News from Connecticut:

Sen. Gennaro Bizzarro, R-New Britain, said he really “struggled” with his vote, but decided to vote yes.

“I sleep with my gun at my side,” Bizzarro said, to protect his family from any possible intruders. But, in the end, he went along with the majority and voted yes.

[ … ]

While also praising Kristin Song for her advocacy on behalf of her son, Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott said the bill has “one flaw.”

He said that flaw was “you must secure guns in a certain way.”

“I don’t believe we have a right to tell people what they should in their own homes,” Sampson said, adding in their own homes is what a gun owner’s right to “choose their own method” to secure a gun.

So what are you going to do, Bizzarro?  Abdicate your manly, God-given responsibilities to protect and defend your family because a bunch of nanny-state collectivists want you to be neutered?

And Rob, there’s more than one flaw in this legislation.

Who’s left – some folks from Ruger, Mossberg and Colt?  Get out.  Now.  You’re several years too late, perhaps, but late is better than never.  Never will be deadly.  Especially since you can see the future of firearms manufacturers who are left there.

David Codrea:

In a related development, this column has been following up on what should be a larger concern for gun owners, and that is how the Armatix pistol made it on to California’s “safe handgun roster” without incorporating microstamping technology months after the state certified it was a requirement for all new semi-automatic handguns listed.

Because laws are for little people.  I suspect that regardless of what the law says, gun haters in California were able to slip this one in because they consider it a good trade.  They give up microstamping, and in return they get the ability to control forevermore the ability to sell or gift a firearm.  David will eventually find out and tell us.

Also see David’s article for the information on Armatix support for global disarmament efforts.  You should never purchase anything from this company.  They are in bed with the totalitarians.

Finally concerning California, I am reminding you that I still haven’t heard anything back from Smith & Wesson on whether they will continue to supply handguns that have not been microstamped to California LEOs while they don’t sell at all to California residents.

It gripes my ass that this double standard exists.  Laws aren’t for the little people.  Smith & Wesson shouldn’t sell at all in California, including to LEOs.

Speaking of double standards, were you aware that LEOs are exempt in Connecticut from its newest gun bans, and can have AR-15s along with standard capacity magazines – for their personal use?  No, not for on-duty use, but for personal use and protection?

Well, you know now.  This was the bribe that the Connecticut legislature made to the LEOs to get their cooperation in enforcing the law.

Prior: Smart Guns Tag

WND:

One person thinks they know the mind of Jesus concerning weapons.  “Guns are only allowed in bars if the person carrying the weapon doesn’t drink. Jesus and the disciples didn’t carry in church because no one else did.”

This is what happens when idiots write letters.  Guns didn’t exist in the time of Jesus, but swords did, and Jesus told his disciples to carry them.  As for church, I think his ninja use of the whip (Matthew 21:12) was enough to convince most people of his seriousness.  And just to emphasize the point concerning people who refuse to consider their role in protecting the little ones, I said:

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.

Those who want to worship hippie Jesus should move to the corner of Haight and Ashbury – and stop writing idiot letters.

Religious Herald:

Nearly 200 interfaith religious leaders — including at least a dozen Baptists — took out a full-page ad in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Feb. 26 to oppose a bill in the Georgia legislature which would lift restrictions on guns in houses of worship and bars.

So in other words, nearly 200 “pastors” in the Atlanta area believe that God answers to the state.  This is a precursor to a new featured article I have coming (but is not yet ripe).  The totalitarians are among us.  They don’t live inside the beltway, they mooch off of hard workers, they cast their lot with the state, they worship the collective, and they live near and around you.  You know them.

To this article on Chuck Hagel, one commenter says “Hey Chuck, why don’t you have three more scotches and pass out on it, maybe you will change your mind if you can remember what you said yesterday.”  It appears that Chuck is a well known Washington drunk.  Another commenter says “If a grenade happened to be tossed in a room with Chuck Hagel and myself, I would have to do the right thing and push him on top of it.”  It would be a fitting end, no?

Kurt Hofmann:

I’m beginning to wonder whether we have any idea about what’s at stake when we give civilians the right to walk around with a gun.

No, that’s not Kurt.  Kurt is quoting someone who allegedly sells guns, and if he feels this way, he is violating his conscience and sinning against God and man.  On top of that he is a hypocrite and thug trying to make money doing things he thinks is bad.  He is nothing more than a whore.

David Codrea:

In the wake of public unrest where the government used deadly force against protestors, the Ukrainian Gun Owners Association has proposed an amendment to the nation’s constitution …

Finish reading the proposal at David’s place.  And there you have it.  The difference between free men and slaves.

Mike Vanderboegh has crafted an open letter to the tyrants in Connecticut responsible for the obscene gun law, and this is well worth the read.  Mike has also published a list of the names of all legislators who voted for the Connecticut gun law along with their addresses, and Mike has published their list of email addresses here.  Visit Mike’s site, take a few minutes and do what you know needs to be done.

But I have a few words for Mike, and then a few for the communists in Connecticut.  Mike says the following.

Indeed we are all His sons and daughters, and I am grateful for Paul’s prayerful reminder to me of Who I serve. However, you may conclude from my opening that I am struggling with that “diplomacy” part …

It’s okay Mike.  Cease your struggling.  While I do admire and respect you so very much, I disagree profoundly on this point.  We are most certainly not all sons and daughters of God.  The fact that we are all made in His image only heightens their guilt and highlights the distinction.

People tend to remember what they want to hear.  So for example, at Christmas people remember this: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace …,” and that’s about it.  What the passage really says is this: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”  Jesus also said to the Pharisees “You are of your father the devil” (John 8:44).

And God is not pleased with the men and women of Connecticut who voted in favor this this law.  God hates totalitarians of all stripes, all persuasions, in every form and manifestation and at all times in history.  Notice that I didn’t say He hates totalitarianism but loves totalitarians.  He does not.  He hates them both.  Satan is a totalitarian.

Speaking of totalitarians, David tells us once again what it looks like.  It means putting the lives of animals above humans who are made in God’s image.  We’ve seen this before, haven’t we?

So I’m not saying what I would and wouldn’t do to help my brothers in Connecticut, and this post isn’t dedicated to outlining my actions or lack thereof.  That would be stupid.  But here is one thing I can start with.  And this prayer applies to Senator Larry Martin of Pickens, Bobby Timmons of Alabama, and the legislators of Connecticut.

“Oh Lord, the last time I prayed an imprecatory prayer it was against Arlen Specter who was soon diagnosed with cancer, so I do this with much thought and trepidation.  All of the legislators who have voted the recent gun laws into effect in Connecticut have voted to inhibit man’s ability to defend and protect himself and his little ones.

Thus they have offended the Almighty, the most high God, the only sovereign and only potentate.  You have said that it would be better for a millstone to be hung around their necks.  So I pray that you would visit your wrath on them and their families to suffer for the sake of the little ones.

Teach them to obey your laws, teach them the value of human life, teach them that it is their duty both to defend their own little ones and help men and women to do the same.  If they refuse to learn, bring condemnation upon them, bring their means and ends to complete ruination, and inflict them with the reputation forever of being haters of God and haters of children.

Let their progeny remember and think of their lives for generations to come, throughout the lives of the children’s children’s children, and let them remember that their predecessors were evil men and women who would rule with a harsh hand and bitter tongue.

Bring the designs of their lives to naught, bring their aims to nothing, and bring their power down low where it is once again possible in Connecticut to defend families as God designed.

Amen.”

Ctpost.com:

When Stag Arms of New Britain wanted to produce a scaled-down version of a popular AR-15 rifle that was banned last April by Connecticut — part of a broader crackdown that was upheld Thursday by a U.S. District Court judge in Hartford — it ran the specifications by law enforcement.

“Right off the bat, they were helpful,” said Mark Malkowski, the company’s president and owner. “They did look at prototypes. They did this about three times. After that, they said it really wasn’t their responsibility to determine what was legal or not.”

The reluctance of the State Police to put its seal of approval on the Stag 22, a semi-automatic rifle that accepts lower-caliber bullets and fewer rounds of ammunition than its predecessor, is emblematic of an ongoing tension between the firearms industry and law enforcement over weapons development.

State police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said his agency would hate to sign off on a gun, only to have one of its components render it illegal on a technicality.

“Are we going to be responsible for that?” said Vance, who became a household name for his many news conferences following the Dec. 14, 2012, massacre. “It’s their responsibility to make sure it conforms to the letter of the law.”

[ … ]

A majority of gun manufacturers are said by industry observers to be far along in the process of converting their traditional AR-15 rifles into .22-caliber models for sale in Connecticut, including Colt’s Manufacturing, the granddaddy of the state’s firearms industry. Multiple requests for comment were left with Colt, which was founded in 1836 in Hartford and employs about 600 people in the state.

In most modification cases, what is known as a center-fire mechanism is swapped out for a rim-fire mechanism. This inhibits the rifle’s ability to accept higher-caliber bullets like those used at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

[ … ]

Shooting purists are not as keen about .22-caliber rifles and the rimfire mechanism …

First of all, what an absurd, stolid article, e.g., low-caliber bullets, high caliber bullets, and so on.  Second, I’ll bet “shooting purists are not keen about .22-caliber rifles” in the AR-15 platform (if by that they mean .22LR).

There is a time and place for a .22LR long gun, for teaching youngsters to shoot, plinking, killing small game, etc.  I learned to shoot as a youngster with a .22LR long gun.  Those were good days.

But with Stag Arms trying to construct a long gun with these specifications in the AR platform, and with the future about this weapon known to everyone who understands these things (it won’t sell and it’s a waste of time and money to develop it), the question necessarily arises “Why is Stag Arms still in Connecticut?”  And “Why is Colt still in Connecticut?”  And as for that matter, “Why are Connecticut shooters still citizens of Connecticut?”

Come South, men.  Come South.

J. D, Tuccille with Reason:

According to Hugh McQuaid at CT News Junkie:

As of mid-November, the state had received about 4,100 applications for assault weapon certificates and about 2,900 declarations of large-capacity magazines.

Michael Lawlor, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s criminal justice advisor, said that so far fewer people than expected have registered weapons under the new law. However, he said gun owners should take seriously the consequences of ignoring the law. Disregarding the registration requirements can carry felony charges in some cases, which can make Connecticut residents ineligible to own guns.

First-time offenders who can prove they owned the weapon before the law passed, and have otherwise followed the law, may be charged with a class A misdemeanor. In other cases, possessing one of the newly-banned guns will be considered a felony that carries with it a sentence of at least a year in prison.

“If you haven’t declared it or registered it and you get caught . . . you’ll be a felon. People who disregard the law are, among other things, jeopardizing their right to own firearms. If you’re not a law-abiding citizen, you’re not a law-abiding citizen,” Lawlor said.

Mr. Lawlor, like most government officials, seems to think he and his buddies have invented policy out of whole cloth, and that the population has no choice but to shuffle along and obey. But weapons registration laws have a history—a consistent history, as I’ve written, of noncompliance and defiance.

State officials could have taken a moment to glance across the state line to New York City, where a few tens of thousands of firearms are owned legally, and an estimated two million are held illegally, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. That is not uncommon. In my piece on the history of gun control’s failure, I wrote:

The high water mark of American compliance with gun control laws may have come with Illinois’s handgun registration law in the 1970s. About 25 percent of handgun owners actually complied, according to Don B. Kates, a criminologist and civil liberties attorney, writing in the December 1977 issue of Inquiry. After that, about 10 percent of “assault weapon” owners obeyed California’s registration law, says David B. Kopel …

Connecticut may want to look close to home for even lower compliance figures. In New Jersey, reported The New York Times in 1991, after the legislature passed a law banning “assault weapons,” 947 people registered their rifles as sporting guns for target shooting, 888 rendered them inoperable, and four surrendered them to the police. That’s out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 firearms affected by the law.

Noncompliance means they’re not giving up their weapons regardless of what the law says.  And that means that if the statists really want them, they’ll have to send in armed teams to invade the homes of gun owners (if they can find them) and confiscate them while they also shoot anyone who gets in their way.

And that means that gun owners who decide to keep their weapons have nothing left to lose when those armed teams come calling.  The collectivists want it to be ever so easy, with fawning, stupid, television-watching imbeciles who listen and obey their edicts as long as they get free bread and circuses.

But are they okay with bloodshed as a result of their edicts?  Perhaps yes, perhaps not.  Perhaps with some, perhaps not so much with others.  But collectivists nationwide should consider the ramifications of their laws.  Gun owners won’t surrender firearms peaceably.  You can take that to the bank.

David Codrea:

State Senate Minority Leader and gubernatorial hopeful John McKinney can expect no help from the Connecticut Citizens Defense League due to his anti-gun legislative actions, CCDL President Scott Wilson announced in a press release today from Groton.

“Senator McKinney was instrumental in implementing a historic gun control law with zero consideration for the constitutional rights of law abiding gun owners,” the head of the state’s largest grass roots gun rights group explained. “With his deliberate act of siding with gun control supporters, there will be no support from CCDL for his run.”

“[O]ther elected officials who went along with the Senate leader and voted in favor of the gun control law could expect the same from the organization,” the release pledged … If he still wins the primary or there is no primary, we will not vote for him in the election.

Good for them.  This may seem like a counterproductive scorched earth policy to some, but it’s precisely this objection that got us where we are today.

Conservative and libertarian voters have gone along to get along and voted for the best thing out there for decades under the assumption that less evil is better than more evil.

But over the course of these past decades we have seen our leaders equivocate, modulate, prevaricate, and adjust, adapt and modify their views to suit the Washington elite.  As long as the inside-the-beltway talking heads are happy and our leaders stay in power, the only thing that changes is that we see less respect for our rights and liberties as time passes.

This slow roasting process has just about killed the ideological foundations of our republic such that thinking men and women have been replaced by corrupt, ignorant and self-serving politicians who would sell the souls of their mothers as long as it suited their purposes.

So compromise hasn’t done conservatives and libertarians any favors.  It has harmed the cause of freedom.  Gun owners in Connecticut are saying the same thing I’ve said concerning politicians like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan (who will never get my support because of their support of universal background checks), Marco Rubio (who will never get my support because of his sellout on immigration), and any of a host of ignominious political animals in Washington and at the state level.

Finally, the voters in Connecticut know what we all do instinctively.  It’s better when you don’t fill in the gaps for the failures of our leaders.  In the end, it’s better when people feel the consequences of their actions – there is no surer teacher than consequences.

Besides, I am no advocate of national action to undo the results of totalitarianism in Colorado, New York or Connecticut.  While I appreciate that there are some in Colorado, for example, who want the courts to overturn their obscene gun laws, in the end they are not the court’s problem.  The obscenities started on the state and local level, and they must be dealt with at the genesis of the problem.  Totalitarians must be dealt with face to face.

The problems belong to Connecticut, and gun owners are trying to see that they are addressed there.  I wish them success.  May God be with them.

Read it all at Examiner.

ABC News:

Connecticut lawmakers who passed strict new gun control measures in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre approved a package of revisions Monday to reduce confusion about the new rules and expand the list of officials who can legally possess restricted firearms.

Both chambers of the state legislature voted to adopt changes and exemptions to the bipartisan deal that strengthened the state’s assault weapons ban and banned the sale of high-capacity magazines.

The legislation emerged from a bipartisan working group that sought to refine the original gun control bill, which proponents hailed as one of the most far-reaching in the nation, in response to ambiguity that came to light in part through feedback from constituents and gun owners. A spokesman for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said he supports the changes.

The new bill allows individuals to possess and register assault weapons they purchased or placed on consignment prior to or on April 4, the day the gun control law was passed, but did not receive until after that date.

The bill also clarifies the status of .22-caliber rimfire rifles, defining them as assault weapons when fitted with a detachable magazine and more than one of several features including a folding or telescoping stock, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. With passage of Monday’s revisions, the firearm so constructed will no longer be available for sale in Connecticut, but consumers who purchased it since April 4 will be allowed to register and keep it.

The revisions expand the list of inspectors and enforcement officers who can legally possess and purchase the banned firearms to include sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles, the chief state’s attorney office, the department of energy and environmental protection and some constables with police certification. It exempts such officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership, and allows them to maintain possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them.

Like the State Department of Energy or EPA needs weapons!  So it looks like this bill expands the list of state employees and former state employees who can own banned weapons, and then puts .22LR rifles in the same category if they have scary features.

Hey.  It’s Connecticut.  What do you expect?  I hope the state of Connecticut fails as badly as I hope that the state of Colorado fails.  Utterly and completely.  There is no better or surer teacher than consequences.

Local Connecticut News:

NEW BRITAIN, CT (WFSB) – One Connecticut gun maker said it would move out of the state if lawmakers expanded the ban on assault weapons, but now that same company is taking a look at modifying the AR-15.

Before some of the toughest gun laws in the country were passed, officials with the Stag Arms in New Britain said further modifications to the AR-15 would make it impossible to sell in Connecticut.

Eyewitness News has learned that the company is working on making a modified assault weapon to fit the ban.

“We are carefully looking at the new law and there are some things we interpret to be legal,” said Stag Arms owner Mark Malkowski. “We have gotten a lot of feedback from our customers and they have given us ideas for changes.”

Malkowski said the company is putting together a prototype, which they plan to show the weapons unit at the state police on Friday.

Officials with Stag Arms sells AR-15s, the only product it produces, all over the United States and to other countries, but less than 5 percent of its sales are made in Connecticut.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy supported the ban, but did met with the gun manufacturers because he does not want them to leave, especially since the industry creates hundreds of jobs.

“It says gun companies will do anything to sell guns,” Malloy said when recently asked about the topic. “I can’t prejudge something that I haven’t seen or analyze. People make things to sell them.”

As for leaving Connecticut, officials with Stag Arms said it is still an option. Last week, Malkowski said he met with the governor of Texas and next week, the governor of Kansas.

I’m surprised that Stag Arms got anyone in the gun owner community to contribute to this bastard firearm.  And by the way, it doesn’t comport with the notion of peaceful law breaking and smuggling to defy unconstitutional laws.

I’m not sure what will happen to Stag Arms.  If they stay in Connecticut they will waste away as a viable firearms manufacturer.  But I’m certain what will happen to this ridiculous, bastard firearm.  It will be a laughingstock, the embarrassment of the gun range.  No one who has it will be a proud owner of this long gun.  Why do it?  Why not smuggle and get real AR-15s?  Why acquiesce to the totalitarians when you can do better?

David Codrea links the text of the upcoming Connecticut gun law.  It’s long but I read the majority of it.  Taken as a whole, I must say that it seems to me to be the most restrictive gun law ever devised in American history.  One particularly salient feature is the new ban on magazines (see line 998).

Except as provided in this section and section 24 of this act: (1) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine on or after January 1, 2014, that was obtained prior to the effective date of this section shall commit an infraction and be fined not more than ninety dollars for a first offense and shall be guilty of a class D felony for any subsequent offense, and (2) any person who possesses a large capacity  magazine on or after January 1, 2014, that was obtained on or after the effective date of this section shall be guilty of a class D felony.

So also with guns.  Read it for yourself.  So now, Connecticut gun owners.  All of those magazines and many of the guns you just purchased in expectation of the upcoming ban will soon be illegal.  Owning them will be a felony.

Tyrants in Connecticut have turned you from a law-abiding, upstanding citizen into a felon.

So what are you going to do about it?