I think you are wrong. Unless each weapon was registered to a specific owner and previously required notification of ownership changes, the only way to find these weapons is a 4473 search of the original purchasers, which would require Federal assistance and IMHO, should be illegal. All the owner has to say is that he has disposed of the weapon(s) and no longer owns them.

They will offer several amnesty periods and make dire threats, much as the Canadian government did. Our own government did this with Class 3 items.

In the end, most owners will choose not to register them, as this is clearly an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. The owners problem will be that the weapon will only be secure from legal attention as long as it is kept out of sight. No more range days, gun shows, etc. Even driving around in the car with it will be risky. And disgruntled spouses and ex-spouses have a new, very heavy weapon of their own.

But the state has now created, overnight, tens of thousands of well-armed felons.

TR

TR, Better to have and not need than to need and not have. If you read the full story you will see they are amazed that there would be civil disobedience and even claimed ignorance on behalf of the gun owners not knowing the law was passed. Is that arrogance or what?

Connecticut gun owners opinion on the law:
"We can do whatever we want."

Turnabout is fair play...

Isn't that what the politician @ 1600 Penn. Ave pretty much said too? Now how does that shoe feel on the other foot pols?

The Hartford Courant editorial page is calling for aggressive enforcement of the recently passed CT registration requirement.

NY and CT represent the current front line on an undeniable assault on otherwise lawful firearm ownership.

<snip>

"And have they considered what having their bluff called will do to produce an epiphany, and embolden gun owners everywhere, when it suddenly becomes clear to all who holds the true power in this country if they would only first realize and then exercise it?"

<snip>


Courant demands on gun enforcement present dilemma for state
February 15, 2014
David Codrea
Gun Rights Examiner

Decrying estimates that “scores of thousands of Connecticutresidents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31,” The Hartford Courantpublished an editorial Fridaydeclaring “State Can't Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook.

Aware that “willful noncompliance ... is doubtless a major issue,” The Courant floated the wishful thinking “that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

“But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law,” The Courant concluded, calling on the state to use the “background check database” to identify who has not obeyed, and to go and get them.

"If ever there was proof that citizen disarmament demanders are lying when they scoff at legitimate fears that background checks providing a registration capability, this is it. And if ever there was further corroboration that they intend using that registration to enable confiscation, The Courant just removed all doubt."

“If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences,” they pronounce.

Perhaps The Courant's editors and those they’re egging on would do well to also consider consequences those who want to enforce the law should be prepared to face, as Mike Vanderboegh explained in an open letter to the Connecticut State Police posted this morning on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog.

Citing a Feb. 10 article in which The Courant estimated “as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals -- perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000,” Vanderboegh went on to note “CSP currently has around 1,248 troopers.”

Simply as a matter of resources and logistics, the state will be hard-pressed to allocate the manpower, budget, jail facilities and court case load capabilities to do more than scratch the surface to try to frighten everyone by making examples of a few. If The Courant is going to demand they apply those resources to all, perhaps the editors would flesh out what compliance with their call to action consists of, starting with realistic costs to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate every noncompliant gun owner, the number of total hours and dedicated personnel needed to execute that plan, how many decades it will take to accomplish, how many businesses will be disrupted by losing valuable employees, how much tax revenue the state will lose by taking productive taxpayers out of circulation and turning them into dependents, how many families will be forced into dependency to further burden assistance rolls, and what violent criminals who prey on victims are going to be doing while the state dedicates all those resources to destroying all those principled citizens their edicts turned into overnight “felons.”

Logistical considerations aside, have The Courant editors got an estimate for how many heretofore law-abiding gun owners the state will need to actually kill before their demands can be met? And that’s all assuming those defying the edict on principle are willing to allow a force they so demonstrably outnumber to destroy their lives. When faced with utter financial ruin, the effects of punishment extracted on themselves and their families, the lifetime criminal record, the lifetime ban on a right that supposedly “shall not be infringed,” and the prospects of being locked up for years with psychotic and dangerous violent criminal scum in institutions where terrifying brutality, prison rape, head-busting guards and total loss of personal freedom are all daily realities, it’s not unreasonable to ask why would anyone go gentle into that good night.

Well, they could just surrender and save themselves all that, some will no doubt answer.

True, and some no doubt will. But then, what good would the Second Amendment be if Americans just surrendered their guns when ordered to? The lesson of Captain Parker is not lost on some.

Has The Courant got a plan for when a percentage of Connecticut gun owners -- and it needn’t be more than, say three percent -- meets the order to surrender or be destroyed with defiance? Have they, along with Gov. Malloy and his enforcer Mike Lawlor, considered what their next move will be when that determined minority answers back that the state is going to need to do things the hard way?

And have they considered what having their bluff called will do to produce an epiphany, and embolden gun owners everywhere, when it suddenly becomes clear to all who holds the true power in this country if they would only first realize and then exercise it?

<snip>

http://www.examiner.com/article/cour...alerts_article

Not that it matters to them, but wouldn't it be illegal to use the background database to do that kind of search? Before everyone says it, I know that it doesn't matter, and that they wouldn't hesitate to do it legal or otherwise, I'm just curious.

My understanding is that background check info is required by law to be destroyed - but 4473's must be kept for years.

Gun control zealots would never infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

And the IRS would never target conservative groups.

And if you want to disobey the Constitution of the United States you should be prepared to face the consequences. :munchin

In which state will it begin???




Gun Registration: Break the law, pay the price
February 14, 2014|Editorial, The Hartford Courant

Connecticut has a gun problem.

It's estimated that perhaps scores of thousands of Connecticut residents failed to register their military-style assault weapons with state police by Dec. 31.

That's the deadline imposed by a tough bipartisan gun-safety law passed by the legislature last year in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Widespread noncompliance with this major element of a law that was seen as a speedy and hopefully effective response by Connecticut to mass shootings such as the one at Sandy Hook creates a headache for the state.

The dimensions of the unregistered guns problem were outlined in a Tuesday column by The Courant's Dan Haar.

Guns defined in state law as assault weapons can no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut. Such guns already held can be legally possessed if registered. But owning an unregistered assault weapon is a Class D felony. Felonies cannot go unenforced.

First, however, the registration period should be reopened. It should be accompanied by a public information campaign.

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it's possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-...ssault-weapons

Hopefully, it will begin in Arizona.

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/sta...a4bcf887a.html
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1294p.pdf

Imagine the influx of patriots into Connecticut to help those patriots resist. Those who violate the Constitution should be prepared to face the consequences.

Not all that far from Lexington and Concord. Just saying...

Pat

Some unfortunate citizens (safe targets) might be made example of early. These unfortunate folks may need (among other things) legal help and legal defense fund raising.

If the state of CT continues down this path -- then escalation is on them.

The Hartford Courant does not realize the flames that they are fanning.

The POTUS has already set a precedent on obeying the letter of the law, with his disregard for implementing certain aspects of the Affordable Health Care Act as it was written. What is there two sets of rules out there?