Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Sow the Wind…
Posted by Bob Owens on February 18, 2014 at 11:14 am
Connecticut’s anti-gun politicians (in both parties) and the media are beside themselves in a quivering rage.
Though they passed a blatantly unconstitutional law requiring citizens to register both their “modern muskets” and the standard-capacity magazines associated with such firearms, the response of the citizenry has been an overwhelming refusal to comply.
No one knows for sure precisely how many firearms labeled “assault weapons” by the state exist in Connecticut and so a precise estimate is impossible to obtain, but the most common estimate is that a minimum of 86-percent of citizens did not register their semi-automatic firearms as required by law, and that figure may be as high as nine in 10. Standard-capacity magazines are also required to be registered with the state under the same law, and non-compliance there may be even higher, in excess of 95-percent.
Predictably, the state and it’s big government supporters are stunned.
Connecticut politicians have become so adjusted to docile citizens compliantly forfeiting their rights to more government intrusion that they simply assumed a law setting up the registration of firearms for their eventual confiscation would be obeyed without question.
They’re now scrambling for what they would term “an appropriate response.”
Behind closed doors, we can assume that they are fuming, and would like nothing more than to arrest each and every gun-owning scofflaw within the state at gunpoint, with an appropriate show of overwhelming police presence at each. To date, they’re limited to the potential threat of sending out a strongly worded letter, but have balked at even talking that step.
Why?
Perhaps they’re sobered by the reality, of knowing that they are hopelessly over-matched based on raw numbers alone, and they do not dare inflame the population further. As of 2011, there were 92 municipal police departments in Connecticut, employing fewer than 6,700 officers, and the state police have something fewer than 1,200 troopers, a total of roughly 7,900 state and local law enforcement officers.
There are at least 350,000 “assault weapons” in Connecticut according to very conservative estimates, belonging to somewhere north of 80,000 and likely more than 100,000 gun owners.
Any attempt by Connecticut police forces to start searching and arresting suspected “assault weapon” owners would spread to social media within minutes, and the outcome is likely to be unpleasant for all concerned, with the possibility that the current standoff could turn into something much more deadly and unpredictable.
Connecticut’s residents have the inalienable constitutional right to own weapons of military utility, for the purposes of defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.
The Hartford Courant is agitating that citizens who have refused to comply with this blatantly unconstitutional law “should be prepared to face the consequences.”
They’ve rather obviously forgotten their history. Le’ts hope that Connecticut’s government isn’t equally as unaware of their precarious position.
Author: Bob OwensBob Owens is the Editor of BearingArms.com. A long-time shooting enthusiast, he began blogging as a North Carolina native in New York at the politics-focused Confederate Yankee in 2004. In 2007 Bob began writing about firearms, gun rights, and crime at Pajamas Media, and added gun and gear reviews for Shooting Illustrated in 2010. He is a volunteer in the Appleseed Project, where he shares stories of our sha

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

I hope the citizens don't flinch. It's about time the Progressive machine was stopped dead in it's tracks on this issue. A little civil disobedience in the face of tyranny is always a good thing.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Well said gmcase! :thumbup:

Wrongway Loc: Hewitt Texas

Outstanding it's about time we start standing up to theses coward out politicians we elected than think they can do what ever they want replacement of everyone in the house and Senate will help solve the issue and give them a 4 year limited term

Robert Graybeal Loc: Myrtle Beach

Wrongway, I think that's the right way.

One term, no re-election, no retirement benefits, average salary. It's called 'public service' for a reason.
And make 'lobbing' illegal.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

That's not a bad idea for all state governments AND the Federal House & Senate!

Violameister Loc: michigan

Do you mean that I can't go to the capitol and talk to my representative about what I think needs to be done? Or that I can't send someone to represent my interests in talking to my congressman?

It seems to me that outlawing "lobbying" could skirt very closely to limiting my right to free speech.

Robert Graybeal Loc: Myrtle Beach

Maybe, that needs some refining.
I mean, no lobbiests (sp)- the people who are paid millions in salary whose full time job is bribing congressmen paid for by billion dollar corporations.

dlwhawaii Loc: Sunny Wailuku, Hawaii

I have no problem with YOU going to Washington and talking with your Congressman. I do have a problem with YOU SENDING someone to represent your interests. It means for a few bucks you, your buddies, and companies can get your interests presented to your Congressman. Too lazy to get off your collective asses and do it yourselves? :thumbdown:

Violameister Loc: michigan

Let's say I am a professional and have clients booked solidly for the next several weeks that would very much resent my cancelling them, but I do have an issue I need to discuss with my Congressman (in the State Capitol or Washington). I can't send a friend of mine to do it for me?

Or maybe our neighborhood of 100 households has an issue for our Congressman. We all need to travel there to express our views, we can't just send a representative to represent our collective view?

I think your absolute prohibition of representation is very limiting and could severely restrict freedom of expression as related to expressing it to government.

dlwhawaii Loc: Sunny Wailuku, Hawaii

You are not exactly describing lobbying in its present form. Lobbyists are paid big bucks to speak to Congressmen. Lobbyists are not "neighborhood" spokesmen. Perhaps a more correct definition of a lobbyist would help. Lobby for pay, no way. This would protect your right to FREE speech.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

When was the last time your ass was in DC to complain ??
I imagine the travel expense could be a bit much 'eh ??

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

The biggest problem we have with congress people is that they have the notion that they know what is best for us and will continue with their agenda no matter how much complaining is done from the non-annointed ones that they rule over.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

I think we are parsing the lobbyist issue too finely. We are dealing with mostly criminal and corrupt elected representatives and our response is misdirected if we forget that. They need to be corralled for our protection from them and the more chains on them the better.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

I think that's a pretty broad condemnation you are drawing, and "criminal and corrupt" is a pretty strong damnation for the entire organization. If that's true we're really in the deep kimshee. The answer is to vote them all out after a couple of terms!

A question for lobbyists: Is purporting to believe something, even if you have personal reservations, and accepting or charging a fee to represent/lobby for that belief morally different from those who accept the money, campaign contributions, vacations, home improvements, stock tips, etc. for voting a certain way or trying to influence the vote whether they believe it or not?

If you want to lobby your congressman for something, do it your self(s) or start a letter writing campaign, hiring pros to do it for you adds another distasteful level and odor to it.