< Back to the Main Site

Author Topic: Low Connecticut registration numbers  (Read 1715 times)

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Low Connecticut registration numbers
« on: January 28, 2014, 06:52:16 AM »
Looks like 10% or less of the "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines were registered before the deadline.  Good for them.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17491-connecticut-gun-owners-fail-to-register-officials-push-amnesty

Offline on the fritz

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2013
  • Posts: 212
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2014, 09:05:27 AM »
Agreed, good for them. 

I can think of many reasons why I would not register any of my firearms. 

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2014, 09:17:16 AM »
I wonder how many guys registered one or two guns and a couple of mags, but own many times that?

And how do you register a mag since they have no serial number?

What about 80% lowers with no serial number?

Offline Phantom

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Location: Omaha/Bellevue
  • Posts: 503
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2014, 09:17:44 AM »
Must have been a LOT of Boating accidents in that state  ::)
"If the primates that we came from had known that someday politicians would come out of the...the gene pool, they'd a stayed up in the trees and written evolution off as a bad idea.....Hell, I always thought the opposable thumb was overrated.  "-- Sheridan, "Babylon 5"

Offline landon410

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 380
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2014, 09:23:42 AM »
just think of how terrible it would be if the state tried to arrest people for this.
what a mess that would be, mini civil war

Offline NENick

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 661
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2014, 10:36:46 AM »
Looks like 10% or less of the "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines were registered before the deadline.  Good for them.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17491-connecticut-gun-owners-fail-to-register-officials-push-amnesty
If only 10% registered, then the other 90% are now criminals....frightening.

Offline JTH

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 2300
  • Shooter
    • Precision Response Training
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2014, 10:54:23 AM »
If only 10% registered, then the other 90% are now criminals....frightening.

Yep.  According to a 2001 survey (which means this is a minimum number), approximately 16.7% of Conn folks are gun owners.  Gov census estimates the 2013 population at 3596080 people.

That means approximately 600545 people are gun owners in that state.  If even HALF of them have a standard capacity magazine (again, the number is likely much higher), and only 10% of them registered it....

....it means that suddenly at least 270 THOUSAND otherwise law-abiding people just became criminals by government fiat.

Well, the war on drugs seeming to be lessening (with the passage of pot laws here and there), so they need something ELSE to keep government employees in business.   Yay.


Isn't it interesting that government groups like the BATF, when the things over which they had jurisdiction lessened, instead of winding down so that they became smaller and cost the taxpayer less instead decided to unilaterally expand their area of responsibility, thus justifying not only their existence but also an expansion of both their size and their powers?
Precision Response Training
http://precisionresponsetraining.com

Offline DanClrk51

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: Bellevue
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2014, 11:05:43 AM »
Hopefully the federal courts strike this garbage down. May the odds be ever in our favor.

Offline landon410

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 380
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2014, 01:07:03 PM »
they strike down everything voted on by the people that has to do with gay marriage, why not something that is actually protected in the constitution?

Offline RedDot

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2010
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 357
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2014, 05:30:44 PM »
Their view of the Constitution is as more of a "guideline" than an actual set of laws.  How can we possibly progress while tied down by a document that was written before Twitter existed?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 05:36:38 PM by RedDot »

Offline DanClrk51

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: Bellevue
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2014, 09:25:15 AM »
Connecticut: Ruling Upholds Connecticut's Expansive Firearm and Magazine Bans Despite Findings that Banned Items are Commonly Used for Lawful Purposes

On January 30, 2014, a federal court judge upheld Connecticut's new gun control law as constitutional, notwithstanding its finding that "the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights …."  The ruling comes from U.S. District Court Judge Alfred Covello in response to a lawsuit filed last May challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut's new gun control legislation. In April, the Connecticut legislature hastily passed wide-ranging restrictions on Connecticut gun owners that embody several long-term planks of the anti-gunners' agenda, including an expanded ban on so-called "assault weapons," restrictions on magazine capacity, expansion of an existing "eligibility certificate" requirement to all firearms and ammunition, an expanded ban of private transfers, and registration of all non-conforming firearms and magazines, the possession of which was grandfathered under the law.

The plaintiffs in Shew v. Malloy, backed by the NRA, included the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, gun store owners, and individual citizens and focused on the bans of more than 100 additional commonly-owned firearms, as well as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The case challenged the melodramatically and inaccurately titled law, "An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety," for violating plaintiffs' rights under the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for containing provisions that are unconstitutionally vague.

Covello dismissed all three constitutional challenges in the 47-page decision. In assessing the common use of semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines, Covello invoked the Heller decision and found that that these firearms and magazines are, in fact, commonly owned and legally used nationwide, including in Connecticut.  He then disregarded his own findings of fact and wrote that the ban is justified because the government's asserted goal of reducing violence outweighs the Act's infringement on Second Amendment rights. Nevertheless, in finding that the bans satisfied intermediate scrutiny, he acknowledged that the "court cannot foretell how successful the legislation will be in preventing crime." He further acknowledged the vagueness of several provisions in the legislation and their need for clarity, but still dismissed any claim that the law is unconstitutionally vague.

Covello's decision was similar to the adverse ruling recently handed down in a case challenging New York's so-called "SAFE" Act. In both cases, the courts relied on the fact that although the banned weapons were commonly used for lawful purposes, other options still existed for people wishing to exercise their rights.  Needless to say, such reasoning would hardly be tenable if the government were to ban books or close places of worship, merely because other options it considered more acceptable were still available.

An appeal in this case is already underway, and NRA will be sure to inform its members of any new developments....

Read more at: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/2/ruling-upholds-connecticuts-expansive-firearm-and-magazine-bans-despite-findings-that-banned-items-are-commonly-used-for-lawful-purposes.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

Offline landon410

  • NFOA Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Location: Omaha
  • Posts: 380
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2014, 10:25:57 AM »
you might need a definitions guy but doesnt the courts admission that this is a burden on gun owners kind of fit "shall not infringe"????

I have quite a bit of legal experience but really only in liabilities/casuality stuff

Offline bkoenig

  • Gun Show Volunteer
  • Powder Benefactor
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: Lincoln, NE
  • Posts: 3677
  • Aspiring cranky old gun nut
Re: Low Connecticut registration numbers
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2014, 11:02:37 AM »
I'm no lawyer, but that seems like a horribly written decision.  He contradicts both Heller and himself repeatedly.  You'd think it would be a slam dunk on appeal.