- A People-Powered Free Press And A Bill of Rights Initiative


Residents of the US state of Connecticut are outraged about a new plan set forth by authorities (as evidenced by letters sent to gun owners) to begin a door to door gun confiscation program after the state’s legislature allegedly, according to some citizen groups, “nullfied the second amendment” which many see as an inviolate standard or right to own firearms for self-defense, including defense against their government.

(Note: this article has been updated with new clarifying information and will be updated as events move forward, please email if you have any information to share.)

connecticut gun registration

The gun confiscation program is, according to local residents who have received letters refusing their registration of once legal and now banned firearms and large capacity magazine, to be spearheaded by an activist State Police whose leaders seem, according to residents, to fundamentally disagree with the second amendment.

While officials are not commenting on this directly, letters sent to many residents clearly indicate an intent to confiscate weapons and a recent interview with the State Police spokesperson regarding this did not result in an outright denial of the existence of this plan: in fact the recorded call indicates that the State Police would follow such orders without reservation.

(NOTE: this is an emerging story, so far, there has not been any official confirmation of this program’s existence, although it has not been denied while the State Police, as per the interview linked to here, have positively confirmed that they would obey orders to launch such an effort. Our goal in providing this coverage is to ensure that any such efforts are exposed to the light of public scrutiny, this appears to be a plan that is telegraphed by deeds and not by official announcements.)

The raids would be conducted on the 85% of gun owners who refused to register these firearms or turn them in. While no formal plan to confiscate firearms has been announced, letters to residents stating that their registration of those firearms were rejected have caused concerns.

Connecticut State Police Spokesman Lt. Vance told reporters that State Police would comply with an order to confiscate firearms, which could place over 3.5% of all citizens of that state in the cross-hairs: from 1000,000 to 350,000 residents are out of compliance with the new law.

In a phone interview by a conservative pro self-defense rights activist Vance did not discount the possibility and characterized opposition to such measures as “anti-American”. Here is the interview. Vance On Gun Confiscation

Some argue that if the state of Connecticut can round up 3.5% of its citizenry, why then could they not put that same energy into rounding up and deporting illegal aliens? As one reader from that state told us, “they seem to have their priorities screwed up, let the illegals drive and vote while going after our basic rights as citizens to defend our selves.Indeed the argument has always been that rounding up so many illegals is “impractical”, but that does not seem to apply to actual citizens, according to some.

CT State Police Spokesman Lt. Vance can be reached at at (860) 685-8290. According to a conservative website, Gateway Pundit, Vance has been recorded talking to a woman questioning her patriotism because she opposed the possible gun confiscations. (See link above)

Specifically Vance said it was “anti-American” to oppose gun confiscations. At one point Vance is heard saying that he does not even want to “talk about the Constitution” and seems to posit a new theory that law enforcement must uphold all laws passed by the government and that without reference or deferal to their oath to uphold the Constitution, and oath that, for Vance and apparently the Connecticut State Police, is meaningless.

None of the banned weapons or magazines were used in the infamous Sandy Hook shooting by a deranged and self-desribed “Progressive” gunmen and even advocates of the controversial anti-self-defense law admit that were the law on the books it would not have stopped this shooting.

Meanwhile, citizen groups are openly calling on people to offer armed resistence to the police and are warning that the effort could lead to bloodshed which they claim would be the sole fault of the State Police who they deem to be outlaws for executing such an order.

The breach in trust between such a vocal and agitated strong plurality of citizens and their public officials is a classic precursor to lawlessness and upheavel. So far no raids have taken place but it is anticipated that if or when they do it will lead to an escalation.

The state’s anti-second amendment laws, driven by a Progressive ideology which places more emphasis on government managed solutions than individuals or free association, have not been reviewed by the US Supreme Court which, so far, has tended to side with second amndment advocates who see self-defense as important a right as any other rights. Some are suggesting that this gun confiscation program be delayed at least until the law behind it can be reviewed by the Supreme Court but Progressives want an immediate confiscation program to establish a precedent and to see if the public at large will accept such efforts.

It is hard to say whether anyone will take up arms or if they will, rather, hide their weapons and deny their existence, but it is also unlikely that willing compliance is going to occur and if authorities push too far and too fast there could be unintended consequences that lead to violence and upheavel. It is hoped by many that public outrage at the mere talk of a gun confiscation program will be enough to give authorities pause, but the State Police for their part are willing to engage in such an effort.

What’s YOUR opinion?

Below is a copy of a letter received by a gun-owner: