TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

n5wd wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: ...Of course, to find the now illegal weapons, the State is going to have to figure out where to look. A house to house search is probably not an option. Then again, that worked and was tolerated by the citizens of nearby Boston during the aftermath of the marathon bombings. Perhaps the citizens of CT are less inclined to do so.

Different situation entirely. Had the Boston bombing happened in, say, Fort Worth (about the same size, and much the opposite politically), you'd probably find the citizens of FW cooperating with the police, as well. But, once the fugitive was found, you don't think the Boston'ers would let the po-po just waltz through their house then, do you?

I figure the citizens of Connecticut would welcome a house-to-house search about as much as the folks in San Anotnio would assist "migra" (Customs/Border Patrol) looking through their homes and neighborhoods.

Well, I don't know what they'd do in Fort Worth, but they would have had to use force to get in my home if I lived in Boston. I wouldn't resist but I also wouldn't cooperate: they'd have to break the door down and physically drag me out while the cameras were rolling.

And they would have. They were actively searching for terrorists who had gunned down a cop and just murdered dozens of people.

I guess we're talking about different incidents, since in the incident I'm talking about two brothers were alleged to have killed THREE people with a bomb and a police officer in a robbery. The searches were entirely illegal as they not only had no warrants, they had zero probable cause and not even a reasonable suspicion that the criminal they were looking for was in any of the homes they forcibly removed residents from and searched....COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. They didn't even try to use a search dog, which I believe demonstrates that the whole exercise was a test and more about conditioning than finding a criminal. The reaction of the authorities was hysterical, damaging and costly to small business, had no basis or justification in law, and was completely ineffective, producing nothing but further erosion of our Constitutional rights and economic losses. They can't even claim it was justified by the results or that it saved a single person from harm. And in fact, their earlier botched arrest is why they were searching in the first place.

I fully expect they would have dragged me out and administered a beating. If everyone had taken a beating in defense of their rights and the law they might have slowed our descent into official lawlessness, but their passivity in relinquishing their rights out of fear has instead accelerated our descent, and this tactic will no doubt be used again, and again, until it becomes commonplace.

chasfm11 wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I'm not sure about the political calculus on that one. Some antis would no doubt applaud it, but if those raids end up killing someone, especially an innocent family member, the more rational people may consider the death penalty for having an unregistered gun a little harsh. I think they might have to throw something else into the mix to tarnish up their targets....just guessing, but the ole' standby seems to be "drugs." Anyway, unless they change the law and grant amnesty, those who didn't register can't register now without going to jail, so there there will be absolutely no incentive for people who hadn't registered to check into a jail cell with a confession.

In some neighborhoods in NE States, guns are as hated as drugs. There is also a general feeling that those in authority must be complied with. The unregistered gun owners obviously and clearly did not comply. Killing one of them during a raid, I agree, would bring on a whole additional set of circumstances but I suspect that the first few arrests will be engineered so that doesn't occur. It is a fairly simple matter to determine that someone is likely to have an un-registered now illegal weapon or component and to simply take them down on the street or at their place of work. Very few people have CC permits in CT so any firearm resistance to such an arrest would definitely be illegal and would work in the favor of the authorities, not the rebellious gun owner.


I said that it was going to be interesting. I truly believe that. It is definitely a standoff between the lawmakers and the unrepentant gun owners. It will be very difficult to come out of this with any sort of a good result. The real question is going to be - how bad does it get. I cannot imagine a capitulation by the CT lawmakers but that is possible. It is just not very likely.

I'll add that I lived in NJ and worked periodically in Southbury, CT. I got a chance to talk to some of the residents during the course of my travel there over many years. Hartford is very much like Boston. The outer areas are a little less so.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:And they would have. They were actively searching for terrorists who had gunned down a cop and just murdered dozens of people.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'm talking about the Marathon Bomber. I don't know what you're referring to.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
And they would have. They were actively searching for terrorists who had gunned down a cop and just murdered dozens of people.

Those events didn't obsolete the Constitution. Some of my teachers in NM believed in mass punishments if they could not identify the culprits when problems happened, too, but I hope that we as a society don't accept the same kinds of rules.

One is an active search in a defacto martial law situation. The other is group punishment in your elementary class.
It would be interesting to see the case law on active pursuit situations of this type.

Even if they needed a warrant without permission, remember all the constitution requires is a valid warrant. They could have a judge on speed dial or even on sight to order an immediate search warrant (or is it an arrest warrant in this context?). Boom, they can search.

Excaliber wrote:
I've lived in CT, and there are a whole lot of concealed carry license holders.

There's also no way to tell who is not in compliance from outside someone's house because the gun could have been transported out of state before the ban took effect.

What they've got is a whole bunch of unhappy people who can't let the guns they own be seen by anyone lest they be imprisoned.

Oldgringo wrote:They're yankees. They voted 'em in, let them vote 'em out.
Let this be a reminder to us, BTW.

chasfm11 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:They're yankees. They voted 'em in, let them vote 'em out.
Let this be a reminder to us, BTW.

I have a little more compassion for the voters there. I doubt seriously if any of the politicians in CT campaigned on a platform of promoting a gun ban. Once they are in office, as here in Texas, it sometimes takes blasting powder to extract them. I was one of a group who worked tirelessly to oust one particular Texas House member from Tarrant County. At the 11th hour in that race, an appalling number of her colleagues who were supposedly supporting our protest point of view were making robo calls for her. There was almost no time for us to thwart that effort. Politicians who said that they supported us were suddenly stabbing us in the back - imagine that. Luckily, we prevailed and she lost. I suspect that CT politics are no different. Incumbency is a powerful ally. Like police and doctors, politicians close ranks quickly.

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

MasterOfNone wrote:This comes to mind:

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

RogueUSMC wrote:Nobody is mentioning the fact that they have put a quasi- number on those that haven't complied...how do they have a number???