Do you remember when they said they weren’t interested in confiscating all guns?

Ruger Mark III with its standard 10-round  "high capacity" magazine (.45 cartridge shown for comparison)

Ruger Mark III .22LR with its standard 10-round “high capacity” magazine (.45 cartridge shown for comparison)

The President of the United States said so just yesterday and of course a couple of FWIW readers have chimed in here vowing the same thing, repeatedly – who, us? Thursday, the Connecticut Action Against Gun Violence (CAGV)  demonstrated in Hartford demanding adoption of their agenda and, thanks to Fly Angler, here’s what’s being proposed, from their own press release:

The proposal put forth by CAGV is unique in that it does not grandfather existing weapons; it requires that all weapons defined by law as assault weapons must be destroyed, turned in to law enforcement, or removed from Connecticut; and large capacity ammunition magazines of more than 7 rounds are to be destroyed, turned in to law enforcement, or removed from the state.

Connecticut Against Gun Violence proposes legislation in Connecticut that will:

  1. 1  Strengthen the assault weapons ban by requiring that all weapons having military features be banned and that existing weapons defined as assault weapons be destroyed, turned in to law enforcement or removed from the state.
  2. Ban large capacity ammunition magazines of more than 7 rounds and that existing magazines of more than 7 rounds be destroyed, turned in to law enforcement, or removed from the state. New York State has just adopted law that established the 7- round limit.
  3. Require permits and universal background checks on ALL sales and transfers of guns, including long guns.
  4. Require registration of handguns with annual renewal. Require: annual fee and annual background check for all handguns owned; require that the owner stipulate that the guns are still in their possession or explain how the gun was transferred to another person; require safety inspection every three years.
  5. Make gun owners liable for negligent storage if any person gains access to firearms and injures himself or another person or causes damage to property. The violation would be a Class D felony.
  6.   Ban the right of way for transportation of firearms and ammunition bought over the Internet.
  7. Tax ammunition sales and require a license/permit to purchase any gun or ammunition.
  8. Restrict handgun sales to one gun/month.
  1. These aren’t all going to be enacted in this current legislative session, I hope, but it’s useful to see what they have planned. As I’ve said before, the regressives are patient and will be satisfied with small steps as long as they keep moving toward their ultimate goal. Even these proposals, in fact, are merely a prelude to complete confiscation and the disarming of citizens. ObamaKare-to-national health care is another example, but the best example, because it shows how long range the regressive’s planning extends, is the destruction of our education system – Outcome Based Education, with its group indoctrination, disparagement of individual achievement and the systematic attack on our constitution and the values our country were founded on started decades ago and is only now reaching fruition as its first kindergarten targets have grown up and become teachers themselves, thus assuring that the brainwashing continues.

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “Do you remember when they said they weren’t interested in confiscating all guns?

  1. Daniel

    Eric Holder in 1995.

    Uncle Joe 2013.

    What do they really want?

  2. FlyAngler

    Chris,

    The key for today is at there are several bills proposed in Hartford that would not allow Grandfathering – surrender, sell, destroy or become a felon. On magazines, they make no distinction for center-fire vs rimfire and no distinction on rifle vs pistol mags. As noted, even the standard 10/22 10- round 22LR mag would become verboten.

    I have tried to find another instance of a gun law passed that provided for no grandfathering and I can not find one. That makes this unique as well as radical and this approach has its fans in Hartford. CAGV was pulling no punches during the March for Change comments this week.

    The saddest part of this is that neither a black rifle ban nor limiting magazines will have any impact in the number one cause of gun death in CT as well as the USA – suicide. It will also have not impact on accidental injuries/death and will not deter the next mass murder from hatching an evil plan.

    Maybe saddest of all, these ideas will do NOTHING to prevent the steady death toll of young black and Hispanic men in our cities, most of whom dies via illegal handguns. Gun crimes will not be impacted since criminals ignore laws.

    I can give the mommies of March for Change a bit of a pass for being naive and being driven by a Newtown-induced need to “do something”. It is the professional gun-takers at CAGV who are the scum and are taking advantage of a horrible situation and are promulgating snake oil as a solution.

    Discredited ideas, if brought up often enough, will find fans among the gullible, uninformed and desperate.

  3. D

    Its very clear they can’t be given any incremental steps.

    Is that your Mark III? Very nice pistol.

  4. AJ

    California police chief says a gun is not a defensive weapon:

    • Why doesn’t he disarm his force then?

      • AJ

        If they’re not defensive weapons, then they’re offensive weapons as the following video shows a California cop dishing out a little street justice by executing a young man. California Cops are totally out of control; as the Chris Dorner incident shows, they will shoot up anything and anybody, then tell you it was justified. They could have waited out Dorner and brought him in alive, but decided to execute him as surely as if by armed drone. Now just like alleged Versace killer Andrew Cunanan who committed suicide, and therefore was never convicted, Dorner will always be an alleged killer never having been convicted of anything and therefore still just a suspect, guilty of nothing unless you believe the cops. Does anybody believe them on anything anymore?

  5. Daniel

    This cop shows you how to spin an argument to absurd levels. How many tree trimers were killed last year? And the two this year were killed by a former cop. Make no mistake, there is a concerted effort to do away with guns. Everyone should join the NRA and show support for the 2nd Amendment.

  6. Anonymous

    Registration leads to Confiscation.
    Confiscation leads to Extermination.
    This is a consistent pattern throughout history.
    Act accordingly.

    Constitutionalists have been identified as enemies of the Regime.
    Act accordingly.

  7. Krazy Kat

    One common misconception is to look at police chiefs as law enforcement officers. From my layperson’s perspective, chiefs are politicians first and LEOs second. GPD Folk can call bs on that if it is wrong but I see the chiefs as having crossed a line from frontline cops to mediocre politician. They have to worry about budgets and keeping politicians happy so that means pandering more than putting awy bad guys, handing out traffic tickets and kicking in a door every now and then.

    Greenwich’s own Chief Hevey is a perfect example. Hevey has chosen to maintain his predecessor’s policy of requiring pistol permit applicants to submit two letters of reference with their application. This is even though no such requirement exists in the CT statute AND that the state’s Board of Permit Examiners has issued a declaration that chief LEOs can not require more info in the initial application other than what the statute requires. Hevey is in flagrant violation of this ruling simply because he wants to make applying for a pistol permit just a wee bit harder. At the same time he is thumbing his nose at the Board of Examiners who are curently under attack by the Chiefs’ Association. In fact, the Association has petitioned theDemocrats in Hartford to disband the Board because the chiefs don’t like their permit rejections overturned about half the time.

    Chiefs have to pander to the dominant politicians who hold their purse strings. The rank and file LEOs often disagree with the stances their bosses take but have to remain silent for fear of reprisal. On the subject of confiscating soon-to-be-illegal ARs, I asked a LE door-kicker if he would conduct raids to confiscate previously legal ARs from otherwise law-abiding owners and he said NFW. Beyond his being sympathetic to the 2A, he said he has neither the time, resources nor budget to waste time on that. Further, he was not going to jeopardize his team’s nor the citizen’s lives for such a cause. Yet, removal of ARs from public hands is high on the Chiefs Association’s list of wants, directly opposite the views of the real LEOs.

    But the politicians love the boot licking chiefs and drag them out to put a shield behind their gun-taking efforts.