TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11

Oldgringo wrote:They're yankees. They voted 'em in, let them vote 'em out.
Let this be a reminder to us, BTW.

I have a little more compassion for the voters there. I doubt seriously if any of the politicians in CT campaigned on a platform of promoting a gun ban. Once they are in office, as here in Texas, it sometimes takes blasting powder to extract them. I was one of a group who worked tirelessly to oust one particular Texas House member from Tarrant County. At the 11th hour in that race, an appalling number of her colleagues who were supposedly supporting our protest point of view were making robo calls for her. There was almost no time for us to thwart that effort. Politicians who said that they supported us were suddenly stabbing us in the back - imagine that. Luckily, we prevailed and she lost. I suspect that CT politics are no different. Incumbency is a powerful ally. Like police and doctors, politicians close ranks quickly.

chasfm11

Excaliber wrote:
I've lived in CT, and there are a whole lot of concealed carry license holders.

There's also no way to tell who is not in compliance from outside someone's house because the gun could have been transported out of state before the ban took effect.

What they've got is a whole bunch of unhappy people who can't let the guns they own be seen by anyone lest they be imprisoned.

According to this.
http://www.inquisitr.com/444177/conceal ... te-report/ There were a 176,00 concealed carry licenses at at time when Texas had 524,000. My point in saying that there were "not many" was that 176K on the base of 3.5M population of CT in 2013 is not enough to have much political clout.
I agree that some of the guns could have been taken out of State before the ban took effect but, as here, there are activists who were less likely to have done that than some of the others. I suspect that the activists would be the first targets. It remains to be seen whether a CT judge would see enough PC in someone once owning a banned firearm to not registering it during the appropriate period to allow a search for it. If the expectations are only half right (500K banned items versus less than 50K registrations), the authorities are going to have to start somewhere. As was suggested by another posters, I would expect the authorities to take advantage all available data sources before doing anything.

I'm not sure of the value of any weapon that you can never expose lest you be arrested. I'm guessing that, at some point, someone is going to get one of them out and then will find out what happens from there.

chasfm11

VMI77 wrote: I guess we're talking about different incidents, since in the incident I'm talking about two brothers were alleged to have killed THREE people with a bomb and a police officer in a robbery. The searches were entirely illegal as they not only had no warrants, they had zero probable cause and not even a reasonable suspicion that the criminal they were looking for was in any of the homes they forcibly removed residents from and searched....COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. They didn't even try to use a search dog, which I believe demonstrates that the whole exercise was a test and more about conditioning than finding a criminal. The reaction of the authorities was hysterical, damaging and costly to small business, had no basis or justification in law, and was completely ineffective, producing nothing but further erosion of our Constitutional rights and economic losses. They can't even claim it was justified by the results or that it saved a single person from harm. And in fact, their earlier botched arrest is why they were searching in the first place.

I fully expect they would have dragged me out and administered a beating. If everyone had taken a beating in defense of their rights and the law they might have slowed our descent into official lawlessness, but their passivity in relinquishing their rights out of fear has instead accelerated our descent, and this tactic will no doubt be used again, and again, until it becomes commonplace.

So many of our recent terrorist incidents have been handled by ordinary citizens. It speaks volumes to me that the combined LE forces of local, State and Federal levels who were involved thought so little of the residents that they wouldn't solicit their help rather than suspecting them all of being co-conspirators. In the end it was one of those citizens who did what LE didn't

http://abcnews.go.com/US/watertown-hero ... d=19004124

It remains to be seen what will happen with this situation and whether citizens will cooperate with police or not.

chasfm11

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
And they would have. They were actively searching for terrorists who had gunned down a cop and just murdered dozens of people.

Those events didn't obsolete the Constitution. Some of my teachers in NM believed in mass punishments if they could not identify the culprits when problems happened, too, but I hope that we as a society don't accept the same kinds of rules.

chasfm11

VMI77 wrote: I'm not sure about the political calculus on that one. Some antis would no doubt applaud it, but if those raids end up killing someone, especially an innocent family member, the more rational people may consider the death penalty for having an unregistered gun a little harsh. I think they might have to throw something else into the mix to tarnish up their targets....just guessing, but the ole' standby seems to be "drugs." Anyway, unless they change the law and grant amnesty, those who didn't register can't register now without going to jail, so there there will be absolutely no incentive for people who hadn't registered to check into a jail cell with a confession.

In some neighborhoods in NE States, guns are as hated as drugs. There is also a general feeling that those in authority must be complied with. The unregistered gun owners obviously and clearly did not comply. Killing one of them during a raid, I agree, would bring on a whole additional set of circumstances but I suspect that the first few arrests will be engineered so that doesn't occur. It is a fairly simple matter to determine that someone is likely to have an un-registered now illegal weapon or component and to simply take them down on the street or at their place of work. Very few people have CC permits in CT so any firearm resistance to such an arrest would definitely be illegal and would work in the favor of the authorities, not the rebellious gun owner.

I said that it was going to be interesting. I truly believe that. It is definitely a standoff between the lawmakers and the unrepentant gun owners. It will be very difficult to come out of this with any sort of a good result. The real question is going to be - how bad does it get. I cannot imagine a capitulation by the CT lawmakers but that is possible. It is just not very likely.

I'll add that I lived in NJ and worked periodically in Southbury, CT. I got a chance to talk to some of the residents during the course of my travel there over many years. Hartford is very much like Boston. The outer areas are a little less so.

chasfm11

VMI77 wrote: Even Connecticut hasn't yet devolved enough for house to house searches for gun confiscation. Even the antis would be screaming because that kind of search would be tearing apart the homes of everyone not just the "gun nuts." I think once that point is reached most people aren't going to have much to lose and that's going to make house to house searches very dangerous for everyone involved.

A few years ago, I might have completely agreed with you. But then the atrocities committed by the TSA have occurred and the public has pretty much yawned. I still don't think that the house to house searches, on a totally random basis, would occur. As you point out, that is likely to affect individuals who don't have firearms at all and would be likely met with strong resistance. But I do expect arrests and would not be surprised if some of those are conducted by SWAT. More than a few of the "good people of CT" will applaud if it does.

chasfm11

n5wd wrote:
chasfm11 wrote: ...Of course, to find the now illegal weapons, the State is going to have to figure out where to look. A house to house search is probably not an option. Then again, that worked and was tolerated by the citizens of nearby Boston during the aftermath of the marathon bombings. Perhaps the citizens of CT are less inclined to do so.
Different situation entirely. Had the Boston bombing happened in, say, Fort Worth (about the same size, and much the opposite politically), you'd probably find the citizens of FW cooperating with the police, as well. But, once the fugitive was found, you don't think the Boston'ers would let the po-po just waltz through their house then, do you?

I figure the citizens of Connecticut would welcome a house-to-house search about as much as the folks in San Anotnio would assist "migra" (Customs/Border Patrol) looking through their homes and neighborhoods.

The mindset in Boston and much of the rest of the NE is far different than Fort Worth or even much more Liberal San Antonio. Honestly, I think that a house to house type search is that last thing that the CT politicians might try but I do expect some arrests for non-compliance before this is over. We'll see if they do that. I was surprised by the estimates of 1M guns and magazines affected. I suspect that the politicians in CT might get some "help" from D.C and NY. Both of them would rather see this battle fought in CT, I believe. Like the situation with the political recalls in CO, there is much more at stake than one State.

chasfm11

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote:good for them, they can't imprison everybody....at least not yet....

But the next step might be a few high profile arrests. That will be the real test of the resolve of the non-compliant citizens. Of course, to find the now illegal weapons, the State is going to have to figure out where to look. A house to house search is probably not an option. Then again, that worked and was tolerated by the citizens of nearby Boston during the aftermath of the marathon bombings. Perhaps the citizens of CT are less inclined to do so. Wasn't it CT that fought back against the governor over the Capitol Christmas tree?

This could get really interesting.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 8 matches

Re: Connecticut gun owners not registering...perhaps 95% of

Re: Connecticut gun owners not registering...perhaps 95% of

Re: Connecticut gun owners not registering...perhaps 95% of

Re: Connecticut gun owners not registering...perhaps 95% of

Re: Connecticut gun owners not registering...perhaps 95% of

Re: Connecticut gun owners not registering...perhaps 95% of

Re: Connecticut gun owners not registering...perhaps 95% of

Re: Connecticut gun owners not registering...perhaps 95% of