By Dave Workman
Senior Editor
A Connecticut gun rights advocacy group has thrown down a gauntlet to Connecticut lawmakers and the governor, challenging them to either enforce the state’s strict new gun laws or “completely repeal these immoral edicts” by May 7.
Rich Burgess – Conn Carry
Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess told TGM and Examiner.com that much of the controversy over the situation in his state may be blown out of proportion. In a press release from his organization, Burgess wrote, “A recent media tidal wave based on false reports and bad journalism has proven a few things about the 2013 Gun Ban: people from Connecticut and around the nation are tired of being threatened; are ready to make a stand; and the State of Connecticut does not have the stomach to enforce the edicts and laws with which they threaten gun owners.”
Burgess also was a guest on Tom Gresham’s nationally-syndicated Gun Talk radio show, during which he stressed that there have been no gun confiscations.
“I would say no,” Burgess told Gresham. “As a matter of principle, I think that’s not true. I think a lot of people have gotten this thing very, very confused. The media’s put it out there that there’s confiscation that this is a letter had been sent out to everybody. But when you look at the reality of it, we have not seen any letters sent out to anybody in the state of Connecticut.”
The controversy may be due to what could be described as a hyper-misunderstanding of the contents of a letter from the state police that was purportedly sent to people who tried to register their so-called “assault weapons” as defined by the state’s new gun law, but missed the deadline.
In an e-mail exchange with TGM, Burgess stated, “These letters, as far as anyone in Connecticut can ascertain, never got sent to anyone. The history of the letter is that it was apparently a ‘proposed’ response to people who sent in their registrations (with sworn affidavits) late. This means that those people were swearing to the state that they were felons per…state law. The letter was released through a (state) legislator’s Facebook page back in early January. For some reason, they went viral just last week.
“The major point to understand about the letters,” Burgess continued, “is that they are only stating the law. Those are the ‘legal’ options for people who failed to meet the registration deadline. Understand that the people who were supposedly to be targeted by these letters were people who had admitted to and made a sworn confession to a felony. When this is considered, the state police are actually being very charitable here. There is no threat of imminent arrest in those letters like the state police usually provide. A sworn confession would be more than enough for them to go door-kicking in any other circumstance like this.
“We are no fans or apologists for the state police here in Connecticut,” he concluded in the e-mail. “However, in this case, sending a letter letting people know that they missed the deadline and giving them their ‘legal options’ seems to be pretty nice for the state police. Unfortunately, this letter has been termed a ‘confiscation letter’ and blown up far larger than it should have ever been.”
Contents of the letter have been either misconstrued or misrepresented. In the letter, people who missed the deadline were given four options:
- Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable;
- Sell the assault weapon to a licensed gun dealer;
- Remove the assault weapon from the state, or
- Relinquish the assault weapon to a police department or to the [state’s] Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
The letter went out over the name of Lt. Eric Cooke, Commanding Officer, Special Licensing and Firearms Unit. TGM tried to contact Cooke for further information, but was referred to the agency’s website for information on firearms and special licensing.
Connecticut Carry’s press release came after a weekend of activity ignited by an article in The New American that suggested a confrontation is brewing over gun registration in the state because of the letter. That article was inspired at least in part by an on-line column posted at Sipsey Street Irregulars by Mike Vanderboegh, one of two people responsible for uncovering the Operation Fast and Furious scandal more than three years ago.
Vanderboegh wrote an open letter to the Connecticut State Police in mid-February that gun owners have essentially had enough of gun control and at least some of them might be inclined to open fire if there were attempts to seize their firearms.
When Burgess spoke with Gresham, there had been lots of talk on the internet about gun confiscations in Connecticut, but up to that point, there had not been any actual confiscations because of the new statute, he said.
In discussing the letter, Burgess noted that it merely explained what the law was as of April 4 of last year. He asserted that what was in the letters has been evidently misunderstood.
“They did not say, ‘We’re going to batter down your door’,” he explained. “Now, we’re not saying that the Connecticut State Police won’t do that. We certain actually believe that they will and possibly are planning to do that. However, there needs to be some kind of reason in the national discourse. Let’s not try to promote a civil war in Connecticut by saying that we are going to, you know, be subject to confiscation right now.”
Burgess noted to Gresham that many people apparently still had not registered their so-called “assault weapons” and magazines with the state police, but it is not clear what percentage of these were acts of civil disobedience and how many were due to ignorance of the law. Burgess did say that violations would be classed as felonies.
Fuel was added to the fire when Vanderboegh published the names of lawmakers who voted in favor of the April 2013 gun legislation that bans so-called “assault rifles” and original capacity magazines.
In their press release, Connecticut Carry included quotes from both Burgess and Director Ed Peruta:
“As citizens of Connecticut, we have a right to bear arms. With that right comes responsibility. The responsibility to stand in defense of ourselves and our fellow citizens is paramount.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to s–t, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” – Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta
“For years,” the release, from Burgess, stated, “Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives,’ government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.”
Many in the firearms community looks at Connecticut as proof positive that gun control proponents are either delusional or flat-out lying when they insist that gun registration will not lead to confiscation or, at least, criminalization of the mere act of owning a certain gun that is banned after millions of citizens buy them and own them without a bit of trouble.
What has happened so far, and could happen in the future, only reinforces the belief that anti-gunners want to ultimately turn all law-abiding gun owners into criminals with the mere stroke of a pen.
Gun rights activists are quick to note the irony of this controversy. Connecticut, they say, is nicknamed “The Constitution State.” Many will now press to learn whether that nickname is still deserved, or if it has been trashed by the bureaucracy.
