Enforce the unconstitutional Law or Repeal it! Line in the Sand is Drawn in CT.

[golocx4]

Connecticut Carry - Press Releases

If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence.

“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to ****, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” - Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta

If officials of the State of Connecticut opt to get ‘froggy’ (jumping on citizens) and start to enforce the new laws (as officials have claimed a desire to do), Connecticut Carry stands ready to do whatever it takes and whatever it can do to represent and defend anyone impacted by the State’s violence.

“As citizens of Connecticut, we have a right to bear arms. With that right comes responsibility. The responsibility to stand in defense of ourselves and our fellow citizens is paramount.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

 

[ezkl2230]

A report appearing yesterday says that more than 60% of law enforcement officers haven't registered their own weapons! I'll see if I can find the link.

 

[golddigger14s]

A report appearing yesterday says that more than 60% of law enforcement officers haven't registered their own weapons! I'll see if I can find the link.

That was a satire article, not real.

 

[nogods]

Why doesn't Connecticut Carry start a lawsuit challenging the law? Why wait until someone is put at risk?

 

[Daugherty16]

Review the fate of Shew v. Malloy etal, US District Court, District of CT. The judge made a number of interesting comments when he tossed the case on the state's motion for summary judgment. he took bits and pieces of the Heller decision and knitted them together into his own self-serving decision. Basically, he used an unusual form of intermediate scrutiny on a constitutional right, deeming it to be burdened by the law, deeming the banned firearms - specifically pistols using HC mags and AR-15s - to be in common use, then said it was okay because the law doesn't totally prevent people from buying a gun. his argument would have supported a ban on everything but single-shot muzzle loading antiques (a la Ed Meyer). He claimed that because people had a chance to register their previously purchased banned guns, then that was okay too. No comments about the law creating either through non compliance, ignorance or slow mail - thousands of felons overnight.
see the decision at: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Shew-v.-Malloy_Ruling-on-the-Plaintiffs-Motions-for-Preliminary-Injunction-and-the-Parties-Cross-Motions-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf

 

[huntindogg 0701]

Connecticut Carry - Press Releases

the governor and the head of the state police ain't got the balls because they know once they start enforcing this ******** civil war will start.:neo::big_boss: