CT GUN GRAB in full effect -media blackout- door2door cop: Resistance is futile

reply to post by proteus33


I honestly do not know, I lack experience in buying guns, I am only stating what the officer in the video said, that the gun was no longer registered due to missing the registration deadline and pointing out the overblown demeanor of the woman.

Who would have thought that in 2014, the peoplre of the greatest nation in history would have to reclaim itself from tyranny from with in. The second amendment is there for such a time and action, who would have thought we would need it. I guess our forefathers. soon it will be time to rattle the saber and bring commonsense and freedom back to the masses. A new revolution is coming, and will be sooner rather than later.



War is coming,
our cause be just
may we be on the side of the angles.

reply to post by GoldenObserver


Before the new law in CT so called "long guns" did not need to be registered. Only pistols and revolvers that fired a cartridge needed registration. Black powder pistols and revolvers do not.

The change in law is that certain aesthetic styles of long gun now do need to be registered or are made illegal and subject to confiscation by the state.

Long guns, rifles, shotguns, things of that nature. Not handgun which pertains to pistols and revolvers.

I'm not sure if some people are just trying to ignore the obvious, but the 'lady' in that recorded phone conversation ain't no lady, it's a man. It has to be, she/he sounds like a character from a Monty Python skit. Why would a man pretend to be a woman and then clearly try to bait the police officer over such a serious issue, it removes all credibility from the thread in my opinion. And, to be fair, the officer remained level headed and polite throughout the conversation even though he had no idea he was being recorded. The effeminate sounding male recording the conversation obviously had a set script, trying to catch the officer out but I believe achieved nothing if you choose to listen to the officers replies rather than just listening to his/hers 'questions'/'statements'.
I honestly hope this isn't the best the CT gun lobby, liberty committee or whoever organized this stunt has to offer, and am surprised it has caused such a stir.
I would like clarification on one point of the situation if someone could help me out - If the firearms in question had been declared and registered before the announced date are the owners allowed to keep them? eg, is the point in question the type of firearm or the fact that the owners never bothered to register them, or both.
Cheers