's gonna send SWAT to CT gun owners' doors who have the wink-wink AR "others" too.
 
TJ4 said:
LOL, wait until you see the sh*t Maura has planned for Massachusetts. Don’t worry, though, you may get your rights back 10 years later when the lawsuits make their way to SCOTUS. Well, your kids may get those rights back, you’re likely going to be killed during a home invasion or run over by a dreamer speeding in their car to another town to try and vote for the 4th time that day. your estate will be sued by the 14 people in the other car who have extensive soft-tissue injury.
Click to expand...
Don't flatter yourself, Walter Cronkite.

She has and will have bigger problems and issues to deal with vs. your gunz problems.
 
I wonder if these "lesser guns" will face the same fate, or be OK in Connecticut.

www.northeastshooters.com

Maura and MSP?

So just saw this pop up on FB. Maine man arrested for illegal possession in MA. Nothing unusual, see it all the time. What caught my eye was he was charged with illegal possession of an assault weapon, which you never see when gang-bangers get arrested in Dorchester with ARs. What is curious is...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
 
M1911 said:
Folks, let’s try to be nice, even when we disagree.
Click to expand...
angry-poop.gif
 
Coyote33 said:
I wonder if these "lesser guns" will face the same fate, or be OK in Connecticut.

www.northeastshooters.com

Maura and MSP?

So just saw this pop up on FB. Maine man arrested for illegal possession in MA. Nothing unusual, see it all the time. What caught my eye was he was charged with illegal possession of an assault weapon, which you never see when gang-bangers get arrested in Dorchester with ARs. What is curious is...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
Click to expand...
there are no lesser guns.
it is the same european/uk model the canada goes through now. we here are just a half step behind.
 
paul73 said:
what we have is an illusion that is no more than that.
a reality will hit you once you cross a NY state border. and CT will probably be there in an year.
Click to expand...
As I said that's what the Courts are for because we have recourse and a majority in SCOTUS. Eventually NY/NJ/CT/CA, etc. will have to make a decision, comply or keep defying the Courts.
Say Thank You Cocaine Mitch and Donald Trump.
 
SFC13557 said:
As I said that's what the Courts are for because we have recourse and a majority in SCOTUS. Eventually NY/NJ/CT/CA, etc. will have to make a decision, comply or keep defying the Courts.
Say Thank You Cocaine Mitch and Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

They already made their decision and keep doubling down on it.

940F80C4-BFD9-4FBA-98D3-841E463691A7.jpeg
 
SFC13557 said:
As I said that's what the Courts are for because we have recourse and a majority in SCOTUS. Eventually NY/NJ/CT/CA, etc. will have to make a decision, comply or keep defying the Courts.
Say Thank You Cocaine Mitch and Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

The court system has no enforcement mechanism. If the administrative branch wants to, it can tell the courts that it will "take their rulings into consideration" and then promptly ignore them.

Lincoln and FDR both did exactly this to some extent. The supreme court has no army or police force. The only thing that *really* keeps them in check is their need for legitimacy from the public, but it's a trade off between legitimacy and maintaining power. If the math changes in the minds of the US elite, then theyll just drop the decorum.


Just something to keep in mind.
 
G4Y4HK said:
So when is SWAT coming door to door to take those properly registered ARs and "hi caps" beto style? These poor saps should have buried theirs and shut up like the other quarter million AR owners in CT who didn't comply.

View attachment 684378
Click to expand...
Why would anyone bury their guns?

I mean I guess a couple would be acceptable that may make sense.

I mean if you really need to gun you could break it any house in America or target a cruiser. You have to remember the Boston bombers Kill somebody for an extra gun.

The last thing I’ve ever doing is waiting in line unless it’s in hell.

Merge this one with the clown world thread
 
Coyote33 said:
What I meant by that is that they only come with 10 round magazines.
Click to expand...
Lol. Before the SKS was deemed too dangerous entirely and banned, you were only allowed to have 5 rounds in the internal mag in Canada. Gotta block off the other half.
 
Mesatchornug said:
That refers to activities in the past. A person who used to own a banned item, but sold it, would be protected by that principle.

Continuing to own it after the law change (and some warning) would be the alleged crime here. This is why people argue this is a taking: you told me it was legal, now you're saying it's not. The state's position is that you can sell it elsewhere, so it's not a taking.

They'll probably prevail, until AWBs are defeated at SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Until then, I would hope the courts would prohibit "a taking".
 
This sort of battle is significant for anyone living in a blue state.

Places like MA, CT, CA, etc. have steered clear of bans without grandfathering because it is of questionable legality; raises the issue of a "government taking", and the probability of likely suits. If any state gets away with it, it will embolden all the other states to play "catch up".

And if you think the law will protect us, just read the recent RI decision denying the injunction against their law based an interest balancing and the minor impact (WTF???) of being compelled to surrender ones high performance firearms. Some have claimed the judge was stupid, but I disagree. The judge knew the reach of his power; the absolute immunity from any sanction other than being overturned on appeal; and the fact that his ruling would help further what be believes is best social policy. (Jacques summed it up the concept nicely when commenting on a gay rights bill ... "I'll take a win any way I can get it".) The judge may even sincerely believe SCOTUS is wrong, and that it is his moral obligation to ignore it (just as some gun owners feel the right to disobey laws they personally judge to be unconstitutional).

The confiscation/surrender issue is a critical batter that will be won or lost, and will guide blue state legislation.

The opposition will no doubt play the card "This is not confiscation, you just have sell them out of state" ... which raises an interesting issue - if the guns/mags are so evil, why is the state trying to force them into other states?
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The opposition will no doubt play the card "This is not confiscation, you just have sell them out of state" ... which raises an interesting issue - if the guns/mags are so evil, why is the state trying to force them into other states?
Click to expand...
Don't forget the other "It's not confiscation" option in the RI law: You can permanently modify your standard capacity magazines down to 10 rounds max. :(
 
Mesatchornug said:
If the court is under the impression it's not a taking, why would they prohibit it?
Click to expand...
Hey you're the court expert, you tell me. I thought you were saying to just wait long enough, and the court will settle everything. Something about a slapdown or a smackdown, or whatever.

:rolleyes:
 
Mesatchornug said:
I'm not even being negative.

I'm just saying that this court doesn't think they need to intervene before the case is heard.

That's separate from whether the AWB will eventually be upheld.
Click to expand...
The court went out of its way to comment on the benefits and merits of the law being contested.
 

Similar threads

Gov. Youngkin Vetoes Virginia Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
Replies
21
Views
628
rudiewhitebwoy
rudiewhitebwoy
CO Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Legislation Bans 9mm Pistols With Threaded Barrels
Replies
0
Views
107
Reptile
Reptile
Biden Nominee to 7th Circuit Supported Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ But Cannot Define Them
Replies
23
Views
466
HARRYM
H
Watch: Biden Calls For ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Amid Growing Illegal Migrant Crime Crisis
Replies
1
Views
182
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
168
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom