Connecticut Passes Gun Grab While Other States Dig In To Protect 2nd Amendment


The Connecticut Legislature passed its sweeping package of gun control early Thursday, vastly tightening restrictions on firearms ownership in a State already regarded by gun control advocates, long before the December 2012 Sandy Hook tragedy, as having the Nation’s fifth-toughest gun laws.

The State’s House of Representatives closed the deal shortly after 2 a.m. Eastern time, approving  a broad ban on scary “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, along with a host of other regulations on ammunition sales and mental health checks.

Governor Dannel P. Malloy promptly signed the bipartisan bill into law, following a day of demonstrations in which 2nd Amendment supporters greatly outnumbered gun control advocates outside the State Capitol.

The new laws, which also require “eligibility certificates” for prospective gun buyers and mandate universal background checks — even for private sales — begin taking effect immediately. Other provisions, such as the creation of the Nation’s first “dangerous weapon offender” registry, will be implemented over time.

As the Legislature spent the day preparing to vote on the measure, anxious customers made a run on guns and ammunition at specialty stores throughout the State. Shops already experiencing chronic shortages sold out of weapons and ammo. One store owner called it “panic buying,” motivated by genuine fear that government was further tightening the noose around regular citizens’ 2nd Amendment powers.

The rush to interject government into private gun ownership in States where leaders invoke mass shootings and public safety fears has been offset in other States by Legislative action designed to ensure residents their right to bear arms won’t be infringed.

The contrasting approach of lawmakers in the gun-grab States and the gun rights States is stark, with 10 States recently enacting laws that actually broaden residents’ gun ownership rights. Thirty-six States have passed some form of “nullification” legislation intended to repel the enforcement of any Federal-level gun restrictions that may pass Congress.

That’s essentially a Constitutional challenge by the States, daring the Federal government to expose its own double-standard take on the Bill of Rights by inviting it to invoke the 10th Amendment’s Supremacy Clause in order to enforce gun control that violates the clear and simple language of the 2nd Amendment.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • independent thinker

    “…and mandate universal background checks — even for private sales …’
    there is only one way to make that work and that is mandatory registration of every firearm in Connecticut. Once those firearms are registered the state will decide one or more of them should not be owned by any private citizen and will confiscate them. If the state does pay for those confiscated you can be sure it will only pay pennies on the dollar of the true value of the firearms.

  • Warrior

    What? Citizens flock to the stores to “hoard” WMD’s and ammunition before their “esteemed” rulers pass gas er, laws to protect the “citizens” themselves? What next, their Doctors? Well citizens of connecticut, I’ll let you in on a little secret. You aren’t going to be able to keep your guns or your doctor.
    The “legal and insurance factories” are hard at work right now, making sure you law abiding citizens pay for your sins. Well ok, maybe not your sins directly, but societies problems were obviously caused by you because you didn’t pay your “fair share” when you had the chance. I understand Progessive and Geico will issue you a nice liabilty policy. Now, who said oblamacare would put “insurance companies” out of bidness? Those “progressives”, they’re really good at creating “busy work”.

  • Thomas Gentile


    • HW

      You mean oppressed.

      • Dave Martin

        how about just depressing.

  • Average Joe

    Let the Constitutional challenges begin! (and we know they will)
    Shut that puppy down…..

    • GENO


    • vicki

      As much fun as that might be, consider that the NFA was passed in 1934. The first challenge was in 1939. The first challenge that actually generated a ruling (in favor of the 2nd by a 5-4 vote) was 69 YEARS later in 2008.

      I’m not sure we have that long.

  • Robert Smith

    What guns were taken from any individual? Please be specific.
    Some guns can’t be bought, but I can just buy any drug I want, I can’t buy just any old insecticide I want… If I want a Volvo I can’t get the headlights I want. There are those who will deny medical procedures because they don’t like them.
    I know it’s WRONG, but restrictions are on some things in our society.
    But for those who already have, they will continue to have.

    • Warrior

      Deny medical procedures because they don’t like them? Deny guns because they don’t like them? Are both sides heads?

    • Michael Shreve

      We MAY restrict things, we MAY NOT restrict rights.

      • vicki

        Since we have a right to things (that whole private property and secure in person, papers and effects thing) why do you say that we may restrict things?

        Don’t you mean that we can restrict how people USE things? We for instance have laws against taking a butter knife and stabbing people with it. To make it less complicated we simply have laws against assaulting someone no matter what the tool. That is what is so suspicious about the government wanting to forbid us (some) tools that can be used to assault someone.

        It’s not the possession that can be Constitutionally restricted. It is the USE.

    • vicki

      robert smith writes: “I know it’s WRONG”

      If you know it is wrong why are you not fighting to make it right?

    • tlr10

      Drugs, insecticide and headlights are not protected by the Constitution, guns are. Period!

  • FreedomFighter

    If you examine Connecticut legislature you will find it dominated by New World Order democrat soldiers. Examine
    their backgrounds and connections for your self.
    The legislature is full of socialist, communists, atheist, community organizers and the citizens of Connecticut have been robbed of 2nd
    amendment rights by evil
    men with evil purpose, no matter what is said to the public by them. No new law passed will effect criminals, diminish criminals ability to obtain firearms, nor will any
    law enacted stop any crime, the only result will be the limiting of law abiding citizens rights under the constitution and eventual confiscation of all firearms from them.

    We must all remember that Progressives use incrementalism to institute
    socialism that leads to communism — and enslavement to totalitarian government, the first step to
    enslave citizens of Connecticut has passed in an UNLAWFULL act by socialist communist elite
    controlled democrat toads.

    These unlawful acts need to be fought at every level, recalls, impeachments, lawsuits, demonstrations, phone calls, emails and all other manner of
    peace full political action.

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • Joe Public

      You mean do a “Backround check” then strip them of their constitutional rights?

    • TheRealFreedomFighter
      • FreedomFighter

        Ahh…Luciferian doctrine of half truth and twisted redirection. I have seen this in the past, once one knows the truth such writings have no sway.
        Comical really.
        Laus Deo
        Semper FI

        • TheRealFreedomFighter

          Well until you can give any sort of facts to support what you say. Ignorance stands.

          • FreedomFighter

            You can sit, It must be hard to stand all the time.

            Laus Deo
            Semper FI

  • mark

    All this nonsensical use of the term “gun grab.” No one is grabbing any guns in Connecticut or anywhere else in the United States. This is just a fear term to sell more guns and ammo by the firearms industry and it is working to a tee as all the lemmings line up to by more and more guns and ammo. What a pathetic bunch of pants-wetters. The NRA leads them all around by the rings in their noses. Just shout “gun grab!” and all these crybabies rush out of their homes and pull their savings out of the bank so they can sleep safely everynight with 100,000 rounds piled high up around their beds. “Now we’re safe! Now we can stop peeing our pants!”

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Not yet. Do you have a crystal ball that says it won”t?

    • Sheila Rider

      they did it just like this in England, Australia, and Canada. This is the first step to confiscation. You should review history go all the way back to Austria and read the stories told by the survivors. Those still alive today said Obama is doing it exactly the same way Hitler did. Wake up.

      • Art

        You are certainly correct but it is a shame that people like Mark will not admit to it until it actually happens then what will he have to say. By then it is way to late for him or any of the other non believers to do or say anything except “I was wrong”

    • John Cherish

      I hope you live in Connecticut where you are safe in your Gun free zones. I wonder Sandy Hook was a Posted “GUN FREE ZONE” so how was it possible for the shootings there, …I guess having those laws on the books stopped him from shooting ..after all if you have written laws on the books there should be no shootings of any kind because its against the Law. You limit the rights of law abiding citizens and punish them for the actions of people who are criminals How is that equal protection under the law? Take away the right of lawful owners yet do nothing to go after the criminals except make criminals of gun owners what part of the 2nd amendment do you not understand you should read 46 of the federalist papers as to the purpose of the 2nd amendment written by James Madison

    • independent thinker

      As I said above the only way for the background checks on every sale to work is total registration of every privately owned firearm in Connecticut. Once that is done the state will decide one or more specific firearms should not be owned by the private citizen and they will use the registration to confiscate them.

    • John Mitchell

      Taking guns away from us is the most important step before taking more drastic steps towards stripping us of what little freedom we still have. Before guns can be taken away from law abiding citizens those guns must first be registered.

    • Eagle525

      Mark; you have no sense of history and how governments suppress and enslave its people. Russia/USSR, Germany, Italy are only a few contemporary examples. The only people protected by restrictive firearm legislation are the politicians who create the laws that subvert liberty. Our Founding Fathers knew that and thus the Bill of RIGHTS and the Second Amendment …. to bad you are part of the apathetic class that unquestionably trusts your government.

    • Joe Public

      If I have a gun, then you tell me I can’t have that gun, well you just grabbed it from me. And by the way can I have some of those 100,000 rds?

    • vicki

      ” No one is grabbing any guns in Connecticut or anywhere else in the United States.”

      (the rest of the long argument to ridicule deleted)

    • tlr10

      Really? New York is grabbing guns. I think giving people one year to sell there newly illegal guns out of state or turn them in constitutes a “gun grab”.

  • Sirian

    Hummm, wonder how long it’s going to be before Colt, Mossburg & Stag Arms pack things up and head to either Texas or Oklahoma? They’ve already threatened to do so if a gun control law is passed. Welp, it’s passed, let’s wait and see. . .

    • John Cherish

      Well Connecticut deserves to loose those jobs Texas will gladly take them I am sure

      • Joe Public

        That would be awesome. Maybe Texas can go back to Mexico.

    • Michael Shreve

      We will see if arm manufacturers can be trusted to keep THEIR word. If not, we can buy from manufacturers in OTHER states. For now.

  • FreedomFighter

    I saw a movie once where only the police and military had guns.

    It was called Shindler’s list.

    It did not end well for those without the guns.
    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • Joe Public

      They left out the good parts. The squads of men (not military) whom
      carried out most of the brutality. Men who were released from prison
      who were slated for death when this was all over.

  • red neck

    I seem to have a hard time attempting to figure out why the people of Connecticut do not see that this legislation is against their basic rights. It is more than apparent that the politicians have used a “tragedy” to push their agenda so this begs to be questioned “IF” this was not the plan from the word go. It is hard to understand that the action of one person is used to punish the majority.

    • Joe Public

      If someone cuts a fart in a theater, does everyone get kicked out?

    • vicki

      “It is hard to understand that the action of one person is used to punish the majority.”

      It is hard indeed. We need to give a number to the “majority” so that we can defeat the anti-gun propaganda. This self evident and easy to verify truth will do just that.

      ~300 Million Americans didn’t shoot ANYONE.

      STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a very few.

      Even children know it is not right that they be punished for someone else’s actions.

  • jdn

    If the majority of a state is continuing vote in these liberals and the nanny state restrictions ,so be it . Let them have their way in their state . Individuals and business that don’t support the majority view of the state should by all means move to a state more in line with their beliefs .
    If the Federal government tries to impose these views on the entire country , well they should get ready for a fight . Some say they are ramping up the readiness for a fight with the purchases of hollow point ammo by the tonnage and armored vehicles and heavy weaponry for use in inside the US . If they are they better hire more secret service because it is ancient philosophy and taught to all military that when you are threatened by a viper it is best to go after the head of the snake .

    • Joe Public

      There needs to be a universal agreement that crimes have been committed by these “Elite” and then arrest the perpetrator’s and try them as Is our right as a free people. God save our constitution.

  • Wiley2

    The gun grab is either pure foolishness or an organized plan for establishing tyranny, or a combination of the two. It seems more people need to be reminded of history.

    • vicki

      It might also be useful to remind people (and especially politicians (too late for Connecticut. :( ) that in the last year

      ~300 Million Americans didn’t shoot ANYONE. AT ALL.

      STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a very few

      Stop it
      Stop it NOW.

      • NC

        Vicki, please tell me how trying to stop a LAW that can keep even one POTENTIAL deranged spree killer from obtaining a RAPID fire weapon is to our ADVANTAGE? WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE TRYING TO PROTECT? EVERY LOONEY IN AMERICA?? WHY??

        • vicki

          ~300 Million Americans are NOT loony. By taking away OUR right to protect ourselves from the few looneys out there YOU are directly putting us in harms way. We are trying to protect even you (unless you are one of those loonies).

          How do we know that there are not a lot of deranged spree killers out there?

          ~300 Million Americans didn’t shoot ANYONE. AT ALL.

          STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a very few.

          That is the value of a self evident truth.

          Btw you should look up the definition of “prior restraint” sometime.

  • John Cherish

    The Connecticut legislature passed this at 2 am in in the morning to avoid the protests of it citizens, seems government always passes these kinds of laws at night when everyone is sleeping because in the light of day they would have protesters waiting for them they are liberal cowards but I hope the citizens now press for recall elections on all of them otherwise they get what they deserve in government

  • Steve E

    Does the new law make it impossible for anyone to be murdered in CT now? Let’s wait and see.

    • Joe Public

      Maybe the DHS will save them.

  • Peter Barney

    CT is a liberal state. They got no backbone!

  • Michael Shreve

    Connecticut Constitution: , “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state” Obama believes the U.S. constitution is an antiquated document that can be ignored at will. Connecticut apparently believes the same thing about ITS’ Constitution.

  • auhunter

    Read my comments in the face book section. I got most of it out of my system there.

    • vicki

      Sorry. No AuHunter listed in facebook section.

      • auhunter

        Hey, sorry about that. Face Book is “William P. Tracey”

        • vicki

          thx :)

  • Bill Henry

    “With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.”

    “Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected odious, while it tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”

    George Washington.
    Farewell address 1796