Connecticut Gun Law Ignored as Thousands of Patriots Don’t Register AR-15s

Image

Freddy’s Note:
The law about registering so called “assault rifles” is an illegal (these weapons are in “Common Us” as defined b the Supreme court) and stupid law. These are just rifles that has some cosmetic features that look like the real military versions. I don’t understand why they always try to ban guns by how they look, instead of the type of bullet round or shell that they fire. Hunting rifles fire a more powerful round that most AK’s or AR’s. I see all the people who refused to obey this unjust law as Patriots. The government and liberals see otherwise.

Reblogged from Newsmax

Thousand of Thousands of Felons ( I say Patriots) now in CT.

The Connecticut gun law passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre is reportedly being ignored by many state residents, leaving thousands of AR-15s and other assault rifles unregistered.

The law requires that all residents who own so-called assault rifles, such as AR-15s, register the firearms with the state by the end of 2013. As of the end of last year, the Connecticut State Police received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates. An additional 2,100 applications have yet to be turned in.

As significant as the nearly 50,000 registrations appear, they likely represent approximately 15 percent of the actual number of Connecticut residents who own so-called assault weapons, the Hartford Courant reported, citing estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Acknowledging that there are no definitive figures as to the actual number of semi-automatic rifles in Connecticut, the local newspaper reported that there are above 50,000 and perhaps upwards of 350,000 unregistered AR15s in the state.

Those who are found to be in possession of an unregistered assault rifle are committing a  Class D felony under Connecticut state law.

“I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,” Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety committee, told the Hartford Courant. “If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”

It is unclear how Connecticut officials will proceed in enforcing the newly minted law, considering anywhere between 20,000 to upwards of 100,000 residents might be in violation of the statue.

According to Mike Lawlor, Connecticut’s top official in criminal justice, the state could send residents who are in violation a letter to remind them that they must register their firearms. Such a campaign could increase the state’s registration numbers significantly, since many might not have realized that they had to register rifles by the end of 2013, Lawlor added.

However, Lawlor said that as of today, such unregistered guns are now illegal.

“Like anything else, people who violate the law face consequences. . . That’s their decision. The consequences are pretty clear. . . There’s nothing unique about this,” Lawlor said. “The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation.”

Many who own AR-15s and other similar semi-automatic rifles fear that registration is the first step towards prohibition and eventual government acquisition.

The guns have already been banned in Connecticut’s neighbor to the South – New York State, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre announced sweeping gun control legislation that prohibited the sale of so-called assault rifles and required all such weapons be registered with the State Police by April 15, 2014.

In the eyes of many Second Amendment advocates, such legislation in Connecticut and New York was a kneejerk reaction to a tragedy and aimed purely at calming the fears of a public with little understanding of firearms, rather than actually reducing gun violence. Semi-automatic rifles are rarely used to commit violent acts, whereas handguns, which remain legal, are responsible for the vast majority of shooting deaths in the U.S.

The AR-15 was one of four weapons recovered from Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, a mentally-ill 20-year-old who killed his mother before driving to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, 2012, and killing 20 children and six teachers with an arsenal of weapons that also included a bolt-action rifle, shotgun and Glock 20 handgun.

Despite the assault on AR-15s from gun control advocates, the weapon remains the most sought after rifle in the United States, with 50 to 60 percent of all rifle sales in the United States in recent years being AR-15s, federal figures show, the Hartford Courant reported.

No Gun Allowed Sign Failed to Keep Customers Safe

Image

Freddy” Note:

I always chuck when I hear people complaining about No FireArms Allowed Signs, or laws that will restrict fire arms from certain places.

The reason for this is because in my state. Business, and even Cities and Towns are not allowed to set fire arms policies. The State Legislature is the sole authority and they have only passed a law saying “No Guns at the State House”. That law itself was not in existence, until he Open Carry Crowd had a huge protest involving Open carry inside the State House.  I blame the “Open Carry” extremists for that law. So in my State, you can’t carry in the State House, Court Building, and Inside the post office.  The moronic obsessed bitches of the Mother’s Demand Action aren’t going to get any traction in this state.  Business and bars can’t restrict fire arms.  Here is a case below of what  happens when a business restricts fire arms.

From Mississippi Gun News:

On Friday January 10, 2014 a man was shot outside a convenience store in Jackson, MS.

The victim was taken to a local hospital with a gun shot to his leg.

It’s interesting to note the “No Firearms” sign displayed on the window of the store.

Attorney David Butts of Tupelo, MS had this to say on the Facebook page of Firearms Freedom Day;

“A report of a shooting outside a convenience store in Jackson today, which had a “no firearms” sign posted at the entrance, brings to mind one obvious observation and one not so obvious question. First, it is obvious that criminals have no regard whatsoever for “no firearms” signs and that, in fact, the presence of such a sign may even encourage a criminal to enter a business to commit a criminal act (robbery, etc.) since, presumably, no one (except possibly the business owner) would have a firearm.
The not-so-obvious question is “what is the responsibility of the business owner to protect his/her customers if they post a ‘no firearms’ sign at their place of business?”

It is already the law in MS that a business owner must exercise “reasonable care” to protect a customer from injury. One sees this a lot in “slip and fall” cases (wet floors, owner has duty to warn of danger).

But what about the situation where a customer, legally armed, either openly or with a concealed carry permit, disarms themselves to do business in the “no firearms” business and is injured or killed by some gun-wielding thug intent on committing a crime? What does the owner’s duty of “reasonable care” to protect the customer mean in those circumstances?

There have already been several cases in MS where business owners have been held responsible for injuries to their patrons or residents where they failed to provided adequate security (for robbery, rape, assault, etc.). In the case in Jackson, the shooting occurred outside the place of business, but what if it had happened inside? And what if the person who was shot had disarmed themselves because of the sign in order to go in and do business? It may be just a matter of time before just such a case happens. Just my guess, but at a minimum business owners who post such “no firearms” signs may be put to the expense of metal detectors and/or armed guards inside their places of business. More cost which is usually passed on to the customer. IMHO