Connecticut gun registration

More BS, for instance, illegal guns in Cook County were mostly purchased in Illinois.

 

Stats, please.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html
http://www.storyleak.com/obama-executive-fiat-backdoor-gun-confiscation/
registration leads to confiscation.......and more created more criminals, perhaps as many as 300,000, but at least 20,000 new criminals. You're so proud of that....
http://rt.com/usa/connecticut-gun-law-registration-791/

 

Can you provide a link that can give me some details on this?

- - - Updated - - -

Your wrong; re-read what you said to me in your original post.

 

you have to be charged with a crime and have your rights violated for it to go to court
you cant contest your rights have been violated till they actually have

 

People up to the point this law was passed were allowed to have this rifle but they had to be registered with the State.

California Code.

30720. (a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in
possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before
January 1, 2000:
(1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant
to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281.
(2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant
to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the
Statutes of 1989.
(3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285,
as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994.
(b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest
or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph
(1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies
with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it
read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as
subsequently amended.
(c) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this
section shall be in a manner prescribed by the department.

 

I just gave you the sources. (He'll only back up what we've been saying all along.)
You don't need stats to read those, just basic non-intrerpretive English.

 

There you go, putting words into people's mouths. Point out to me where I said those words.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing I can do about it; it'll have to be handled in the courts or change the laws.

 

So, are we for States making their own laws or is it just when we agree with those laws?

 

I'll read up on it; probably take me a day or so before I can comment on this further.

 

That's amazing. Why do they single out the SKS? I have one and shoot it often. One of my favorites, but certainly not the 'scariest' rifle.

 

no, the total implication of your posts tend towards the EVIL gun owners and their EVIL guns. Your's may be such a stance that requires total obedience to the State or else, and since you're not one to be disobedient, those other guys get what they deserve. (They'll go to prison because they're EVIL)
..and you're so self-righteous about how you love the law, the Great Protector. Tell me, why should anyone have to tell anyone else they have a gun? or where it is? Or how many they have?
the only answer is to eventually confiscate it.
Look to Australia.
It is a private matter.

 

No that's your interpretation, not mine. Strike one.

 

Oh, and don't forget New Orleans during Katrina.

 

you have lost every argument with me. Wanna know why? Cuz we still got 'em.
You're OUT!!

 

http://www.afn.org/~govern/ramble/getguns.html

 

Anyone from CA got an SKS they want to sell? I have a friend with an FFL license so shipping it to the free State of TN won't be an issue

 

Strike Two.

 

hurry up and say strike three............we are all so awaiting with breath abated.............maybe that'll be when you abandon this thread?

 

Well gents, we need to keep in mind that his little issue is a bigger deal than the Ukraine. Events in Conn. could well push this country to civil strife, or worse.

 

I think most states will resist the laws that Connecticut has in place, but I have been wrong before.

 

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/ct-gu...gov-take-our-guns-or-repeal-registration-law/

You really need to read the rest of the story.

 

Things are not going well here. The latest thing I can find is that the law has been appealed, and US District Judge Alfred V. Covello has upheld the law. Good transcript and commentary here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/17775-appeal-filed-in-court-decision-upholding-connecticut-s-gun-ban
IMO, his opinion contains enough truth stretching and personal interpretation to be challenged and (we hope) overturned by SCOTUS. For example, he "finds" that AR-15 and M4 styled firearms are not mainstream, along with what we know to be the STANDARD 30 round magazines for them.
Not mainstream? I daresay that there are probably more AR style rifles in America right now than Ruger 10/.22's, of which just under 6 million have been made. Never mind that Queerlyfornia now calls the 10/.22 an "assault rifle" as well.
We need to stop these people, before they bring this country to armed conflict.

 

The AR-15 style rifle is the most popular rifle in America, but of course, not mainstream. LOL

 

Excellent question I have tried to pose to others several times.

In my experience virtually every controversial issue is related to this.

Whenever there is ANY tragedy from terrorist attacks to a kid swallowing a loose piece of hardware from a toy the answer seems to be GOVERNMENT PROTECT US.

What people forget is government can only do one thing and that is pass more laws. So many laws now that they have to be selectively enforced meaning sometimes they bother to enforce them and sometimes they do not. Often this means enforcing them when they need any excuse to go after someone that they do not like.

Tax laws, environmental laws, business laws, traffic laws, criminal laws you name it the list keeps growing. Then there are de-facto laws known as regulations. Regulations are not passed in the manner laws are passed but simply written and imposed arbitrarily by an appointed beauracrat. But in a de- facto sense they are laws. Break them and you get penalized. Refuse to cooperate and you go to prison.

Funny how no laws ever seem to be repealed. We read about ancient ridiculous laws passed a long time ago which are still on the books and no one can identify any logic or reason in them. Such as a law in a town near me which states a single woman may not disrobe in a room where a framed photograph of a man is displayed. Some such laws are not so old. In California a law from the 1960s states that a person may not fire a gun at an animal, with the exception of whales, from a moving automobile.

I think we could put a moratorium on any and all new laws for the next 50 years and society would be just fine. I also think we could repeal 90% of the laws we have and we would be just fine. The exception I think would be laws which restrict government. One way of looking at the constitution and bill of rights is that they are laws restricting GOVERNMENT they specifically state what government may and may not do. ALl other laws restrict people or worse tell people what they MUST do.

We do not need laws telling us what to do such as buy insurance even if disguised as a tax. We only need laws forbidding certian behaviors such as murder rape etc. We also do not need redundant laws such as hate crime laws, domestic violence laws etc. Such laws make nothing illegal since the actions were already illegal to begin with. Abusing and assaulting people ( even ones spouse ) was always illegal as was hatefully murdeering someone because of some racial or ethnic difference. Such redundant laws serve no purpose accomplish nothing good but they do have negative unintended consequences.

If existing laws which forbid something are not working it is most often because they are not being enforced. It's lunacy to solve such a problem by passing more laws. It would make more sense to punish those who are failing to enforce said laws by firing them. People would think it is nuts but I have seen it done quite effectivly. What I refer to is a sizable community simply disbanding and doing away with it's police department for several years and then re-constituting a new one. If they do not work right get rid of them and start over. Ultimately they need us more than we need them.

Obviously the problem with the prison system is the war on drugs. The controversy rages on but it is clear the government has lost and it is time to start trying de- criminalization. In fact not only have they lost the war on drugs but people here within our borders have been killed by our own government and not all of them were drug criminals. What this means is that the war on drugs is actually a war which the government is waging on it's own people which is intolerable.

The best part of your question is when did this all start and where did we go wrong? I don't know maybe if we could find the answer we could start reversing this trend

 

Predictable answer but I do not believe it is accurate.

The elected officials pass the laws not the majority of people. The officials may be elected by the majority but never on an election platform of " I will write and pass more laws "

Most laws seem to be a surprise to people who have no idea where the laws came from, when they were passed, or who wrote them.

By the time it impacts you it is too late and you never saw it coming.