Connecticut: The Coming Storm: Your 1st Mistake was living in a Blue State

Connecticut: The Coming Storm

01 Saturday Mar 2014
Posted by Mike McDaniel in Firearms
≈ 71 Comments

Tags Connecticut, law enforcement, police officers, State Police
\
https://statelymcdanielmanor.files.w...pg?w=529&h=394 credit: deadliestwarrior.wikia.com

Friday, June 27th, 2014, 0-dark-thiry: The politicians have made their decision. By a twist of fate–your file simply happened to be on the top of the stack for no particular reason–you’ll be the first example. A state police SWAT team pull to the curb in front of your home, leap from their van and rush to your front door. Two black-clad men pull back a ram and swing it toward your front door, aiming just above the knob, while the rest of the team waits anxiously, their automatic weapons charged and off safe. Two hope they’ll get the opportunity to shoot. At least one wants to manufacture the opportunity.

You’ve made two major mistakes; they will cost your life and destroy your family: you live in a blue state where the governor and legislature have no respect for the Constitution and the lives and liberty of citizens, and you were foolish enough to obey the law.
Starting awake from a sound sleep by the explosion of your door being smashed open and the heavy stomping of booted feet, you stumble down the stairs and into the hallway. As you turn toward the sounds, you’re blinded by multiple bright lights and hear many people screaming at you, but their words are unintelligible. You raise your hands to shield your eyes, but you have your cell phone in your right hand. As soon as it comes into view, you’re overwhelmed by a tidal wave of explosive sounds and feel the first bullets rip into your body. There are stars, so many stars, winking and suddenly, everything goes silent and black and your last conscious thought is a feeling of falling.
The SWAT team, surprised when you suddenly appeared only five feet from them, screamed conflicting commands at you. When you raised your hands and one of them saw something dark in your right hand, he jerked back the trigger of his MP5 submachine gun and didn’t let go until the weapon was empty. Seeing him fire, four more did the same. Of the 137 rounds five of the team initially fired, only 18 actually hit you, but it was enough. The rest shredded your home from floor to ceiling and wall to wall. Six nearby homes were hit, as were four cars. As you lay dying, your heart beating ever more slowly and weakly, you were spared the horror of your wife’s death.
As she descended the stairs, she saw you hit, blood spurting everywhere, falling to the floor, she screamed loud and long and ran down the steps. When she suddenly leapt into the hallway from the staircase, the nearest officer, who had been staring in shock at your bleeding body, and most of all, at the cell phone near your right hand, was startled. One of only two who had not completely emptied his magazine, he emptied it into her. The rest tried, but with one other exception, their guns were empty, and they frantically and impotently jerked their triggers. The other exception managed to fire the remaining six rounds in his weapon. Of the final 13 rounds fired, eleven hit your wife, five in the chest, three in the head. She was dead before her body fell onto yours, the sickening thump of her head on the hardwood floor echoing in the sudden silence and roiling gun smoke.
That was when they heard screaming upstairs, and gathering their courage and slamming fresh magazines into their guns, rushed upstairs, breaking into your 7-year old daughter’s bedroom, to find her lying in a widening pool of blood on her tiny bed. One of the officers tripped over his own feet as he was charging into the house and triggered nearly a full magazine through the ceiling–into her bedroom and through her bed. One of his fellow officers caught three rounds on his bullet resistant vest, but that will be covered up for years. Your daughter will survive. She’ll be in a medically induced coma for two weeks, and when she awakens, she’ll be informed she’s an orphan, a paraplegic orphan with a single lung.
An investigation of the State Police SWAT team by the State Police done within a month of the murders will find the State Police blameless, and will proclaim them heroic paragons of SWAT virtue.
Your sister’s family gladly takes your daughter in, and after two years, years in which the State Attorney General, the Governor, many politicians and the news media depict you, your wife, and even your daughter as murderous domestic terrorists, a jury finally awards your daughter 30 million dollars. She’ll need every penny to support her the remainder of her shortened life. Unfortunately, a judge sympathetic to the state reduces the award to seven million dollars. The AG, Governor and his advisors, angry and vindictive, get authorization from a corrupt and cooperative judge to steal your daughter from your sister’s family and put her in a group foster home run by people who do it for the substantial money the state pays. The state also seizes the 7 million dollars for reimbursement for taking care of your daughter. The Speaker of the State House of Representatives pronounces it a just and fitting end for a family of domestic terrorists and swears to bring justice to all domestic terrorists.
Why were the police there? You tried to obey the law and register an AR-15 you bought. Unfortunately, you missed the deadline by two days, so the state knew you had the rifle and four magazines. What they didn’t know was that you bought the gun as a birthday present for your adult son who lives in Montana. The gun and magazines were in Montana only a week after you bought it. The state police attacked your home because they thought you had an “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazines,” all of which had been in Montana for months. They were scared to death of anyone with an “assault weapon,” so they sent a SWAT team.
Documents eventually made public during the civil suit will reveal that the state police made no attempt to verify that you still owned the weapon. They will reveal that a corrupt and cooperative judge–guess who?–signed hundreds of blank search warrants. They will also reveal that only 31% of local police departments and sheriff’s offices cooperated with the State Police; 69% refused to violate the Constitution. Not that any of that means anything to you. You screwed up and you’re dead. Your daughter will come to wish she had died that night as well.
Far-out fiction? The decision about which I spoke is being made in Connecticut as you read this article. Connecticut’s most recent gun restrictions signed into law by Governor Dan Malloy (D) include the requirement that anyone with magazines of greater than 10 round capacity must register them, and all “assault weapons,” with the state no later than January 1, 2014. Under many circumstances, violation of these laws is a felony.
As Bob Owens at Bearing Arms reports, most Connecticut residents disobeyed their legislative betters:

Only 50,000 firearms and 38,000 magazines were registered. Perhaps another 350,000 firearms belong to those who refused to register their arms. Nearly 2 million magazines are thought to remain unregistered.
These unregistered firearms and magazines are thought to belong to 80,000-100,000 gun owners who view the law as a blatantly unconstitutional infringement upon the very spirit of the Second Amendment, and a prelude to confiscation.

But what about people who did their best to obey the law? Suckers!

Those most obviously in danger of being arrested at this time are 106 rifle owners and and 108 magazine owners who tried to register their arms, too late. The government knows exactly who they are through their botched registrations, and sent them letters giving them options on how to surrender their arms and magazines.

But the police wouldn’t do that! Yes they would, at least enough of them to fire a second shot heard around the world. Let’s briefly examine what the police are sworn to do and how they think.
All police officers swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. They are members of the executive branch of government, and like the President or the Governors of the several states, are responsible for seeing that the laws are faithfully enforced. There are always two potentially exclusive principals at play in law enforcement: officers are expected to fairly and uniformly enforce the law, yet may lawfully refuse illegal orders and may refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.
Practically, this rarely becomes an imminent conflict. Officers are given a great deal of discretion, and usually don’t enforce ridiculous, unconstitutional laws. Almost always, no one says a word about it. This is so because thoughtful, professional officers know that they are the pointy end of the spear. They know that the only reason our system works–and they survive–is because most people respect the law and are willing to obey it most of the time. Were that not true, police officers wouldn’t last a day. The police need the respect and willing cooperation of the public, and smart cops understand this.
Legislators, on the other hand, often care about nothing but seizing and maintaining power. Too many come to see themselves not as public servants hired temporarily to do the people’s business, but as the intellectual and moral superiors of the people, divinely chosen–by themselves; they recognize no higher power–to tell the people what to think, what to say, what to own and how to behave. They do not react well to the people thinking for themselves or refusing to obey. They forget–if they ever knew–that no rational legislator passes a law they know will not be obeyed, because when they do, and when people ignore them, a difficult choice is forced upon them. Take it and back down from a law they should never have written in the first place, or attack and show those peasants who’s boss. Punish them for daring to challenge their betters.
And who are the enforcers for the elite legislative class. The police.
Police officers must always consider three factors in their law enforcement decisions:
(1) Maintaining the rule of law. They do this by upholding the Constitution, fairly enforcing the laws that actually have to do with public safety while honoring the rights of all.
(2) Upholding the social contract. Police officers are given their powers by the people to deal with truly dangerous and harmful people and situations. People are willing to respect and obey the police as long as they do not breach the social contract by becoming not even-handed enforcers of laws that actually protect the public and make civilized society possible, but partisan enforcers for a lawless government.
(3) Doing what is reasonably necessary to do their jobs honestly and honorably.
Smart police supervisors and executives also know they should never give an order that will not be obeyed. Even so, will the police violate the Constitution, break the social contract, act dishonestly and dishonorably in doing their jobs? Many will. Refusal might mean the loss of career and pension, discipline, even prosecution. Some buy into the idea that they are the masters of the people, not their servants. Others will go along to get along. Some will honestly, but wrongfully, believe their duty is to follow orders regardless. But enough will do it.
The decision facing Connecticut legislators, the Attorney General and the Governor is stark: do they back down, refuse to actively pursue gun owners made instant felons by their unconstitutional laws, or do they suppress the peasants, perhaps even kill a few to make the point? That would never happen? Consider the Jose Guerena case, and the case of Andrew Lee Scott. Consider this from The Examiner:

A journalist in Connecticut reports that the highly restrictive and punitive gun control laws the state passed last year carry an ominous threat for citizens.
Those who missed the deadline to register their ‘assault weapons’ and high capacity magazines, which have been outlawed, will be treated as criminals although they may have attempted to obey the law but just missed the deadline.
Ed Jacovino of The Journal Inquirer further stated that Michael P, Lawler, a top aide to Gov. Dannel Malloy, contends that the state will punish those who missed the registration deadline whether they intended to or not.
According to Jacovino: ‘And while the state won’t immediately prosecute those who missed the deadline, it isn’t ignoring that information, either. The rifle and magazine declarations will be included in information given to police responding to a certain address. ‘This would be a factor in deciding how to respond to different situations,’ Lawlor says.’
Read that statement closely. Lawlor is saying that if a citizen calls the police to report a crime in progress, officers will be able to see whether or not the person reporting the crime has registered their assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and will approach the emergency call accordingly.

Honest officers trying to do their jobs honorably would carefully consider the three aforementioned factors. They would realize that these laws are clearly unconstitutional and will, sooner rather than later, be ruled so. They would understand that pursuing honest citizens who refuse to obey an unconstitutional law is a gross and unforgivable violation of the social contract, and such violations will cause breaches that will never be healed. Trust lost is never regained. Particularly, arresting–even killing, and some will die–people who actually tried to obey even an unconstitutional law but missed a deadline by a day or two is particularly dishonorable, even evil. To do their jobs honestly and honorably, they would quietly refuse to enforce those laws. Their supervisors and administrators, usually understanding of the three factors, would say nothing and do nothing.
Because the mere possession of magazines and AR-15-like weapons is not a crime if they are registered, police officers have no probable cause to investigate people for mere possession of such things. How can any officer, by merely looking, tell if a magazine holds 10 or 11 rounds? How can they tell if a magazine or a rifle have been registered? To be forced to tear apart magazines and to examine and investigate every rifle they see exceeds an officer’s powers and reduces them to corrupt, thuggish operatives of a police state demanding to see anyone’s papers at whim. Were this lawful, were this truly a significant law enforcement priority, why not simply station State Troopers at every shooting range as a gatekeeper? Of course, actual criminals tend not to frequent shooting ranges, but one has to have priorities.
If in the course of their normal duties they find themselves in a situation where they have genuine–not manufactured–probable cause to investigate further, they might need to enforce those particular laws, particularly if they’re dealing with real criminals rather than honest citizens criminalized by a corrupt legislature, but other than that, professionals would leave it alone. There are far more pressing issues that the public will support and recognize as clearly upholding the social contract.
And this will work–it does every day–if the police are left to their own devices. But as the Examiner noted, that may not be the case. This is an issue about which the police are very much aware, and honest officers worried. Recently, a woman whose husband received a threatening letter called the State Police and spoke with Lt. J. Paul Vance, who is apparently the head of public information for the State Police. Take this link to hear her recording of their conversation.
https://statelymcdanielmanor.files.w...pg?w=529&h=353 Lt. J. Paul Vance
starkravingviking.blogspot.com

While the woman is somewhat naïve regarding these issues, she is asking valid questions, particularly, if ordered to go to the homes of honest citizens and seize their firearms and accessories, will the State Police do it? Will they put themselves and the citizens they serve in deadly danger to enforce unconstitutional laws? Will they put honest citizens in situations where officers will feel compelled to kill them?
As the call goes on, Lt. Vance becomes upset and defensive, very reluctant to admit that the police are even considering such things, saying, among other things:
“I don’t want to talk about the Constitution at all–at all.”
“It sounds like you’re anti-American and anti-law.”
“I’m the master.”
He repeatedly tells her to speak with her attorney and says he would never come to her home, because it’s not his job (of course not; he’s an administrator). She corrects him, noting that lower ranking officers would do it, but he wants to avoid admitting that, and pretends that the police are automatons with no control over which laws to enforce. He also pretends not to understand that police officers coming to the homes of the law abiding to seize their weapons are in any unusual danger, nor will he admit that their actions would put citizens in danger. He knows better; any competent police officer knows better.
Anyone listening to Lt. Vance should come away with the understanding that the State Police certainly will send SWAT teams to the homes of citizens, and will, if they deem it necessary, kill them over the number of rounds their magazines are capable of holding and the appearance of their rifles. They will kill people to please blood-thirsty politicians.
Some local agencies–particularly sheriff’s departments, because sheriffs are elected–will refuse to participate, but many will. Police officers on the coasts are different than those in flyover country. They are generally more anti-gun. The State Police absolutely will, and few, if any, will have any qualms about it. In law enforcement circles, state police officers are known to be rigid and inflexible. Because they generally have no ties to a particular community, many quickly develop an “us-against-them” mentality. Their training and rank structure and daily relationships also tend to condition them to think themselves superior to local officers, and to be much more militaristic than other law enforcement agencies.
Have no doubt. If Connecticut politicians decide to punish the peasants, the State Police SWAT teams will raid the homes of the innocent. People will die. The social contract will be irretrievably broken, and the police–and politicians–will be seen as, and treated as, the enemies of Americans. They will have earned it.
If Connecticut’s legislators have any common sense, any honor, any decency, they will, at the very least, leave this alone and let this ultimately be decided by the courts. If they’re actually smart, they’ll repeal these unconstitutional laws before lives are lost.
Any bets on which path they’ll take?

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpre...-coming-storm/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/redneck-tho...5/#post1398103

Conn. officer says woman sounds ‘anti-American’ for questioning gun control law

Posted on Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 at 11:09 pm.
by: George Washington

http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/w...6c-300x183.jpg

By Joe Newby

In a video posted Thursday to YouTube, Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance is heard telling a woman identified as “GMN Producer Guerilla Girl Ashley” that she sounded anti-American for questioning the state’s new gun control law.

Ashley said she called regarding a letter her husband received saying he must either sell, turn in or destroy his firearm, which was deemed to be an “assault weapon” by a new law passed in the state.
Lt. Vance explained the letter spelled out the options her husband now has regarding the law.
After about five minutes of give and take with Ashley regarding the law, Lt. Vance is heard saying Ashley sounds anti-American.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUxju...layer_embedded

http://www.examiner.com/article/conn...un-control-law

Second Amendment Activist Warned: Cops & Politicians “Want You Dead”

Gun blogger sent 16,000 word email warning Connecticut officials of violence in response to gun confiscation

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 6, 2014

A second amendment activist who wrote a 16,000 word letter to officials in Connecticut warning them that any attempt to initiate mass gun confiscation would result in a tragic bloodbath was warned by a source within the state police, “there’s cops and politicians up here who want you dead.”

http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/ima.../060314gun.jpgImage: Assault Rifle (YouTube).

Last month, Mike Vanderboegh sent a letter to Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection warning that violence would inevitably ensue if police attempted to forcibly confiscate the firearms of thousands of residents who have refused to register assault rifles and high capacity magazines in defiance of a new law that took effect on January 1.

“Let’s assume that there are 100,000 non-compliant owners of military pattern semi-automatic rifles in your state,” Vanderboegh wrote. “I think it is a larger number but 100,000 has a nice round ring to it. Let us then apply the rule of three percent to that number — not to the entire population of your state, not even to the number of firearm owners, but just to that much smaller demonstrated number of resistors. That leaves you with at least 3,000 men and women who will shoot you if you try to enforce this intolerable act upon them.”

After Vanderboegh returned from a trip, he was met with several messages making it clear that he had rattled numerous lawmakers who voted for the law and were now seeking personal protective details as a response to his letter. “They also want you in jail,” Vanderboegh was told.

Vanderboegh said a source within the CT state police warned him, “Mike, the upper echelons don’t know whether to shit or go blind. You really hit them with those last two letters. Much discussion — some whispering and more than a little shouting. They realize that this is a <acronym title="Google Page Ranking">PR</acronym> nightmare and they don’t know what to do about it. I heard (a supervisor) cussing Malloy and Lawlor and that (graphic expletive deleted) Vance. All of a sudden they’re starting to realize that we are on the line to be shot at and not them. The higher ups (like Vance) can afford to be in denial. We can’t.”

“Vance” is a reference to Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Paul Vance, who recently stoked controversy after he told a woman who asked if police would confiscate her husband’s guns, “I’m the master, Ma’am, I’m the master.”

As we reported earlier this week, second amendment group Connecticut Carry has called on the government to either enforce the January 1 law by going ahead with mass gun confiscations or repeal it altogether.

Weeks after the January 1 deadline expired, authorities revealed that just 50,016 assault weapons and 38,290 ammunition magazines had been registered by Connecticut gun owners, meaning that some 320,000 assault rifles and around 2.4 million high capacity magazines were not declared.

Last month it emerged that Connecticut residents who failed to register their assault weapons or high capacity magazines before the deadline had received letters from CT State Police ordering them to either make their guns and ammo inoperable, sell them to a licensed dealer, or turn them in at a local police station.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

This article was posted: Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 6:02 am
Tags: gun rights


http://yarpp.org/pixels/c6bb0b5b7ce8...4ea949415b8bfd
http://www.infowars.com/second-amend...want-you-dead/

Town Hall: CT Gov. Malloy References Constitution – Patriot Shouts “Why Don’t You Read It Sometime!”

Tim Brown 8 Hours Ago
33 Comments

Last night in Milford, Connecticut, a town hall meeting took place. Connecticut Governor Dannel Patrick Malloy, who signed into law a mandatory gun registration bill this year that criminalizes once law abiding citizens, was in attendance. In doing so, not only was Malloy attacking the Second Amendment of the United States, but as I have previously pointed out, he attacked his own State Constitution. However, during the meeting as Governor Malloy was addressing a particular statement of a gentleman in attendance, he made reference to the US Constitution. A lone female voice can be overheard exclaiming, "Why don't you read it sometime!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCvhMD7-_YQ

The full video can be viewed here.

Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman held the microphone as a small business owner spoke to Malloy, saying that he was at a disadvantage in his linen supply business because adjacent states have a lower wage structure. As a result, restaurants in the area were outsourcing their business.

"I think that's not only a state issue," Malloy said, "but we've got this thing called the Constitution, so it makes it a little difficult to do some of the things you suggest."

At the twenty second mark, you can hear the voice of Linda Czaplinski from Oxford, Connecticut calling out to Malloy, "Why don't you read it sometime!"

According to her friend, and now mine, Palin Smith, who is also the gentleman videoing the event, "She is a gunslinger, our verbal Annie Oakley, our Joan of Arc in Connectcut."


Indeed, Linda is not one to back down from calling out gun grabbing politicans. Just take a look at this confrontation last year as she schools Senator Chris Murphy at a town hall meeting at the Art Gallery of Mancheter Community College.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au7qO4zHan0

John Cinque, who I told you about the other day, was supposed to attend the event. Sadly, he was unable to do so, but according to Smith, there are attempts being made to have talks between Cinque and Joe Visconti, who is seeking to unseat Governor Malloy.

So far tens of thousands of Connecticut patriots have refused to register their guns, even though they have been sent letters demanding that they surrender their weapons and have even had state police claim that they sound un-American and anti-law. Some patriots have even issued a warning to those that would seek to confiscate their weapons.

Interestingly enough, today marks the 178th anniversary of the fall of the Alamo. It looks like the new Alamo is Connecticut. Let's pray and lend our support to our fellow patriots in the "Constitution State," hoping that they will stand firm and fast against the reincarnation of the same tyranny that oppressed the North during the days of our founding fathers.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/to...read-sometime/

Popular Threads

• Town Hall: CT Gov. Malloy References Constitution – Patriot Shouts “Why Don’t You Read It Sometime!” 33 comments · 1 hour ago
• NC Teacher Forces Student to Turn T-Shirt with Bible Scripture Inside Out – School Promptly Corrects Teacher 58 comments · 4 minutes ago
• Texas Takes Stand: 9 out of 10 Voters Want Obamacare Repealed and Welfare Recipients Drug Tested 196 comments · 47 minutes ago
• “Sounds Like You’re Anti-American,… Anti-Law - I'm the Master”: CT State Police to Gun Owner On How Gun Law Will Be Enforced 268 comments · 9 hours ago
• Connecticut Patriot Forewarned Lawmakers about Gun Registration: “I Will Not Comply” 489 comments · 3 hours ago

​http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/to...read-sometime/

CT Gun Group Says “Bring It On” As Fears Grow Of Confiscation, Arrests

Two pro-Second Amendment activists in Connecticut give an interview to Fox News.

l

NEWSEDITOR — MARCH 6, 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeIgBZdzfY0

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/ct-...yJ81whsuAMH.99

http://www.alipac.us/f19/ct-cop-gun-...or-%94-298835/

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/...38721397_n.jpg


**This is what an OATHKEEPER looks like**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFnUAbNYkfc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFnUAbNYkfc

https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/...28638531_n.jpg




https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...25972264_q.jpg Armed Mommy

Look what the people in Connecticut are doing as an act of defiance: crossing out "Constitution" on their license plates! Awesome!!

Molon Labe: Connecticut’s Terrifying Start Of Gun Confiscation

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall//.../Alexander.jpg Rachel Alexander | Mar 10, 2014

http://media.townhall.com/townhall/r...ews.ap.org.jpg

The latest gun control law in Connecticut has crossed a very frightening line. A standoff has been created between the government and tens of thousands of gun owners now considered felons. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian new phase. Gun owners saw it coming, as evidenced by their recent adoption in recent years of the defiant expression “molon labe.” The phrase originated from Spartan General-King Leonidas, who reportedly responded with “Come and get them!” to Persian Emperor Xerxes’ demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans fought valiantly, but were ultimately defeated. With the prequel to the Hollywood bestselling movie 300 just released last week, Americans are now even more aware of the phrase.
Until now, gun control laws hadn’t mandated the confiscation of weapons; generally, banned guns were grandfathered in under previous laws so their current owners could continue to legally own them. The Connecticut law changes all that. Passed last year in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, SB 1160 bans so-called “assault weapons” - certain rifles, more recently known as AR-15s, that have been singled out based on purely cosmetic criteria - and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The firearms have been banned based on how “scary” they look, not their actual usage in crimes. According to a study from the BATF that came out a few years ago, none of the top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. were so-called assault weapons; they were all pistols or revolvers. In fact, the #5 gun used in crimes was a shotgun, which Vice President Joe Biden advised Americans last year to use for self-defense.
The only way to legally retain one of these newly banned firearms or magazines in Connecticut now is to register it - but most gun owners do not want their name on a government list. They are well aware that a list of gun owners can someday be used by the government for confiscation. If gun owners didn’t register their firearms or magazines prior to the December 31, 2013 deadline mandated by the legislation, their firearms will be subject to confiscation and the owners considered guilty of a felony.
So far, it appears that the vast majority of gun owners affected by the legislation did not register their guns prior to the December 31 deadline, making between 50,000 and 350,000 gun owners felons. This is frightening, considering the law doesn’t just make the violation a misdemeanor, it makes it a felony, which could result in a prison sentence. Fewer than 50,000 gun owners registered their firearms by the deadline to comply with the law.
Gun owners who sent in their applications for registration after the deadline havereported already receiving letters by the government instructing them to get rid of their guns. The Hartford Courant notes that the government has records of gun owners who went through background checks in order to purchase AR-15s. The government could potentially go after any of those gun owners who failed to register their guns.
There is shock that gun owners are showing defiance. "I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
On January 30, Federal District Court judge Alfred V. Covello upheld the law inShew v. Malloy. While he admitted that it placed a substantial burden on the Second Amendment, he claimed that it “substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.” It is astonishing that a judge would use that as justification, considering even Congress sunsetted the federal assault weapons ban due to a lack of evidence showing it was effective.
Many judges come up with rulings based on their personal political views, or are pressured into a certain decision by outside special interests. Judicial activism is nothing new. Judicial activists have successfully forced a tortured, restricted interpretation of the Second Amendment over the years, in order to diminish its validity. Covello’s disappointing decision is currently being appealed, backed by the powerful NRA.
Trying to prosecute 50,000 to 350,000 gun owners would be insanity. The liberal activist politicians who passed the foolish legislation in response to an emotional response to the Sandy Hook Shooting do not represent the will of the people who elected them, who want the Constitution upheld. In many ways, the Second Amendment is our most important right, because without it, we cannot protect any of our other rights. There is a reason why it is the Second Amendment, not the 30th Amendment.
Requiring gun owners to register their firearms puts them on a fast track with sex offenders, who are required to register with the government so they can be monitored for the rest of their lives. If gun owners fail to register for tracking, they are then treated like criminals, just like sex offenders. This is bizarre, considering lawful gun owners are merely patriotic Americans concerned about protecting their cherished rights. AR-15s aren’t guns used in crimes, but are popular guns for self-defense and target shooting.
Connecticut Carry, a leading gun rights organization in the state, is daring the government to come after gun owners. The stage is being set for massive civil disobedience unless the law is changed. Many prosecutors and law enforcement officers are not going to uphold a law this heavy-handed; nevertheless, this ill-conceived legislation, pushed through by gun-control activists, is going to pit many law-abiding law enforcement officers against thousands of patriotic, American freedom-loving gun owners. It is terrifying that here in America, innocent gun owners would be put in the same category as sex offenders, turning them into felons. Connecticut governor Dannel Malloy (D), who signed SB 1160, seems to have become another King Xerxes. This time around, will the Spartans in Connecticut prevail?


http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...6403/page/full

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...02270960_q.jpg 1 Million Moms & Women For The 2nd Amendment via National Rifle Association

Until now, gun control laws hadn’t mandated the confiscation of weapons. The Connecticut law changes all that. So far, it appears that the vast majority of gun owners affected by the legislation did not register their guns prior to the December 31 deadline, making between 50,000 and 350,000 gun owners felons. It is terrifying that here in America, innocent gun owners would be put in the same category as sex offenders, turning them into felons. - NRA

Seventy-two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Massachusetts

Mar 10, 2014
MLiponoga
77 Comments

CLICK HERE TO SAVE UP TO $25 ON NRA MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT OUR WEBSITE

http://viralsurvival.com/wp-content/...RWP7rmY8O0.jpg

Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.
During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.
Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.
And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

On July 4th, 1776 these same extremists signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other and their countrymen their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, including their families and their lives over the course of the next few years. Lest we forget…

http://viralsurvival.com/2014/03/10/...n-in-maryland/

CT Cop Who Wants to Kick in Doors & Confiscate Guns Suspended – Not Before Spilling the Beans on What Gun Registration is all About

Posted by Prof. Charles Xavier on March 10, 2014 at 10:00pm

View Blog


http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...domoutpost.jpg

CT Cop Who Wants to Kick in Doors & Confiscate Guns Suspended – Not Before Spilling the Beans on What Gun Registration is all About

On Saturday, I informed you of a Connecticut police officer who said he wanted to bust through one patriot's door and take his guns. This morning I spoke with John Cinque via telephone and he provided me with screenshots of the conversation that he mentioned in the video. Many people wanted to see the evidence of what John referenced in the video. Some thought it was nothing more than ploy since he was in the video with Connecticut gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti. I won't attempt to judge Visconti's motives. However, the evidence is clear of what Officer Joseph Peterson of the Branford Police Department said, and in the course of the conversation actually spilled the beans on what gun registration is all about: Taking your guns, which every red-blooded, American gun owner knows already. Take a Look for yourself:

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con.../Untitled5.jpg

This article was written prior to speaking with the Branford Police Department's Captain Geoffrey Morgan. Due to the efforts of a concerned citizen, Branford PD has begun an internal investigation. Freedom Outpost has learned that Officer Peterson has been placed on extended leave pending the investigation by Internal Affairs.

In the update to the previous article, we informed you that Freedom Outpost had obtained the entire conversation, which took place on Facebook, that John Cinque referenced in this video. Below is the substance of those comments and why it is important that we understand the mindset of Officer Peterson and law enforcement officers like him. (The quotes below were made on Facebook and there are a lot of issues with spelling and grammar, so for those who are sticklers over that, I'm just warning you. The links are to the actual screenshots.)
Peterson told several gun owners, some of whom he engaged were not from Connecticut,

"I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun…"

While it is disturbing that an active law enforcement officer would say such a thing, consider the fact that he then went after another Facebook user by saying he was a "criminal law breaking psycho."
Even more telling is Mr. Peterson's response when those he is engaging over the issue of police enforcing laws such as the one in Connecticut, which require citizens to register their semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines. The fact that Mr. Peterson can't distinguish between a semi-automatic rifle and an "assault we... should also raise concern.
Peterson was accused of wanting to enforce "Nazi policies," which he said were "not nazi policy…," but "a state statute."
Sadly, history is not on the side of Mr. Peterson when it comes to this issue.
In fact, when it was brought up that Nazis could not use the excuse he was providing when it came to dealing with the Jews, he sounded just like the Nazis at Nuremberg and attempted to escape the ultimate logical conclusion of his position.
While Peterson said that he didn't see what the big deal was to simply register the weapons, claiming that "Nobody wants to take his weapon…they want to take it because he didn't register it…," he then spilled the beans on why people don't want to register their guns. When asked, "Why do they want it registered? For what purpose?" Peterson said, "So they know who's got them (sic) that's what the purpose is (sic) there's no use for assault rifles anyways (sic) you want to own a register him just like your car."
Here is where he tells gun owners what they already know: Gun registration leads to confiscation. If you don't register your guns, which were previously legal before the law, they're going to take them. If you do register them, it isn't a matter of safety, it's a matter of knowing who has what kinds of guns. Why is that important? Logically, it is to find them, when they enact the next step in their process, which is full gun confiscation, and as Mr. Cinque noted in his talk last year, none of this protects anyone nor does it stop mass shootings. It merely will define law abiding citizens as criminals.

Again, notice that Peterson cannot distinguish between the two kinds of weapons involved here. Peterson also attempted to draw a parallel between registering an automobile and a gun.
However, it is the demeaning nature of Peterson's comments that indicate that he knows this won't do anything. As one commenter pointed out, registration is simply another way to be taxed, and it is. However, Peterson scolded the commenter telling him to move somewhere else so he can "play with (his) rifle and not hurt anyone." Think about that. Are people being hurt by law abiding citizens with semi-automatic rifles now in Connecticut? How would registering such a weapon keep anyone from hurting anyone? It won't, but Peterson has already told us why they are doing it: It's so they will know who have these rifles and who doesn't. It's not about safety, just like John Cinque told Republican representatives last year.
Peterson also told others that they were not going to fire their weapons in their homes in a residential neighborhood, presumably for protection, "because if it goes through the walls into a neighboring house and kills someone then you will truly be a felon." One wonders how registering any gun will keep that from happening. In fact, according to Peterson, policemen have registered their semi-automatic rifles that they use. I wonder if they will be felons if they fire in a residential neighborhood and kill someone. I'm betting the will be handled a bit different, don't you?
Peterson then mocked a commenter's position connecting gun registration to confiscation. "Nope not at all still not an excuse to break the law (sic) register your gun and you won't be breaking the law… you say the criminals don't have to register theirs… what's that if you can't beat them join them mentality…," he wrote. "But if it's a law I enforce it (sic) I don't make them."
Then out of nowhere, Peterson played the race card. "Hey everyone good luck with Cameron who (sic) he comes to your door as a medic if you're a racist like he is a (sic) don't see how he could give your good medical care."
This instance was completely off topic and no one still has a clue where or why it even came up.
John Cinque finally commented. According to Cinque, he and Peterson have been friends a long time, still John encourages others that not all in the Branford Police Department are like Joseph, nor do they think like him. He also responded to the comment by Peterson, in which he claimed that he didn't get to pick and choose which laws he enforced. In other words, from Peterson's perspective, if it's a law, even an immoral one, he would enforce it. This is important as he was given the scenario that took place in Nazi Germany which led up to mass exterminations, along with gun confiscation.
Cinque simply reminded Peterson, "I am glad there (sic) a good cops like you double do your job and follow orders no matter what (sic) then again there was something in our past call the Nuremberg trials but that's for another conversation. And Joe they absolutely do want to take the guns all of them but then again that is for another conversation."
If you think the conversation was going down at this point, you would be right. Peterson encouraged everyone to register their rifles and magazines and then.... Well, now, why would he want them to fight? After all, confiscation would be part of that whole "enforcing the law" thing that he was on a diatribe about, right? Does he not realize he'll be the one doing the confiscating? Or will he have a breakthrough moment and say, "Hey, wait a minute, I can't do this"?
John Cinque implored Peterson to remember that he is not the only one in his house, but he is the only one that has access to his weapons; so he reminded Peterson that if he were to come to his house for his guns not to shoot his son, who might be holding a XBOX controller, or his wife holding a cell phone.
Peterson went on to claim that John was making threats, when in reality all Cinque had done was to simply affirm his position of non-compliance in registering his guns. Cinque told him there was no threat. He also indicated that he never said he would win if the police showed up, but did finish by stating, "Last time I checked I still have my First Amendment rights…unless you want those also."
Peterson even went on from what he perceived as a threat to mock John's Christian faith saying, "Be nice John you carry the bible right? Then don't talk like a man that doesn't."
Cinque responded, "Don't know what my faith in Jesus Christ has to do with my comments above... othe than the fact that my freedom is granted to me by God... not man... but that is a conversation for a whole other thread."
Clearly, the conduct and language in the interaction is unbecoming of a law enforcement officer. However, that aside, the realm that we are now moving into where history is not even being acknowledged about the road we are ... and how willing law enforcement is willing to go down that road with corrupt political leaders should be enough to alarm anyone.
If you are interested, here are the complete files of screenshots provided to Freedom Outp....
UPDATE: We received a press release from the Branford Police Department earlier, but it had to be cleared. The Press Release reads as follows (Thanks to Captain Geoffrey Morgan). You can download it here.

The Branford Police Department has launched an Internal Investigation into the allegation that an officer, while off duty, made certain comments during a conversation on Facebook that were later posted on the internet.
Chief Kevin Halloran confirmed the allegation and said, “We treat every allegation concerning our agency with the utmost of seriousness. This, like any other allegation will be thoroughly investigated and if any law, departmental rule or regulation has been violated the officer will be held accountable.”
Chief Halloran noted that the officer involved currently is on an extended Workers’ Compensation Leave.
Any inquires can be addresses to:
Captain Geoffrey Morgan
Administrative Division / P.I.O.
Office: 203-315-3914

http://patriotaction.net/profiles/bl...msg_share_post

bttt

http://www.alipac.us/f9/citizens-rev...9/#post1399862

How Connecticut Will Spiral Out of Control

By Robert Farago on March 7, 2014

http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdn...mp-vhHSYU.webp

Tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners failed to register, surrender, destroy or remove from the state their modern sporting rifles (a.k.a., assault rifles) and standard capacity ammunition magazines (a.k.a., high-capacity ammunition magazines) by the January deadline. They refused to comply because the law infringes on their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. This act of civil disobedience has made them Class D felons. So now what? There are lots of ways this could get real ugly real fast. Here’s how I see it going down . . .
A doorstep firefight between Connecticut gun owners and state or federal police come to confiscate their “assault rifle” or “high cap mag” is unlikely. The State will not go door-to-door to grab guns. There will be no midnight no-knock raids or flash-bang police parties. For a while.
If Connecticut political leaders and their law enforcement lackeys can hold off on forcible confiscation until after the November mid-term elections, they will. But they probably can’t/won’t. As Ralph reminds us, history is driven by events. If there’s another AR-related spree killing, or an unrelated arrest goes seriously awry (with an “assault rifle”), or a gun rights protest turns violent, the State will not let a good crisis go to waste act on behalf of public safety.
Why not? The State enjoys overwhelming public support for their gun control policies. That’s how the laws came to be. The State being what it is, its functionaries are predisposed to preserving law and order (i.e. defending their own authority). The Democratic machine controlling Connecticut knows that gun owners are not “friends of ours.” And they know how easy it will be to paint lawbreaking gun owners as public enemies.
Bottom line: they will move against Constitution State gun owners in violation of the law when the time is right. The good news: the cops in charge of making the collar will make damn sure that any firearms confiscation campaign is a complete success – at least from their point-of-view. By that I mean that law enforcement will do everything possible to make sure they don’t get killed. Or even fired upon.
As we saw with the Department of Homeland Security’s arrest of gun dealer Bob Adams in New Mexico, the cops are smart enough to intercept ostensibly felonious gun owners away from their homestead, using speed, surprise and overwhelming force. So when Connecticut chooses to make a symbolic collar on a Class D gun owner, that’s how it’ll go down. And there’s not a damn thing sympathetic gun owners anywhere will be able to do about it.
After the fact, gun rights advocates/patriots will kvetch like crazy. But they will not mount anything other than a legal rescue effort to spring the gun owner(s) from prison. Which is just as well; the security surrounding the scofflaws will be extremely tight and the cops will be equally on edge. Both the fact of the arrest(s) and their own impotence to correct the situation will inflame gun owners in Connecticut and across the country. They’ll organize themselves into militias.
Note: the point of a citizen militia is not self-defense. Citizen militias are created to liberate fellow citizens from tyranny. See where I’m going with this? Well so does the government. Citizen militias aren’t illegal (they get an honorable mention in the preamble to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution), but the government hates them with a passion undimmed (Hutaree anyone?). When talk of protecting gun rights turns to group preparation for armed, post-confiscation conflict, that’s when the situation will start to get seriously ugly.
You’ll know what’s coming when you start hearing the words “domestic terrorists” in relation to gun rights groups. The government will feel “forced” to “respond to the threat” proactively; they will swoop down on militia leaders and do some wet work on web work (killing websites to prevent “criminal” communications). In the aftermath of these raids, the State will no doubt producing damning evidence of terrorist intent and a HUGE arsenal of guns (including illegal “assault weapons”) and ammunition (including “high-capacity” magazines).
Hopefully not; the State may not be as stupid as they have shown themselves to be by passing these laws in the first place. They may hang fire. But they will not back down. As I said above, the State must exert its authority. It’s what governments do. No matter how measured or reasonable their reactions to gun rights protesters, he situation will continue to grow increasingly contentious. Both sides will be looking for an excuse to act. One side to recover their lost rights, the other to establish the rule of law. At some point, worlds will collide. Violently.
I don’t think it will be a massacre. I think it’ll be far worse than that: an armed stand-off. MRAP-equipped SWAT teams will be forced to wait-out a heavily armed Class D felon or felons. Et voila: Waco redux. Only this time, the cops may face opposition from the other side of the barricades, from armed Americans hailing from in-state or across the country. Not many. Not the first time. But some. Enough for the situation to descend into bloody chaos.
If that kind of conflict occurs, things will go completely out of control. The crackdown on gun rights supporters by government agents will be intense, on both the State and the federal level. Gun rights advocates’ response will be no less intense. Quite how it plays out from there I have no clue. But it will be a civil war of one sort or another.
As the weather warms and temperatures rise, there are only two ways to avoid this escalation into bloodshed in the Constitution State: the Supreme Court strikes down the Connecticut gun control laws or the Connecticut legislature repeals the laws. Neither is bound to happen. Although I don’t know the future, the future I see ain’t that pretty at all. And what about gun owners in California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Rhode Island? God help them all.

You may also like -

• Quote of the Day: Lay of the Land Edition
• GRAA's Open Letter to CT Governor Malloy
• Random Thoughts About Sandy Hook, Racism and The Geography of Gun Control
• Colt: Gun Guys' Ban Bill Boycott Threatens CT Jobs
• Gun Rights Advocates on Edge as Connecticut Confiscation Looms

​

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...piral-control/

Connecticut Gubernatorial Candidate Joe Visconti: Connecticut “Wants Dan Malloy’s Head on a Plate”

Tim Brown 2 hours ago
13 Comments

With the whirlwind of tyranny taking place in the heart of Connecticut, a bright light has emerged. Long-time Tea Party activist (before there was a Tea Party) and constitutionalist Joe Visconti has thrown his hat into the ring of the gubernatorial race against Dannel Malloy this year. I had the opportunity over the weekend to interview Joe, and I must say that I can see why so many patriots are behind this man. He recently told a crowd that after being on the campaign trail, he has heard from a lot of Connecticut citizens that they "want Malloy's head on a plate."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=RyWxeRBHOvg

You may have seen Joe Visconti in the video with John Cinque, included in my article regarding the Connecticut police officer that was eager to kick in doors and confiscate guns.

Visconti, who lives about four miles from the capital in Hartford, has been active in politics for several years, fighting socialist Democrats. He is a former Republican Candidate for United States Congress against John Larson, as well as a former West Hartford Town Councilor. He has spent 40 years as a builder and has three children: Michael 20, Gabriella 24, Joey 26.

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...ti-277x300.jpg Joe Visconti at the Gun Right's Rally - April 20, 2013 - Open Carry is Legal in Connecticut

Though active throughout the years, Visconti told Freedom Outpost that the gun issue is the issue that broke the camel's back for him, making the decision to run for governor an easy one.

"I'm pro-2A, pro-constitution,…I've carried a gun for 30 years…so for me it's not that I just picked up the gun issue," Visconti told us. One of the reasons that Visconti carries a gun is from an experience he had in Miami in 1980 during the Mariel Boatlift. "One night coming out of the Diplomat Hotel; everyone was gone, and there was gun fire in the streets, cars burning…I got caught up in something, and I said 'Whoa!'"

Visconti then moved back to Connecticut and wanted to get into self-protection because in his words, "I experienced the unraveling of society." Though he had Ar-15's and accessories when he was younger that was not what really gave him a passion for the Second Amendment is all about. This 1980 incident really solidified in his mind why people had not only the right, but the responsibility to keep and bear arms.

Joe not only carries his weapon, but has open carried and continues to do so at gun rallies in the state. He, along with Palin Smith, who has provided the videos in several of the Connecticut articles I've written, has been working for years to make sure the public is informed of what its government is doing.

For Visconti, the issue of gun owners' rights is "real." He doesn't promote gun owners' rights for show, or to get elected. It's part of his life. Think about that Connecticut: Having a governor who is known to carry his weapon with him. Visconti says that alone would allow him to save tax payer money as he would not need near the size of security the current governor does.

Visconti points to the issue of constitutional rights as property rights. "Over the years, little by little, we've allowed the public, basically with the state and regulations, to be policemen on our property rights, to the point where we can't even use our own….our land is our rights…Now you have to ask permission (to do with your property what you want)."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqXrlISBmkI&amp;feature=player_embedded

The gubernatorial candidate believes that an explanation of property rights is the easiest and best way for people to "get it" and understand the gun issue. He then referenced how government will take 5 or 10 feet at a time from property owners for electrical lines and such concluding, "More and more we get it; they realize that we've bought a bad piece of land. We call it incremental, legislative infringement," which we also recognize is progressivism.

Mr. Visconti says that currently, concerning the gun registration law that went into effect earlier this year, "we are heating up… and it's boiling."

We have seen some of that with the comments from Branford Police Officer Joseph Peterson, as well as a recent video produced by some in opposition to the law. Visconti disavows the use of violence to solve the problem. He, like Freedom Outpost, advocates a defensive posture when it comes to the use of arms.

I asked Joe Visconti is he agreed with Constitutional carry, and he affirmed that he does agree. He also stated what he would do to help restore the rights of gun owners in the state if he was elected. "I will be seeking to use either executive orders or incrementally reverse legislation to take part of this bill off." While some would ask why he wouldn't repeal the legislation, Visconti answers, "The governor can't repeal it. If they (the legislature) puts it in front of me, I'll sign the repeal."

Joe Visconti isn't confident that the Connecticut legislature will bring that legislation forward. He does push for taking care of those with mental health issues, but was just as concerned that such things can be abused as well. That was confirmed as we spoke about how our veterans are being railroaded with the capture of their arms and revoking their rights based on alleged mental health issues.

Visconti also supports having at least one armed guard at government schools. He says that his opposition doesn't want armed guards at schools. "They (the schools) are potential shooting galleries because you can't have a gun there."

A recent Quinnipiac poll shows that Visconti, as well as other challengers for the governor's seat, is within the margin of error against Republican Tom Foley. That same poll also pointed out that 57% of the people in Connecticut were ok with the new gun legislation (SB1160), but then when asked if they thought the bill went far enough, the majority said it went too far. "It didn't go too far with mental health," Visconti said. "It didn't go too far with school safety. It went too far with registering semi-automatic weapons and declaring large capacity magazines (LCM)."

Visconti said he went to the state house on the day the legislation was to be signed into law. According to him, the law was never handed out to the people, and no one knew who wrote it, which has only added to the anger of the people of having it rammed down their throats in a similar manner to Obamacare.

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con..._n-300x266.jpg Joe Visconti openly opposes Common Core

Guns aren't the only issue Visconti is taking on. He has been standing against Common Core standards for quite a while, as well as pointing out how the liberal establishment has been driving Connecticut into the ground for the past 70 years. Jobs have moved from the state; unemployment has risen, and electricity costs have skyrocketed.

In dealing with the education system, Visconti says that the desire of those in charge is to keep kids "entertained" via internet and other things, and they want to "keep them from anything to do with violence or self-defense or 'thinking on your feet."

"Let's not talk about that," Visconti said, referencing what the progressives say to keep kids in what he calls a "Pollyanna world that is utopian." He's right. Progressives don't even want kids to make a gun with their fingers, pencils, or biting their pastries to look like guns. We've even seen extreme examples where one kid honestly forgot he had a pocket knife on him, turned it in and got a ten day suspension for his integrity!

Visconti opposes the redefining of marriage also. He's been on the record on this issue for years. He asks, "Why is someone gay? Because of nature or nurture?"

"If it's nature, we should teach tolerance," he said. "But if it's nurture, tell me if you can influence, teach and turn my child 'gay.' Because if nurture is what is involved and you can take my tax dollars and influence my children towards a choice to become gay… because I'm a selfish man that has a child that I want to grow up that looks like me, so they don't adopt (referencing the only means practicing homosexuals can have children) and they marry heterosexual and I give them my property, that's my parental right."

Visconti was recounting an interview from 2008 where he made the statement and concluded that if homosexuality was due to nurture, and that homosexuality is a choice, "Then not with my tax money will you turn my children gay so that they cannot have children that look like me." Clearly, he was speaking of the natural order of things and how that was established by the Creator.

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...fb-300x208.jpg Visconti said that Obama will be in Connecticut soon and obviously pushing liberal candidates. This is the time for conservatives to stand. "If Connecticut falls, New England falls, and the country falls to the liberals," he declared. "A star burns brightest before it burns out. Liberalism is about to burn out here. There is so much pain and suffering, and there's not money and there's no jobs…everyone's moving forward in the country, but not here. We're borrowing….we can't borrow anymore. This guy (Malloy), that's why his ratings were so bad. We're last for everything economically."

Forbes produced a piece outlining the poor performance of the Constitution State, asking How Did Rich Connecticut Morph Into One Of America's Worst Performing Economies?The Forbes article explains how a seventy year play out of liberalism has destroyed Connecticut.

On a final note, Visconti told me what I have said on many occasions, and that is that people for a long time have left the idea of charities, churches and individual charity for the promise of big government to take care of them. In doing so, they have unwittingly succumbed to a statist morality rather than a biblical morality. He also put his finger on how socialists took the principle of Jesus and the Good Samaritan and perverted it from individual, voluntary concern and love for one's neighbor to statist taxation (also known as legalized theft), redistribution, and entitlement; something he wants to see reversed.

"You can't mandate charity," Visconti affirmed. "And this is how it worked. The 'Jesus Principle' of the Good Samaritan had come over those who had lost their morality and their religious life because it dried up for them in a conflict of interests, and when they came into the secular world, they have a hard time up here feeling they won't give to charity or give more taxes to help the poor, but the act of charity and love, which is Christian, was removed, and the secular world made it a mandate and a law. So no longer could you choose."

He then drew a direct line from the government taking over mandated redistribution and the loss of love between people. "This is the conflict between Christ and the secular world. This is what's happening. They don't want us to feel the act of love, where there is nothing between you and the act of love." To get a better sense of what Visconti is saying, I highly recommend a video I helped produce for NiceneCouncil.com, called Not Yours to Give.

In talking to Joe Visconti, I get the sense that the time is ripe for a sober-minded governor in the state with real solutions, and he seems to have his feet on the ground, understanding it will be an uphill battle, but it is a winnable battle. So far, Joe has received support not only from citizens of Connecticut, but also from at least 17 states across the nation (I think I may have made it 18). He believes that he can win the gubernatorial race in Connecticut if people will support him from abroad and they are stepping up. You can also see him on video on a myriad of subjects here. You can visit his website here and make a donation to his campaign directly.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/co...ys-head-plate/

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...42788974_t.jpgConservatives Against Obama's Liberal Agenda

War is about to break out in the ever-unstable New York. Dom the Conservative

BREAKING: Gun Owners Refuse to Register Their Guns in New York


Posted by Dom The Conservative On March 18, 2014 0 Comment

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/wp-conte...rallies-ny.jpg

Rebellion against gun control is spreading like wildfire all across the country. Citizens are revolting against the tyrannical and unconstitutional attempts to confiscate guns.
In Connecticut, potentially hundreds of thousands are in open defiance of the state’s new registration law. The state police is warning that they have one last chance to register before they become felons. The NRA is warning that the situation in Connecticut could completely unravel over the arbitrary enforcement of gun control laws. It’s surreal.
In New York, citizens are literally burning registration forms by the thousands as New York’s SAFE Act requires so-called “military-style assault weapons” to be registered by April 15.

Click here to continue reading

http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/18c1b4b...%3Fs%3D80&r=PG
Author: Dom The Conservative

Dom is a Christian conservative, mother, and wife. Dom’s purpose for writing is to inform, anger, and unite “We the People”.

http://universalfreepress.com/breaki...s-in-new-york/

Connecticut Gubernatorial Candidate Joe Visconti: Stop The Liberals Here And The Nation Will Follow

March 21, 2014 by Sam Rolley

http://plnami.blob.core.windows.net/...da-300x300.jpg

VISCONTI FOR GOVERNOR

Visconti (right) attending a Connecticut gun rights rally in April 2013.

Recent national election cycles have proven that conservatives have a big problem recognizing the difference between candidates who adroitly pander and those who are truly dedicated to Constitutional leadership. But in regions of the country where liberal policy triumphs, knowing the difference is key to restoring the voice of the robust but underrepresented conservative populations that exist outside of leftist power centers.
Joe Visconti, 51, a candidate in the 2014 Connecticut gubernatorial race, believes that his State is the perfect place to demonstrate on the national stage the difference electing a true Constitutional conservative can make in areas long-dominated by misguided liberal leadership.
“What happens in Connecticut gets exported everywhere in America,” Visconti said in an interview with Personal Liberty. “So the line in the sand is in Connecticut.”
“Republican Gadfly”
Visconti, who lives just miles from the State capitol in Hartford, is no stranger to Connecticut’s liberal politics.
Between 2007 and 2009 Visconti served as a council member in West Hartford, a town he once described as “the liberal capital of the world.” It was there that the gubernatorial candidate said he learned to recognize ways in which he could work with Democrats to further his conservative goals instead of taking a combative approach that would get him shut out of the conversation.
During the 2008 election for Connecticut’s heavily Democratic 1^st Congressional district, Visconti mounted a GOP challenge against incumbent Representative John Larson.
To say the candidacy was a longshot would be an understatement. The one-year councilman not only lacked name recognition, but was vying for support in a district that had not elected a Republican in almost 50 years.
But for Visconti, the challenge wasn’t just about getting elected. He wanted to do more than complain about the liberal policies he believes are leading the Nation toward ruin.
He wanted to send a message.
“He’s part of the establishment that needs to go,” Visconti had told a reporter at the Hartford Courant at the beginning of his candidacy.
Reading archived news reports about the race makes clear that it was really a surprise to no one when Larson handily swept up 70 percent of the electorate to Visconti’s 28 percent.
If Visconti were a politician, the defeat might have signaled that Connecticut isn’t really the best place for a conservative with little name recognition to dabble in electoral politics. But researching his past political endeavors and speaking with gubernatorial candidate Visconti makes clear why one unfriendly Hartford-area scribe repeatedly referred to him as a “Republican gadfly” in long-forgotten pieces about his early dealings with his local town council.
Visconti isn’t a politician — he’s a fed-up conservative trying to set an example for his similarly-frustrated compatriots.
Running for Governor
On April 4, 2013, the same day that Connecticut’s Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law a comprehensive gun control bill which effectively abrogated residents’ 2^nd Amendment rights, Visconti officially joined a crowded GOP field seeking to unseat the Democratic incumbent in 2014.
“I am the guy,” Visconti told Personal Liberty when asked if the timing of his joining the race was symbolic of his support for the 2^nd Amendment. “I wear a gun, for thirty years I’ve worn a gun.”
Visconti said that after 40 years working as a construction contractor and his previous ventures in electoral politics, he was content to spread the conservative message as a Tea Party activist in a harshly liberal area. But when the Connecticut legislature’s harshly anti-2^ndAmendment bill — described by the candidate as a knee-jerk response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook that did much to target gun rights and little to limit gun violence — was signed into law, he decided he had to run for Governor.
“The day he signed it, I went right across the street … to the Secretary of State’s office,” he said.
Jumping in the race so quickly does pose some difficulties for the candidate, not the least of which is the lack of the information usually gleaned from the exploratory committee that’s usually formed ahead of high-profile races. In a State like Connecticut, funding is also a major issue for anyone vying for office from the outer edges of the political establishment.
Visconti doesn’t seem extremely worried about the unconventional beginnings of his bid for for the governorship. He reasons that his “live off the land” approach could appeal not just to voters in his State, but to people all over the Nation who want to see a conservative underdog topple the establishment of a liberal stronghold.
And so far, he hasn’t been wrong.
“We were hoping to nationalize this issue and it’s going good,” Visconti relayed. “We got money from sixteen States in the last two days, which is great … We’re looking for a lot of people with a little money to help us.”
Prior to and throughout the past year of campaigning, Visconti has become something of a national figure in pro-2^nd Amendment and liberty circles as a result of his efforts to spread the message about the over-reach of Connecticut’s gun law. There are several videos floating around the Internet of him appealing to lawmakers at different levels of government to think about the reasoning behind the 2^nd Amendment’s inclusion in the Constitution.
Most recently, Visconti appeared in a YouTube video with a Connecticut resident whose words went viral throughout the conservative blogosphere last year, when he told Connecticut State Senator Leonard Fasano and State Representative Dave Yaccarino — both Republicans who voted for the bill — that he would not comply.
“[If] you’re going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk,” resident John Cinque told the lawmakers at a packed hearing in New Haven.
“I tell everybody I’m not complying,” Cinque went on. “I can’t — you have to be willing to stand up and say no. And there are a lot of us who are going to say no.”
After the video of Cinque’s remarks took off online, he said a police officer from his hometown of Branford reminded him of just how serious the threat posed by the political attack on the 2^nd Amendment was in Connecticut.
Officer Joseph Peterson, evidently relishing the potential power to kick in otherwise law-abiding citizens’ doors because of a failure to comply with the government’s demand that guns (and magazines) be accounted for, remarked on Facebook, “I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.”
Cinque is not alone in his civil disobedience with regard to the Connecticut gun regulations. Connecticut news reports last month indicated that only about 50,000 applications for the certificate of registration now required for so-called assault weapons had been filed, meaning as many as 350,000 Connecticut gun owners have decided to become felons under State law rather than register their weapons.
The figures elicited an editorial from The Hartford Courant that seemed to advocate the sort of response that Officer Peterson would enjoy:

Although willful noncompliance with the law is doubtless a major issue, it’s possible that many gun owners are unaware of their obligation to register military-style assault weapons and would do so if given another chance.
But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

Visconti said that he understands the decision of Connecticut gun owners not to comply with the unConstitutional legislation, but because the State has “the most liberal media in the country,” he doesn’t expect the newspapers to agree.
He also noted that some Connecticut residents are not outright disobeying the law. They’re “playing chicken with the police” by taking advantage of a portion of the legislation that allows for restricted firearms to be destroyed but provides no requirement of proof.
Because of his candidacy, Visconti said that he has taken the steps to comply with the State’s gun laws by declaring magazines for his Berretta 380, which were over the 10-round threshold imposed by the legislation.
“I wanted to go through the process,” he said. “For me it wasn’t about disobedience, because I’m taking a political course.”
Part of taking the law on from a political standpoint means that Visconti can’t advocate for disobedience — but he wants gun owners in Connecticut and all over the Nation to know that supporting his candidacy is a step in the direction of restoring the 2^nd Amendment.
If elected, Visconti’s power to completely repeal the law would be limited unless the State Legislature first voted for a repeal. But he said he has a plan to incrementally reverse portions of the legislation using executive power while working with the Legislature to address the mental health and safety concerns not addressed in the legislation. If the Legislature put a repeal bill on his desk, however, Visconti said he would sign it without hesitation.
Visconti makes it clear that he is not a one-issue candidate. His platform includes tax reform, parental education rights and Common Core opt-out options, State spending reductions and pro-business energy initiatives. But he also knows that the Connecticut gun law is his best bet for harnessing “organic outrage” throughout the State and getting the support of Connecticut’s underrepresented rural population.
A recent Quinnipiac poll shows Visconti and other GOP gubernatorial contenders trailing behind Republican Tom Foley, who lost the last Governor’s race in the State to Malloy.
The poll also notes that the “rest of the GOP field are virtual unknowns with 72 percent to 89 percent of voters lacking enough information to have an opinion.” Quinnipiac also found that, while 57 percent of voters aren’t actively opposed to the State’s new gun law, 36 percent say it goes too far and 55 percent believe it does little to make the State safer.
If that sounds like bad news for Visconti, perhaps it’s not. He can increase his name recognition by discussing better alternatives to gun control laws that many Connecticut residents have still not embraced. And that, combined with the support from gun owners both in- and out-of-State who are motivated to do whatever is necessary to restore the 2^ndAmendment, could be enough to get the longshot contender the keys to the Governor’s office.

Filed Under: 2nd Amendment Under Fire, Conservative Politics, Government, Liberty News, Staff Reports,Voices

http://personalliberty.com/2014/03/2...n-will-follow/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/13-maps-sho...1/#post1410662

_{http://www.alipac.us/f19/open-letter...7/#post1412046}

http://www.alipac.us/f9/what-happens...n-we-w-304756/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/judge-jeani...ricans-305274/

Massachusetts Lawmakers Crafting Unprecedented State Powers Into New Gun Control Bill

June 26, 2014 by Ben Bullard
http://plnami.blob.core.windows.net/...0925_image.jpg

THINKSTOCK

A bill that could ban private gun sales, set a high threshold of qualification for owning a gun and grant law enforcement broad discretion in issuing permits even for long guns is making its way through the committee process of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
The bill, HB 4121, would place a host of new hurdles in the path of potential gun owners in a State that’s not known for its lawmakers’ restraint in leaving the 2^nd Amendment as it is. Gun owners both inside the State, as well as those throughout the Nation concerned about the general erosion of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, are calling the measure extreme and dangerous.
“This egregious bill would empower police chiefs with discretion in licensing owners for shotguns and rifles, ban the private sale of firearms except through a licensed gun dealer, and create new firearm possession qualifications that could ban firearm ownership for thousands of hunters and gun enthusiasts across the Commonwealth,” warns the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA):

HB 4121 is dangerous legislation that seeks to further strip away your Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts. As anyone who has gone through the process to legally obtain a firearm in Massachusetts knows, there is no dearth of existing state laws that regulate the sale, purchase and transfer of firearms. State legislators on Beacon Hill should be repealing gun control laws, NOT enacting more to further restrict your Second Amendment rights.

The NRA-ILA is imploring Massachusetts residents to contact their State representatives and “urge them to vote against this dangerous anti-gun bill.” Even law enforcement within the State has come out against the bill; the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (MASS C.O.P.) — the State’s largest law enforcement union — has issued an official statement opposing the gun grab:

The Massachusetts Coalition of Police submitted written testimony to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security in opposition of House Bill 4121 An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence. Our reasoning is that we do not agree with the change in what can disqualify you for a license to carry a firearm in this bill. In the current legislation, if you are convicted of a misdemeanor that carries a punishment of two years or more, you are disqualified. In this bill it reduces that time to one year. This could negatively impact some of our members who had previously qualified and had no issues in the past. In some cases it could potentially terminate employment. This is the one issue within the bill that has an effect on our membership’s employment. There may be other issues that you do not agree with, or agree with in the bill. In any case, you should call your local State Representative and let them know that you are not in favor of this bill.

The Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) is keeping a running tab on the bill as it moves through the Legislature (it’s currently before the House Ways and Means committee); you can view its progress and find legislative contact information here.

http://personalliberty.com/massachus...-control-bill/

http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nati....0_640_480.jpg WTNH Screenshot

300 Thousand Connecticut Gun Owners Face Jail Time Under New Law

TownHall.com:

The scene above isn't from a foreign country. It's happening right here in America.
Law-abiding gun owners in Connecticut were recently forced to line up and register their firearms with the state government by January 1 of this year.
Now, citizens who either missed the deadline, or simply refused to submit to the blatantly unconstitutional law, are facing felony charges and up to five years in prison.
In fact, anti-gun groups and their allies in the state media are outright campaigning for authorities to "use the background check database" to round up an estimated 300,000 gun owners, fine them $5,000, and put them behind bars.
"If this can happen anywhere in America, it can happen everywhere," warns Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).
"And right now, Barack Obama and his gun control allies in Congress are plotting new ways to bring Connecticut's freedom-crushing policies to every corner of America."

Read the full column at TownHall→

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/27...-under-new-law

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...37954990_t.jpgMad World News

REBELLION: Hundreds of Thousands of Gun Owners Defy “Registration” in Connecticut
http://conservativetribune.com/conne...-registration/
Do you support their stand for the 2nd Amendment?

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&cfs=1&upscale

REBELLION: Hundreds of Thousands of Gun Owners Defy “Registration” in Connecticut

All across the country, individuals, states, and law enforcement officers are openly rebelling against unconstitutional gun control laws.
The push for gun control measures has increased in recent years in the wake of horrific crimes involving high-powered assault rifles, including the Aurora, Colorado shooting and the massacre in Newton, Connecticut.
The state of Connecticut responded by passing a law last year that required gun owners to register any military-style weapon with the state government, dramatically expanding the category of what constitutes a “military-style” weapon.

The registration requirement now includes semiautomatic firearms with any military characteristic, such as a pistol grip. But law-abiding citizens of the state are rebelling against the law and refusing to comply.
The Courant writes:

Bythe end of 2013, state police hadreceived 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional2,100 that were incomplete could still come in. That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation.
No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000. And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws.
By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

Making felons out of law-abiding gun owners isn’t permitted by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment also doesn’t permit the state to get to put your name on a list just for exercising your right to bear arms.
Gun registries are one step further down a slippery slope to making gun ownership as illegal as possible.
It makes no sense to say that registries allow police to keep tabs on potentially violent gun owners, because those are the very people who won’t comply with registration. However, even law-abiding citizens are defending their liberty the way they see fit and opting to rebel.
Sometimes, you’ve got to resort to civil disobedience to see justice done and defend your rights. What do you think? Is this one of those times where rebellion is appropriate? Let us know by sharing this article on Facebook and Twitter.

Click here to see anti-gun CNN host Piers Morgan get destroyed by a pro-gun sheriff.


http://conservativetribune.com/connecticut-defies-registration/

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...d628e3921b89ea Gun Rights Across America shared a link.

http://buzzpo.com/wp-content/uploads...e2440763j1.jpg

Dr Death Running for Governor: Wants Your Guns

By Steven Ahle on July 25, 2014 in Elections, Gun control, Healthcare

Donald Berwick, better known as Dr Death for his work in setting up the British government run healthcare system, is running for governor of Massachusetts with the platform of a wholesale confiscation of guns. Berwick, a proponent of healthcare rationing left large footprints in Great Britain”s healthcare system, that includes rationing.
Berwick was also a recess appointment of Obama’s. He was placed in charge of Medicaid and Medicare. His nomination was so odious that the democrats refused to bring his name up for confirmation. Obama bucked his own party and named Berwick as a recess appointment. The same man who considered hip and knee replacement as elective operations, meaning Medicare won’t pay for them. On the other hand, he explored making sex change operations for seniors as “necessary”.
After he left the Obama administration, he took a job with Soros sponsored Center for American Progress.
Fortunately, his recess appointment ran out before he could pull it off. He resigned because he would have been lucky to get more than a dozen votes in a confirmation hearing. Now, he wants to be governor. He won’t make it. There are no recess appointments for governor. Someone would actually have to approve of Dr Death in order for him to take office.
Having helped destroy healthcare in two countries, he now sets his sights on guns. He wants a total ban on what he calls assault weapons:
“Weapons of war have no place on our streets. I oppose automatic weapons and favor the strictest possible restrictions on semi-automatic and high magazine weapons.”
“Many of the illegal guns in Massachusetts come across state lines from New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. I will be a relentless advocate for comprehensive national gun safety laws, and I will work with neighboring governors to crack down on interstate gun commerce.”
“Giving increased discretion for our police chiefs to bar dangerous individuals from obtaining rifles and shotguns makes sense. Despite the best efforts of our dedicated law enforcement personnel, we face an epidemic of gun violence in our Commonwealth. This provision will give law enforcement a valuable tool in preventing violence and will save lives in Massachusetts.”
The law he is speaking about giving sheriff’s discretion to withhold guns from individuals is selective at best and does not involve proving anything in a court of law. He also wants a stringent gun registration that’s permanent.
In 2008, he defended the British healthcare system he helped create:
“Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must—must—redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.”
“We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
For his work, the British citizens rewarded him with a nickname, Dr Death. That says it all.

http://buzzpo.com/dr-death-running-governor-wants-guns/

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...d628e3921b89ea Gun Rights Across America

EXCUSE ME!

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=467&sh=244

Massachusetts police chiefs demand more power to disarm citizenry
“Police chiefs rally for gun safety at the State House,” WWLP-22News (“Working...
www.examiner.com


Massachusetts police chiefs demand more power to disarm citizenry


http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=qNNEWz-X

Video at the page link:

Boston Police Commissioner Evans says you don't "need" a rifle or shotgun Goal Video News via NPR


David Codrea
Gun Rights Examiner

Related Photo:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=WyQn7Rhd Boston Police Commissioner Evans doesn't think you need a rifle or a shotgun, so wants to use the power and force of his office to deny them to you.Photo by Jared Wickerham/Getty ImagesBoston Police Commissioner Evans doesn't think you need a rifle or a shotgun, so wants to use the power and force of his office to deny them to you. Photo by Jared Wickerham/Getty Images

July 27, 2014

“Police chiefs rally for gun safety at the State House,” WWLP-22News (“Working for You”) “reported” Tuesday.
“Reported” was put in quotation marks, because this thinly-disguised paean to state control begins with the biggest gun-grabber lie of all, that citizen disarmament provides safety, immediately followed by their lie du jour, that “There have been 74 school shootings since Sandy Hook,” a bit of manipulation and deception exposed for what it is by journalist Charles C. Johnson.
“The unusual public criticism by police chiefs comes after the Senate last week voted to remove a House provision giving chiefs discretion to deny firearms identification cards, required to buy shotguns and rifles, to people they deem unsuitable,” The Boston Globe explained. “They now have that discretion over licenses to carry handguns.”
Unsurprisingly, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, a “progressive” elitist-founded and funded propaganda group, accused the Senate of “placat[ing] the NRA instead of supporting law enforcement.” Longtime gun rights advocates will recall him as the founder of the failed Astroturf American Hunters and Shooters Association divide and conquer (via a fraudulent “middle ground”) gambit. Also unsurprising is that The Globe would give a multi-millionaire developer, who, despite his largesse and continued free mass media exposure, has only attracted (under) 3,400 Facebook “likes” on a page that’s been around since 2010. That in turn makes a mockery of Rosenthal’s refuted-by-reality claim that his pet nonprofit has “become [a] national model... for successful campaigns against gun violence...”
Had only the Senate listened to Rosenthal and to the top cops. After all, what’s to fear from what doctrinaire gun-grabbers call “reasonable, commonsense solutions to gun violence”? Besides, a spokesman assures us there’s no need for concern.
“Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association president Erik Blake said at the press conference that the provision giving police added discretion on firearms identification cards is ‘not about being capricious or arbitrary or taking away people’s rights,’” the Globe report continued.
That’s one side of the mouth talking. The other side shows what kind of “discretion” the chiefs are demanding.
“Having long guns--rifles and shotguns--especially here in the city of Boston, I think we should have, as the local authority, some say in the matter,” Boston Police Commissioner William Evans told Boston Public Radio (WGBH) in a July 23 interview. “For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.”
Doesn’t that sound reasonable and commonsense to you, as opposed to capricious and arbitrary? It does to sly prevaricators in the Massachusetts Senate, dutifully parroted by “real reporters,” offering what they characterize as a “compromise.”
“We are trying to find middle ground,” Michael Barrett, a Lexington Democrat (naturally), who evidently does not recognize the absurd disconnect with his district’s heritage, offered (or that "middle ground" is exactly what Rosenthal said AHSA was offering). “We aren’t opposed on the Senate side to giving chiefs this flexibility but we want to see the legitimate rights of gun owners respected.”
In fairness, Evans certainly sounds flexible, as long as he gets to be the one who decides which rights are legitimate and respectable. Case in point, when he was selected to become a permanent bludgeoning tool for the power elites following the Boston Marathon bombings, he had this to say about his dismantling of the Occupy Boston encampment in 2011.
“Our motto is to kill them with kindness,” Evans declared.
What he intends to kill gun owners who defy him with -- after he gets that flexibility he seeks -- remains to be seen.
-----------
If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
------------
Sure we won Heller and McDonald, but what have the black robes done for us lately? My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Full Court Press.”
------------
What would the outcome have been had McMinn County GIs in 1946 had to contend with MRAPs and other "weapons of war"? “What Would Happen if ‘Battle of Athens’ Round Two Ever Becomes Necessary?” is my latest JPFO Alert.
------------
Don’t like the latest Supreme Court ruling? My newest entry in The Shooter’s Log recommends “To Prevent Another ‘Abramski,’ Get in the Fight.”

Suggested by the author

Gun owner charges Quincy Police profiting by illegally selling seized guns
Oath Keepers Lexington rally endangered by ‘Bull Connor’ tactics
Menino Chick-fil-A stance shows guns aren’t only freedom ‘progressives’ threaten


http://www.examiner.com/article/mass...sarm-citizenry

Police Commissioner: ‘I Want To Have Discretion Over’ Who Can Have Guns In Boston

July 30, 2014 by Ben Bullard

http://plnami.blob.core.windows.net/...2914_image.jpg

SPECIAL

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans wants the power to determine who in his city can own a long gun.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans took advantage of his time before the city’s public radio audience last week to explain his support for a State legislative measure that would allow local police to decide who can or cannot be licensed to own long guns. As his quoted remarks make clear, it all boils down to a simple feature: control.
The Democratic-tilted State Senate voted 28-10 last week to strip language in a gun bill already approved by the House that would have granted local police forces the discretionary power to determine who can obtain long guns. It’s a power local police already have over those who choose to inform the State of their desire to obtain a handgun.
Police issue firearms identification cards (FIDs) to people who’ve passed a background check. In the case of handguns, Massachusetts law currently allows local police to deny a carry permit to someone who’s been issued an FID — if the police indicate a concern for how that person might use the gun. The Senate rejected a provision that would have included long guns in the police dragnet.
Evans sat for a phone interview last Wednesday with two sympathetic broadcasters from public radio juggernaut WGBH, expressing his disappointment with the Senate’s decision and urging legislators to reconsider:

A lot of times we know background information on people that, you know, whether they’ve been involved in domestic incidents or, you know, some mental issues, you know based on the totality of circumstances sometimes we can say ‘deny’ — and if we don’t get this legislation in, you know, people can go down and we have no say in them getting an FID card.
… A lot of people do not have criminal records, obviously, but there’s other issues going on in their lives that we’re aware of, and based on the knowledge we have, I think we should be able to determine the suitability of who should possess a gun, especially here in the city.
… There has to be restrictions because people should have a legitimate reason for possessing them.
… For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun; nobody needs a rifle, and I don’t know a lot of people who are into hunting who — being lifelong residents — would actually want that who lives in the city, but, especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun, because public safety is my main concern and, as you know, it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.

After the Massachusetts Senate stripped the language, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick aligned with Evans and the other police chiefs pushing for the expansion of police powers over FID licensing to include long guns. “I side with the police chiefs who were here yesterday and the law-enforcement officials, that the House version is the stronger of the two,’’ he said the day after a gun control rally at Beacon Hill.


http://personalliberty.com/police-co...n-guns-boston/

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...22975899_n.jpg Mad World News

Governor Signs Bill Giving Police the Right to Decide Who Can Own Firearms
http://madworldnews.com/governor-sig...-can-firearms/
Glad I don't live in that state.

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=600&sh=314

Governor Signs Bill Giving Police the Right to Decide Who Can Own Firearms

in Gun Rights, News, Politics / by Brandon Walker / on August 15, 2014 at 10:34 am /

http://i2.wp.com/madworldnews.com/wp...size=488%2C368

Governor Deval Patrick signed an extensive overhaul of Massachusetts gun laws. It gives police chiefs the right to deny people the firearms identification cards needed to purchase guns because they “feel” individuals may be unsuitable.If you are a Second Amendment supporter living in Massachusetts, now may be the time to stock up before the new law signed by Governor Deval Patrick takes effect.When the NRA reported on a Boston Public Radio broadcast of Boston Police Chief Evans stating that he had the right to say who should and who shouldn’t have a gun or a shotgun, many thought he was just blowing off steam.

“For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, and I don’t know a lot of people who are into hunting who, being lifelong residents, would actually want that who lives in the city, but, especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.” ~Boston Public Radio

Many also called the NRA paranoid gun nuts.Turns out the NRA was reporting the truth.

http://i2.wp.com/madworldnews.com/wp...esize=155%2C50

According to Huffington Post, Governor Patrick signed off on the extensive gun control overhaul for his state on Wednesday.The bill allows for the police chief to do just what he said he wanted to do. It allows for the police to have the power to go to court and to deny the firearms registration cards this new bill requires in order to buy a rifle or shotgun if the police feel the individual shouldn’t have one.Under this new bill, police would have to state the reason to deny in writing and the individual would have the right to appeal the police decision. Appealing it does not stop the denial until after it is successfully appealed. Under the new law, you’re guilty until proven innocent.The bill makes other changes to current gun laws as well, some good and some not so great. It creates a Web based portal through the Executive Office of Public Safety to allow real time background checks, stiffens penalties for some gun based crimes, and the creation of a “firearms tracking unit” to be formed using the Massachusetts State Police. The bill mandates that the schools have and implement a direct communication system between fire departments and police departments in the events of emergencies. It mandates school personnel receive two hours of mandatory suicide prevention classes at least every three years.It seems that when the final legislation left the Massachusetts congress, they did not give Governor Patrick his one firearm a month limit on purchases he wanted.Gun control advocates hail Governor Patrick’s signing of the bill as one that makes Massachusetts “a leader for the rest of the nation.”The NRA and other gun control groups feel that giving the authority to police to be able to deny a firearm “because they feel like it” opens up potential for abuse of power like never seen before.The Second Amendment is very clear: “Shall Not Be Infringed”What do you think of this new legislation?

http://madworldnews.com/governor-sig...-can-firearms/

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...e6c57ceb244bb9 Gun Rights Across America shared a link.

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&cfs=1&upscale

New York City Begins Gun Confiscation - BuzzPo
New York begins gun confiscation.
buzzpo.com

http://buzzpo.com/wp-content/uploads...on-498x250.jpg

New York City Begins Gun Confiscation

By Steven Ahle on August 16, 2014 in Democrats, Gun control, Liberal Fascism

The city of New York is serious about gun confiscation. They have sent a notice to all gun owner’s who are in possession of rifles and shotguns. (Still think gun registration doesn’t lead to confiscation?) All guns capable of holding more than five shots are now outlawed. Here is the letter that gun owners began receiving :

“It appears you are in possession of a rifle and/or Shotgun (listed below) that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess in New York City, as per NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b).”
“You have the following options,” the letter explains.
“1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.
LISTEN to BuzzPo Radio: Bad Tech: Why Civil Libertarians and Believers in Small Government Should Fight Against Self-Driving Cars with All of Their Hearts and Souls – Click PLAY to Listen:

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following…Disposition Report/Registration Certificate…Notarized statement of permanent removal…Utility bill or other proof of residency regarding the address where the firearm will be stored outside the City of New York.
3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance…”

Liberals keep saying that universal registration does not lead to gun confiscation. That is a lie. We see examples of it in New York state withe Safe Act and with cities who refuse to recognize the second amendment. The fault lies with the Supreme Court. Sure, they have ruled for gun owners many times over the last ten years, but they have failed to define the amendment with a solid guideline as to how far cities and states can go with regulating guns.

This is not your grandfather’s America.

Read more here:

http://buzzpo.com/new-york-city-begi...-confiscation/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/one-percent...6/#post1435221

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...a4db9623121428

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...&sw=640&sh=335
Michelle Obama Promises To CONFISCATE ALL FIREARMS Before Leaving The White House
Well it appears that Michelle Obama is not yet done championing her own agenda. According to recent reports, Michelle recently decided to appear in Chicago to...
secretsofthefed.com

Article at the page link:

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/miche...g-white-house/

BREAKING: CT Governor Declares State of Emergency Due to Ebola

By Reagan Wilson on October 7, 2014

http://controversialtimes.com/wp-con...4/10/malls.jpg

UPDATE: This post is getting a ton of traffic from Facebook over the last 48 hours. If you could please leave a comment with what page or group shared it, that would be most appreciated.
The state of Connecticut has become the first to declare a state of public health emergency over the possibility of an ebola virus outbreak in the United States.
According to NBC CT,

He signed an order declaring the emergency on Tuesday, giving the Commissioner of the state Department of Public Health the authority to quarantine and isolate people whom the commissioner “reasonably believes has been exposed to the Ebola virus.”
Malloy said this is not in response to any specific case, but is meant to provide state health officials with the authority necessary to “prevent any potential transmission of the Ebola virus within the State of Connecticut.”
“We are taking this action today to ensure that we are prepared, in advance, to deal with any identified cases in which someone has been exposed to the virus or, worst case, infected,” Malloy said in a statement.
“Our state’s hospitals have been preparing for it, and public health officials from the state are working around the clock to monitor the situation. Right now, we have no reason to think that anyone in the state is infected or at risk of infection. But it is essential to be prepared and we need to have the authorities in place that will allow us to move quickly to protect public health, if and when that becomes necessary. Signing this order will allow us to do that.”

Declaring a state of emergency can give state governments different powers than they normally have and these provisions vary from state to state.
Ebola was first identified in the United States in Dallas, Texas when a citizen of Liberia was hospitalized with the disease. Since then, several other possible cases are being evaluated in other parts of the country and hundreds of people who may have had contact with the Dallas patient are being watched by officials for signs of the virus.

http://controversialtimes.com/news/b...-due-to-ebola/