Connecticut Gun Owners Run Down Registration Deadline

A new law means certain firearms and ammunition become illegal beginning Jan. 1

  • Share
  • Read Later
Carlo Allegri / Reuters

A man looks at a shotgun during the East Coast Fine Arms Show in Stamford, Conn., on Jan. 5, 2013

Connecticut gun owners have just two days to register certain types of weapons and ammunition before a new state law makes them illegal beginning Jan. 1.

Gun owners have flooded the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection office in Middletown recently to submit applications for assault-weapons certificates and high-capacity-magazine declaration forms, the Associated Press reports.

A sweeping gun-control law, passed earlier this year following the Sandy Hook Elementary School deadly shooting, widens the definition of assault weapons and bans the sale or purchase of magazines with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League, which is challenging the new law as unconstitutional, has been working to remind gun owners of the looming deadline. The gun-advocate group said many people are unaware of the law or its stipulations. As many as 20,000 weapons may be affected by the new reform.

[AP]

43 comments
grals5763
grals5763

The best thing to do here is ignore the illegal law , the 2nd ammendment  is the real law, no need to review, alter, try to read it differently, like the bible, when the law abiding, tax paying people , who have never broken the law, and pay all of there local stae and more pay checks decide we are now felons over night, hundreds of thousands of us who supplement welfar for the illegal immegrants, than let them come and take them one by one, the Biritish tried that, didn't work so well.................

JohnJaramillo
JohnJaramillo

Wow, assault rifle bans and magazine restrictions did nothing to curb crime in California. I guess people believe that it will work in Conneticut? There is a reason why the Federal Assault Rifle Ban was not renewed, it was worthless.  I will be watching this stuation unfold. The erosion of our rights and freedoms will more than likely continue.

JohnMathews
JohnMathews

Why should gun owners in Connecticut obey a law that violates the Second Amendment?  If these politicians ignore the Constitution I think its perfectly fine to ignore them!

BettyTaylor
BettyTaylor

yet...they obey like good little sheep....we, as a free country, are finished.

JJohnson8
JJohnson8

New York City style confiscation coming soon to CT.. New York City residents have to get a permit to buy a shotgun/rifle. Once they receive the permit, they must register their shotgun/rifle.  Now those gun owners who registered (following the law) are receiving letters to modify their guns to comply with newer gun control laws, remove them from the city, or surrender them to police.

JohnSprinklebumj
JohnSprinklebumj

Sounds logical to me.  Not.  Register firearms and ammo by law-abiding people.  What these miscreants should do is have a registration of all criminals with firearms, and just wait and see just how many show up to register.  The latter method makes at least as much sense as the first.  As a long time gun owner, I would caution people to remember one very simple sequence of events: registration, confiscation, destruction.  This is only paranoia if it is NOT true.  The mistake being made is the perception that if you reduce law-abiding ownership of firearms and ammunition, the public safety will be better.  It is the same type of mentality that created so many gun-free zones, in which most of the recent shootings have occurred.  There seems to be a very small, vocal, often wealthy or outright rich class bent on removing firearms from all citizens, whether they have every committed a crime or not.  This leads to only military and police being armed, and of course, the criminals, along with all these some 20,000 firearm laws that were directed against the latter.  Even the magazine restrictions are ludicrous. A Beretta 9mm comes with a magazine of 15, stock, a Glock 23 with 13 and a Glock 22 with 15.  That is, many firearms today that come from the factory with these capacities are typical, and now being systematically outlawed.  Even the more modern 1911 models come with a magazine of 8, which will not cut it in New York any more.  The real issues are putting perceived public safety over Constitutional rights, common sense and the natural, fundamental notion of self-defense.  I can assure you that trading one for the other is not a very good idea in a constitutional republic.  Sorry, I will just cling to my guns and religion and let the more liberal left and far left (and Marxists) move somewhere else.  This is America, and does not resemble that which I once knew.

12rmp123
12rmp123

I've asked repeatedly for anyone to show me any beneficial result of these laws...they can not.  How about this instead, then.  At least tell me, in practice, how this law is SUPPOSED to work?

ScottLong
ScottLong

the people passing these laws are mentally ill. im sure no criminal who has a gun will register it. the only reason for this is so they can know who has a gun in there house

rickt3
rickt3

Gun control would be great if we could even things up a bit and applied them to everyone, including members of our police state.    The cops in England aren't allowed to carry guns.  Why should ours.   Police only report and create crimes.  I know they can arrive within minutes after you are attacked, but that doesn't prevent the crime.   Guns aren't needed to write police reports.

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

The comments appearing below, we've heard it all before, yet there are more and more shootings. The fact is countries with tougher gun control laws have far fewer shooting incidents. You can't stop everyone and someone that determined will probably find a way to get hold of a gun, but why do nothing and make it easy for them? There's a good chance when access to these weapons is not easy the shooter will reconsider, or at least be forced to use something less lethal. It's not about making one feel better about doing something, it's using common sense, to stop as many as possible, rather than doing nothing but arming everyone to the teeth.

Duckworks
Duckworks

I'm really curious as to what this is supposed to accomplish. Up in Canada, we just got rid of a long-gun registry (including semiautos), after nearly $2B was blown on it, with zero public safety results. And one doesn't need a gun license to get ahold of a gun, any more than one needs an Rx to score some narcotics. If Adam Lanza, or some other wackjob, wants to commit an armed atrocity, or merely rob a store, he'll find a source of firearms. And the media, pundits, and legislators are not asking another crucial question: why, back in the day when the Gun Control Act and other such legislation never existed, were school and workplace shootings unheard of?

11B_INF_Retired
11B_INF_Retired

@rickt3 

In my State I am told that you only need ten rounds magazine to use in defending yourself, family, or home.... So why are corrupt politicians, Law Enforcement, and criminals still using their high capacity magazines?  I should be almost allowed to carry the same weapons that they carry folks.

squelchuk
squelchuk

@rickt3We have armed police here in the UK. I think you mean that the 'beat' police - the police you see out and about every day, aren't normally armed.  Which, I think, is a good thing.

But we don't have the number of guns that there are in the US, legal or otherwise, and we don't have anything like the amount of gun crime that y'all have to put up with - in actual number or per capita.  It would be interesting to see what the statistics are for UK:US crimes per registered weapon, but I reckon the UK will still be much lower.

Taking that into account however, it would be unrealistic to expect the US police to patrol on a daily basis without weapons, considering how much more likely they are to face them on a day to day basis.


I don't believe for a second the NRA bovine excrement arguments that gun crime would go down if more people had guns.  But I do think it makes sense for trained police officers to carry firearms because of the risks associated with the job they do.  It would make more sense to do something about the number of guns in the US, but until people stop ignoring the parts of the second amendment that affect them, that isn't going to happen.

To quote, or paraphrase, The West Wing, "Some people like guns.... I'm one of them."  I've been clay pigeon shooting, I learned how to fire .22 and .303 rifles when I was at school.  But I was shocked as hell when I was looking at stuff in my American ex-boyfriend's wallet and saw that he had a concealed handgun licence in Texas.  But I can see why any sane person would want an assault rifle or large capacity magazines unless they were intending to use them.  In which case I'd question their sanity and then their capacity to own a gun safely.  But that's just me.

WilliamDTipton
WilliamDTipton

@SmoothEdward1

"but why do nothing and make it easy for them"

==============================

Thats pretty funny given that there are ten thousand laws on the books already that felons IGNORE.

You people CANNOT be so daft as to actually believe that they'll obey the next one passed.

ShawnEng
ShawnEng

@SmoothEdward1 So if you were in charge, would you use the registry to order gun owners to surrender their firearms?

tim1
tim1

@SmoothEdward1 

More "shootings" because more teenage boys are given psychotropic drugs.  That is the cause so why aren't the drugs banned instead of our liberties?

11B_INF_Retired
11B_INF_Retired

@SmoothEdward1  

?!! Care to explain Mexico?  UK overall violent crime rate is the highest in Western Europe. Australia gun ban have escalated home invasions, muggings, burglary, and armed robbery.  Japan?!!  Well they have their gangs and Yakuza to deal with... Yeah gun control works real peachy my ignorant friend. 

murph223
murph223

@SmoothEdward1  - Oh..."there's a good chance...blah..blah..blah"...."why do nothing"...."common sense"...."rather than doing nothing".  Yeah...we've heard all these comments before too.  And, there are not more and more shootings. Try looking at some facts, gun violence and murder in this country is way down compared to past decades - including mass shootings. They seem more prevalent in today's 24 hour news cycle, online, instant, on demand, world but it's not true. This gun registry will accomplish nothing but continue to erode our Constitutional rights. You are aware of the 2nd Amendment, right? Do you think it matters to a criminal or a suicidal whack-job whether or not a gun is "registered"? Would it have stopped Adam Lanza? This only makes it more difficult for the law abiding citizen. But worse, now the gov't has a registry. "There's a good chance...blah..blah...blah"? There's a greater chance the next time a particular firearm is used in more than one or two crimes/murders, they will come looking for ALL of the owners of said firearm and confiscate from law abiding citizens - mark my words! Then, people like you will say, "well, I didn't know they would do that" or "they shouldn't do that" or "that's not fair" or "I didn't understand". Too late!  So-called "gun control" is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to own cars! 


DavidBell
DavidBell

@Duckworks It makes liberals feel like they are accomplishing something and, for them, it's all about feeling good.  They seem not to have noticed that all of the mass shootings were committed by, as you put it, wackjobs, who legally obtained the weapons.  But, taking action against mental illness would not make them feel good.

12rmp123
12rmp123

@11B_INF_Retired@rickt3 Lucky you, 11B.  In my state, we already had a limit of ten.  It did nothing.  The 'common sense' solution, then?  Cut it down to seven.


But here's the best part.  Ten round magazines are still legal to own and use, but they BECOME illegal if they hold more than seven rounds.  So they're not even restricting ownership anymore...the law says you just can't use them.  Potential criminals actually have legal access to ten round magazines, but we're counting on them, on the honor system, to not load them fully.

WilliamDTipton
WilliamDTipton

@squelchuk @rickt3  

"I don't believe for a second the NRA bovine excrement arguments that gun crime would go down if more people had guns. "

=============================

Actually sweetheart it doesnt really matter what YOU believe....OUR FBI crime statistics show DECREASING violent crime since 1992....and during those 22 years gun numbers have gone UP....and concealed carry numbers have increased exponentially.

So the ONLY response you can offer here, which is entirely irrelevant given the REALITY that more guns has = less crime, is one of 'causality'....which again is irrelevant because the REALITY is that crime is DOWN while guns and gunpackers is UP.

Deal with reality, honey.

What you WANT to believe doesnt really matter when set side by side with the REAL world, now does it.


"

12rmp123
12rmp123

@squelchuk@rickt3 There is higher gun crime in the US, by far, because there are more guns here.  Seems like an obvious fix, right?


Except that there is far more violent crime in the UK than in the US.  Almost quadruple.  So which point is relevant?  To answer that, ask yourself this:


Would you rather have 100,000 crimes per year, with 50,000 of them done using a gun...or 350,000 crimes per year, and only 500 of them using a gun? 

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

@WilliamDTipton @SmoothEdward1 The fact of the matter is existing gun laws have stopped some people from acquiring guns who shouldn't have them. You make the argument about felons because it's the easiest one to make. Felons are not the only people who shouldn't have access to guns. If you're so concerned about felons how closing the the gun show loopholes where a felon can walk right in and get one. 


Don't call me "sonny" either. You don't have to be a jerk about this. 


SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

Who said anything about ordering gun owners to surrender all firearms? Not me.

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

Psychotropic drugs don't cause shootings. The illness combined with the easy access to weapons is what causes the shootings. The drugs manage mental illness, and are not always 100% effective, or taken as prescribed. The fact mental illness exists and is not always identified until it is too late means we should have laws that consider the possibility, not expect everyone to walk around armed.

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

The UK includes many things as violent crimes that we don't. They rarely have school shootings and the carnage we have here on a regular basis. Gun deaths are minuscule compared to here. You folks believe that everyone who wants a more sensible gun policy that reduces the most destructive weapons, not needed for hunting, and things like waiting periods at gun shows, should have to suck it, or walk around armed, just so you can give the government your middle finger. Guns are no different than any other dangerous item, and should be regulated with the same care. I certainly respect Second Amenment rights, and rights of sportsman. But to say that any restrictions are one step away from confiscation of all guns is just paranoid, crazy, and causing a great number of preventable death.

wandmdave
wandmdave

@DavidBell @Duckworks More likely its that doing anything to help with mental health issues would probably incur even more strident opposition than gun control laws do.  Are any Republicans going to support some sort of mandatory mental health check up or even just having government pay for a voluntary one; how about helping pay for treatment for those who are ill or keeping a database of the mentally ill to check against when purchasing dangerous tools or substances; how about confiscating guns from mentally ill individuals?  Anything requiring government support to go to anyone other than the rich or the military is automatically out and the rest would be just as stridently opposed as blanket gun control by privacy groups and/or the NRA.

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

@DavidBell @Duckworks We are taking action against mental illness, the mental illness of thinking you need to own one of these dangerous and unnecessary things.

WilliamDTipton
WilliamDTipton

@SmoothEdward1

Sorry but its the chicken/egg thing.

It cannot be proven EITHER way that the shooting was either caused by the drugs...or by the underlying mental condition the drug was treating.

Ive known people who took prozac who later started hearing voices AFTER getting on the drug. It cannot be proven that it would have still happened without the drug....some of these people were on the drug for VERY mild cases of anxiety, not for hearing things that werent there.

WilliamDTipton
WilliamDTipton

@SmoothEdward1  

"But to say that any restrictions are one step away from confiscation of all guns is just paranoid"

========================

Really?

The UK and Australia both prove you wrong, sonny. BOTH registered and BOTH then confiscated. Just like NY is currently doing.

How many countries now dont allow citizens to own guns?

Just because YOU are blind doesnt mean WE are.

DavidBell
DavidBell

@WilliamDTipton @DavidBell  I never mentioned paranoia, so I don't know what you're talking about.    CT's new gun law, as I understand it, is asking people to register previously-owned guns that have now become illegal under a new law.  The federal government, for some time, has been trying to develop a national registry of gun owners.   For what purpose, I don't know.   Lawful gun owners should not be harassed.   Obama and Holder have both made it clear that they want to ban many types of guns, and know who owns the others.


I guess it's kind of like the NSA tracking all my phone calls and emails.   Under the 4th Amendment, I am supposed to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.   Unless there is probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime, they have no right to my phone calls, emails, or guns.   Btw, I don't own a gun, but I respect the rights of others who legally own them.

WilliamDTipton
WilliamDTipton

@DavidBell

you mean like 'paranoia' such as in CT right now where people are being told to turn their guns in AFTER the law said register them?

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

You call logic and evidence "peddling papers." You gun loonies indulge in fantasies of battling your own government, a government that has enough firepower to annihilate you 1,000 times over. Nutjobs.

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1

@DavidBell NRA, once a legitimate gun-safety organization, is now run by an assortment of gun manufacturers, who have ginned up a phony Second Amendment hysteria, and encourages paranoid conspiracy plots of the government toward its citizens, all in the name of increased profits. Your legitimate rights to own a gun are not superior to my right to stay alive. You're all in denial. The lax attitudes toward gun ownership in this country have led to carnage. We can have better regulation without completely removing the right for gun ownership.

DavidBell
DavidBell

@wandmdave The things you mention are already in the law.   Mentally ill people are prohibited from owning guns.   However, the data bases used by the police for gun checks do not contain mental health information because federal privacy laws prevent their release.   Obamacare has mental health coverage as a mandatory element of all insurance policies.  The NRA does not oppose keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.   It supports the rights of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners.


BTW, I do not own a gun.

liammcgiveney
liammcgiveney

@SmoothEdward1 @DavidBell @Duckworks    Mental illness can be defined as believing gun control can work and that the criminals will cooperate with the law and that "gun free zones" are safe.  
"We the People" control the government which can define war and peace for the entire world by proxy we can be trusted with firearms.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,106 other followers