Oops: Thousands of Connecticutans are now criminals in possession of unregistered “assault” weapons

posted at 9:31 pm on February 13, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Well. That didn’t go according to plan, did it? Via the Hartford Courant:

Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31. …

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

Which means that there are probably at least tens of thousands of Connecticut residents who, as of January 1st, are currently guilty of committing a Class D felony for the newly-established crime of failing to register what the legislature has so astutely defined as their “assault” weapons. That includes AR-15s, a.k.a. the most popular rifle in America, and at least one Connecticut lawmaker is shocked — shocked! — that more people haven’t come forward.

“I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,” said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety committee. “If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”

Hmm. Perhaps the problem was rushing through a bunch of knee-jerk, feel-good, and ultimately impotent laws that you’re not actually sure you want to dedicate the resources to even enforce. That’s a real problem.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2 3

Now go ahead and throw out your stupid and foolish analogies of “What if someone wants to own a tank or a bazooka”, pal, than debate that in full by the house and the senate, than pass it federally state by state…just like the Constitution calls for any amendment.

right2bright on February 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM

So? I don’t care if my neighbor owns a tank. Provided, of course, he doesn’t take target practice in the back yard, race the motor at 3 AM, or do doughnuts in the front yard and splatter my house with mud.

In fact, having a tank isn’t a bad idea, now that you mention it. How cool would it be, to have one in a Memorial Day / Fourth of July / Veterans’ Day Parade? I’m thinking that would be a real crowd-pleaser!

ReggieA on February 15, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Focusing on guns, would you agree that no right is absolute. That public safety, for example, could trump your right to certain types of arms? Or that the ability of the government to enforce laws trumps the rights of citizens to form a private army?
MJBrutus on February 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Excuse me, but just what do you think “the Right of the People to peaceably assemble” suggests? It means we can gather together and practice, practice, practice. If someday we must do more than practice, well, that’s a militia isn’t it? I think we might even now be able to claim that right, between “freedom of association” and “bearing arms”.

And it’s already been ruled that the Police are not required to protect us. They may respond after the incident, but that’s too late.

ReggieA on February 15, 2014 at 5:42 PM

There is much more to this story that was not mentioned. That atrocious CT law also required the registration of ALL magazines with a capacity of more than 10 cartridges. They estimated that there could be 2-4 MILLION of those in CT alone, yet fewer than 40,000 were registered! This represents a truly massive non-compliance of a law that has, in its sheer stupidity, turned thousands of responsible citizens into “felons.”

Logic on February 16, 2014 at 8:24 AM

A group of people with guns and a common opinion of the Constitution does not equate to a militia. The word has been twisted beyond recognition, and accepting that altered usage serves the gun-grabbers.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do you think this means that it is private citizens who need to be “well regulated”? No, it is the State-sanctioned militia which is well regulated against tyranny by the countering force of an armed citizenry. Don’t let the opposition re-define terms, or we will lose the argument. Let’s hold to the Constitutional usage of terms, lest we give away the rights guaranteed therein.

Freelancer on February 16, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3