First Step: Gun Confiscation Letters Go Out In Connecticut...

[BluesStringer]

This thread has zero to do with Zero, and zero to do with the 2012 elections where a handful of people on this forum said they wouldn't vote for Rombama. Not one single federal politician had a thing to do with passing the law that is authorizing CT State Police to start confiscating guns. That law was voted in by the state legislature just a few short weeks after Sandy Hook. If Ted Nugent himself were President, he could not have stopped the law from passing in CT, nor could he have stopped its implementation.

No conservative voter who didn't vote in CT had a thing to do with Obamney winning there. It's a blue state. No number of votes against Obamney was going to change that.

No conservative voter who didn't vote in Alabama had a thing to do with Rombama winning there. It's a red state. No slightly higher or slightly lower number of conservative votes was going to change that.

Good grief. Some BS never changes. Two year old sour grapes that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread is pathetic.

Blues

 

[Kramer1113]

FOX news tonight Kelly file will attempt to address this issue. IMHO this is something we should watch if we are able to.

Hows that Blues?

 

[Bill Amsden]

This thread has zero to do with Zero, and zero to do with the 2012 elections where a handful of people on this forum said they wouldn't vote for Rombama. Not one single federal politician had a thing to do with passing the law that is authorizing CT State Police to start confiscating guns. That law was voted in by the state legislature just a few short weeks after Sandy Hook. If Ted Nugent himself were President, he could not have stopped the law from passing in CT, nor could he have stopped its implementation.

No conservative voter who didn't vote in CT had a thing to do with Obamney winning there. It's a blue state. No number of votes against Obamney was going to change that.

No conservative voter who didn't vote in Alabama had a thing to do with Rombama winning there. It's a red state. No slightly higher or slightly lower number of conservative votes was going to change that.

Good grief. Some BS never changes. Two year old sour grapes that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread is pathetic.

Blues

Blues is right!!!!! I have read and have heard comments over the past couple of days about class action law suits, future elections etc. all this takes time and quite honestly I think is BS. The government can NOW change our laws and our way of life with a stroke of a GD pen without public/voter approval. What have we done? Yes we....as a society, what have we done? Connecticut IMHO as well as the rest of the USA is sitting on a powder keg, most of us know this, I'm damn sure the feds and Connecticut politicians know this as well as does the Connecticut Highway Patrol. Sure they sent out the letters, knowing full well that they had NO FRIGGIN way of backing it up and if they did? that remains to be seen. I suspect that Connecticut authorities are waiting for direction or support from Washington which in itself is not a good sign. Convenient that Connecticut was the experiment for this, so they can test the reactions of the people. Perhaps minimal or no conflict, We'll see. I for one am going watch this closely.

 

[Ringo]

Convenient that Connecticut was the experiment for this, so they can test the reactions of the people. I for one am going watch this closely.

Considering that the American government is "Of the people, By the people & For the people", the greatest danger to the American People is the American People. Yup, want to watch this closely.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Sure they sent out the letters,

Actually, the real truth is that not a single letter has been sent out.....yet.

 

[golocx4]

This has happened once before.

April 18, 1775
British General Thomas Gage orders Major John Pitcairn to Concord.
Objective: Disarm a group of colonists and Seize all powder, shot and arms

 

[BluesStringer]

Actually, the real truth is that not a single letter has been sent out.....yet.

Cite please? This lady says her husband already got a letter:

 

[NavyLCDR]

Cite please? This lady says her husband already got a letter:

Well, you proved me wrong. Now we can legitimately all complain about it on an internet forum

 

[BluesStringer]

Well, you proved me wrong. Now we can legitimately all complain about it on an internet forum

Really? Not sure how to take that Navy. No offense intended if you were offended. I figured you would prove the lady wrong. Not trying to prove anything, just trying to understand the truth.

 

[FNWylde]

Look how ACA is being implemented. The POS-in-chief enlisted the IRS to assess penalties if an individual does not provide proof of coverage. Its not that far a stretch to foresee the same type of enforcement attempted on gun owners. The government could financially ruin gun owners with penalties, frozen assets, and legal proceedings. Only now, we'd be guilty until proven innocent, the burden is on us, and few people have the resources to live on cash, barter, and somewhat 'off the grid'. Our 'representative government' won't have to fire a single shot.

 

[Ringo]

Look how ACA is being implemented. The POS-in-chief enlisted the IRS to assess penalties if an individual does not provide proof of coverage. Its not that far a stretch to foresee the same type of enforcement attempted on gun owners. The government could financially ruin gun owners with penalties, frozen assets, and legal proceedings. Only now, we'd be guilty until proven innocent, the burden is on us, and few people have the resources to live on cash, barter, and somewhat 'off the grid'. Our 'representative government' won't have to fire a single shot.

Yup, sooner or later, one way or another, one step at a time.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Really? Not sure how to take that Navy. No offense intended if you were offended. I figured you would prove the lady wrong. Not trying to prove anything, just trying to understand the truth.

Blues,

I was being completely serious. When rumors of this letter first appeared, there had been no confirmation that the letter even really existed, nor that any had been sent and the pro-gun crowd had started all their ranting based largely on emotion just like the anti-s do - you know, blaming Obama, etc. Well, you provided about as much proof that we are likely to get that someone actually received a letter, proving my statement wrong that no letters had been sent you. Now we can rant on the internet, which is all that 99% of us will do, with at least there being somewhat of a verified source. No offense taken at all.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

guilty until proven innocent, the burden is on us.

Wrong. The way it is supposed to work is you are INNOCENT until proven guilty........

Oh yeah..... Wait..... That's not how it works anymore is it?

Because "If you aren't guilty... What do you have to hide?!".


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Blues,

I was being completely serious. When rumors of this letter first appeared, there had been no confirmation that the letter even really existed, nor that any had been sent and the pro-gun crowd had started all their ranting based largely on emotion just like the anti-s do - you know, blaming Obama, etc. Well, you provided about as much proof that we are likely to get that someone actually received a letter, proving my statement wrong that no letters had been sent you. Now we can rant on the internet, which is all that 99% of us will do, with at least there being somewhat of a verified source. No offense taken at all.

This is the best I can do guys, sorry!



Link Removed


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[BluesStringer]

Blues,

I was being completely serious. When rumors of this letter first appeared, there had been no confirmation that the letter even really existed, nor that any had been sent and the pro-gun crowd had started all their ranting based largely on emotion just like the anti-s do - you know, blaming Obama, etc.

I was being serious too when I said I figured you would prove the lady in the audio recording wrong. It's not like you to make a declarative statement that you can't provide a cite for, so I figured this would just be another one of those instances. But now I'm even more confused as you're saying that it ever was a "rumor." The letter that Charles posted a scan of is dated Jan. 2, 2014. While my OP in this thread was more about the numbers of weapons that hadn't been registered and didn't include the pic of the letter, the scan was already circulating by that time (2/25 when I posted the OP), which was the day after the piece I linked to was published.

So I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, when did you start hearing the "rumor" before their was substantive documentation that there was a letter and that they were being sent out?

Now we can rant on the internet, which is all that 99% of us will do, with at least there being somewhat of a verified source. No offense taken at all.

What a weird thing to say. The word "rant" has a rather negative connotation, as does the word "complain" in your previous post. What would be the positive way to discuss such an important story as the first actual gun confiscations getting under way in CT? Or would you prefer that it not be talked about at all? I just don't get where you're coming from with these two posts.

Whatever, I found a more readable copy of the letter (at Link Removed in my post #12 in this thread). The letter is real, and has been for two months now. I have no idea when the mailing(s) started, but the threat of them have been issued in writing (in the Hartford Courant) from Mike Lawlor's office since Jan. 1. So over 200 people attempted to comply with the law and didn't get it postmarked by the 1st, which means the same day it got there on the 2nd, this letter was drafted informing the freshly-minted felon (oh, did that sound too "ranty?") that they could destroy, ship out of state or turn their felonious weapon into the same authority that's threatening them with the letter! I mean, what's to complain about, right? Pffft.

 

[S&W645]

Remember, our great SCOTUS has said that it actually is legal for the states to infringe on a right that says it shall not be infringed right in the Bill of Rights. Time to revisit the 1939 Miller case as to if the state has any right to ban any type of military style firearm. The current SCOTUS has shown a very distinct trend toward avoiding making any decisions that go against the states.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I was being serious too when I said I figured you would prove the lady in the audio recording wrong. It's not like you to make a declarative statement that you can't provide a cite for, so I figured this would just be another one of those instances. But now I'm even more confused as you're saying that it ever was a "rumor." The letter that Charles posted a scan of is dated Jan. 2, 2014. While my OP in this thread was more about the numbers of weapons that hadn't been registered and didn't include the pic of the letter, the scan was already circulating by that time (2/25 when I posted the OP), which was the day after the piece I linked to was published.

So I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, when did you start hearing the "rumor" before their was substantive documentation that there was a letter and that they were being sent out?



What a weird thing to say. The word "rant" has a rather negative connotation, as does the word "complain" in your previous post. What would be the positive way to discuss such an important story as the first actual gun confiscations getting under way in CT? Or would you prefer that it not be talked about at all? I just don't get where you're coming from with these two posts.

Whatever, I found a more readable copy of the letter (at Link Removed in my post #12 in this thread). The letter is real, and has been for two months now. I have no idea when the mailing(s) started, but the threat of them have been issued in writing (in the Hartford Courant) from Mike Lawlor's office since Jan. 1. So over 200 people attempted to comply with the law and didn't get it postmarked by the 1st, which means the same day it got there on the 2nd, this letter was drafted informing the freshly-minted felon (oh, did that sound too "ranty?") that they could destroy, ship out of state or turn their felonious weapon into the same authority that's threatening them with the letter! I mean, what's to complain about, right? Pffft.

The original source of the letter:
Connecticut Tells Gun Owners, Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Standard Capacity Magazines

Editors Note: We were forwarded this letter image from an unknown source and have not received any confirmation from CSP on this document but have posted it here as part of the discovery process.

That is the definition of rumor, to me. What I should have posted first was, "I have not seen any evidence to indicate that any one has actually received one of these letters." Which would have then been followed by your post, "Well, here's a lady on this phone call who says her husband received one."

I'll bet you I could photoshop all sorts of letters supposedly from government agencies and "leak" them out and get all kinds of reactions from the pro-gun crowd until a devil's advocate stepped in and said, "Hey....wait a minute.....exactly where did this letter come from?"

 

[NavyLCDR]

BTW, Blues, can I ask where the CONFISCATION letter is? I don't see the word confiscated or even the threat of confiscation any where in the letter.....

 

[BluesStringer]

The original source of the letter:
Connecticut Tells Gun Owners, Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Standard Capacity Magazines

Editors Note: We were forwarded this letter image from an unknown source and have not received any confirmation from CSP on this document but have posted it here as part of the discovery process.

That is the definition of rumor, to me.

Then why not use that as the cite which I politely asked you for? Why the derisive (towards gun owners) "complain on the internet" quip?

And you say that Ammoland is the "original" source of the letter. How do you (or the rest of us) know that? A simple search in Google Images on the file-name of the letter at Ammoland (dated 2/25) turns up a Link Removed from January 11 with the exact same picture posted. I'm guessing you can't substantiate Ammoland as being the "original" source of it in light of that fact.

What I should have posted first was, "I have not seen any evidence to indicate that any one has actually received one of these letters." Which would have then been followed by your post, "Well, here's a lady on this phone call who says her husband received one."

Why "should" you have posted that first? Nothing would have been different. I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just trying to figure out where you got the information that no letters had been sent as-yet. It still seems like you were bugged by the words, "Cite please?" and I still don't get why that is.

I'll bet you I could photoshop all sorts of letters supposedly from government agencies and "leak" them out and get all kinds of reactions from the pro-gun crowd until a devil's advocate stepped in and said, "Hey....wait a minute.....exactly where did this letter come from?"

If you've got evidence of the letter being a total fraud, post it up. Otherwise, you're engaging in the same kind of conjecture that you regularly avoid in your own postings, and call people on when they engage in it too.

BTW, Blues, can I ask where the CONFISCATION letter is? I don't see the word confiscated or even the threat of confiscation any where in the letter.....

I don't believe I've called anything a "confiscation letter." If you're referring to the title of the thread, I used those two words from the article I was posting in the OP. It's title also contains those words, and the text within the article describes their rationale for the meme. I don't believe I have personally referred to "the confiscation letter" when speaking for myself in my own words.

Otherwise, if you're asking where the idea came from that Lawlor and the rest of CT tyrants are on a path to begin confiscating banned weapons, all I can say is good grief, really? Just reading the letter, what is the logical conclusion of its meaning if someone refuses to abide by the four options given? What would you take from what the State Police rep. or Mike Lawlor said in this report? “You can either surrender the weapon to us, destroy the weapon, or sell it to a federal firearms licensee. After that date (January 1) that hasn’t been declared or register is banned and if you get caught, you’re going to get arrested." -- Michael Lawlor. What, you think there's no confiscation implications in either what they're saying or in a registration scheme to begin with?

Why are you trying to minimize the implications of all the gun-related legislation, statements and letters coming out of CT since Sandy Hook? I'm quite baffled by you making up out of whole clothe some suggestion that a letter that has been circulated all over the interwebs since at least Jan. 11 is nothing more than a figment of some Photo-shopper's imagination. Surely the state official whose signature appears at the bottom of that scan would've publicly disavowed it by now if it was a fake. I have no idea where you're coming from on this one, Navy, and it doesn't please me at all to have question it (or you).

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

And BTW Navy, Lt. Vance acknowledged the letter during the audio of the telephone conversation with the lady who's husband received one that I posted.

And also, "New London Connecticut newspaper The Day confirms that Connecticut State Police did, in fact, issue this letter:

The letters are not a warning but rather a notification that their application was rejected, according to state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance.

“It just gives them their options,” he said. “Right now we’re just trying to help everyone abide by the law. There’s nothing more than that.”

The letter offers options on what to do: Render the weapon or magazine permanently inoperable, sell it to a licensed gun dealer, remove it from the state or make arrangements to hand it over to local or state police.

The letters, signed by Lt. Eric Cooke, commander of the special licensing and firearms unit, are being sent out even as the task of sifting through the thousands of applications and declarations continues.
​

The letter is real.

Blues