FIFY.

Not in CT, he doesn't.

Just to put it in a framework of what really happened, the cops who arrested him are oath breakers, and what they did will some day be recognized again as a crime.  

They knowingly enforced an unconstitutional act, and in so doing, wrongfully deprived a citizen of his property, his liberty and his civil rights under color of law.  It's going to take time for the courts to recognize it but that crime seems to be happening all the time these days.

Some day, the US will remember what it is, and when that happens, "I was just following orders" won't work any better for them than it did for the folks after My Lai.  You don't obey illegal orders, and enforcing unconstitutional laws is part of that.  You don't need the SCOTUS to tell you it's unconstitutional either.  Shall not be infringed is pretty fucking hard to misunderstand.

They should be ashamed of themselves and if they have a shred of decency they'll either refuse to enforce it and be fired, or quit.   If they continue to do what they did, they'll have EARNED the name JBT.

lol

All it takes is one to nullify.

I know.  Wishful thinking.  It's either that or concede defeat though, and I won't do that.

Eventually I doubt you'll have a choice, or people like us will die off. Educate and reform. It's working.

While they rob, imprison and threaten to kill.  I know that Ghandi and King were successful with the victory of ideas over dogma.  I hope you're right.  I really really hope you're right.  Sometimes it's fucking hard to see.

ETA And remember, Freedom is never given.  It's something you build through an act of sheer will.  You TAKE it.  We did so once.  It's now being taken back by people we hired to supposedly work for us.

Non-compliance. He's doing it wrong.

I see other options. If the only law he broke was the awb and if the "assault rifle" they found is a .22 or other acceptable varmint rifle then it is indeed time to violate the CoC in CT.

Eta: based on the charges it would appear he did violate other laws such as shooting within city limits. If thats the case he will be hard pressed to find support outside of the court room.
That being said: soap box -> ballot box -> jury box -> ammo box. Ballot box has failed in CT and now its up to the courts to overturn the politicians violations. Lets see what happens.

Some reliable inside info from a fly on the wall:

What I've learned is that there were two (2) officers working construction almost directly in front of the gunowners house. Squirrels had been digging up his yard and eating his garden on the side of his house near the front yard, which frustrated him and made him angry. So he decided to shoot a squirrel with his .22 rifle (non-AW), shooting out through an open window from a position inside the home towards the street and where officers were standing for their construction job. The shot was close enough that it made the officers jump and they looked up to see the rifle pointed in their direction, believing he might have even been shooting at them. They detained and interviewed him, during which he admitted to shooting the squirrel. During the interview, he readily told officers that he owned several other firearms and had been shooting squirrels from inside the home on a regular basis, as evidenced by numerous bullet holes in the fence between his home
and the neighbor's. After demonstrating his poor judgement and his admission to owning other weapons, the officers then obtained a Risk Warrant, signed by a judge, on the basis of the unlawful discharge and reckless use of the firearm. During the execution of the Risk Warrant, the officers seized aprox 20 firearms, to include 3 unregistered handgun LCMs and an unregistered AW (a 5.56 S&W M&P-15).

Throughout the entire investigation he remained overly cooperative, much to his detriment. He also admitted to officers that he had legally purchased the S&W M&P-15 (AW) legally out of state before the new laws went into effect in April 2013, but had not registered the newly declared AW or any of his 3 handgun LCMs

Maybe I'm nuts, and will get dog-piled, but I just read about the "request" that jews register in Ukraine, or leave.

Has it occurred to anyone that when you register your "Assault Weapon" you also register yourself, since they "request" all your personal information?

Or am I the only one slow enough to have only thought of it now?

Damnit! I hit "quote" instead of "edit".

Ugh. This is a shitty case to try and get those "laws" overturned.
Guy is truly an idiot and probably shouldn't be exercising the 2nd at all (meaning he appears to be fucking crazy).

Jesus H. Christ!

What a shining example this guy is, for our test case.

Once they get a conviction, does that make the law harder to challenge?

It certainly won't help, but it doesn't preclude a constitutional challenge unless this case specifically goes to a higher court and is upheld.

ETA:  This account sounds fairly likely from what information is available in the article.  If true he deserved to be arrested, just not for the AW bullshit.

Maybe the poor bastard believed that "The police will never enforce such an unconstitutional law."

ETA: The more I think about this, the more it upsets me.

This guy is 65 years old, and his life is changed forever ... and not for the better.

The State will cheerfully make the rest of his life miserable, by "making an example" of him for not complying with an ill-advised, politically-motivated, agenda-driven, immoral law.

There will always be some.  What percentage will vary considerably based on geography.  I'd wager that Connecticut has a much higher ratio than my jurisdiction.

Sounds like the guy is an idiot and if he was willing to volunteer all the info to the police in the first place, would be a very poor candidate for a test case.

No.  This only has a political effect.  A conviction is required for a challenge.

It's just one or 2 of the charges and each charge is a seperate item of law.  If he challenges the law, his other crimes and stupidity would be irrelevant.

It's actually not a bad case at all.  I would have expected for their first test case to pull out some hood rat gangbanger.  Instead, they go after a grandpa who had a brain fart.  

He's likely fucked on the other charges, but he can still challenge the AWB charges under the 2A.

Dumbass fired a gun in city limits.































That's what pellet guns are for.  

I believe an air rifle is in order for dispatching squirrels.

Here's the house. Definitely looks like a packed neighborhood.

Link

Even an air rifle, fired out a window with cops pretty much right outside, might not be a good choice.

I just figured out why the "Cruelty to Animals" charge.

They threw that in so they could confiscate the rest of his firearms.

From Connecticut Statutes 29-38c.
(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person.

It's about two minutes from where I away right now. It is, and it's a completely irresponsible place to shoot any firearm. Especially pointing out a window in the direction of police.

Inside scoop is he was shooting at the street with a 22 rifle. The police were standing in front of the guys house at the time of shooting.
There is no move, the guy is a dumb ass.

That gun owner is a fucken asshole and idiot that is going to create headaches and possibly sets precedence for future cases on their AW laws.


IMO I hope they toss the AW charge but keep the rest.

Good thing it's not illegal to be an asshole.

I hope some gun group gives him legal help.

This ^