Posted: 4/14/2026 2:21:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Blaster3094][Edited]
|
Unconstitutional legislative overreach!! If the so called Glock Ban were to pass the CT House is it possible that Harmeet Dhillon and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ takes notice. CT which has banned the most popular and widely owned rifle in common use is now trying to do the same to the handgun equivalent of the AR15. Could this be enough to cause a legal bruhaha that ultimately restores our 2A rights? https://wsbt.com/news/nation-world/doj-threatens-to-sue-va-gov-spanberger-if-she-signs-legislation-restricting-gun-rights-harmeet-dhillon-second-amendment DOJ threatens to sue VA Gov. Spanberger if she signs legislation restricting gun rights WASHINGTON (TNND) — Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote in a letter to Virginia Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice would file a lawsuit if the governor signs any laws restricting gun rights.  DOJ Fires a Shot Across Virginia's Bow |
|
No it won't be enough for the feds to step in for CT. Other states like CA already have "glock ban" language. Other states already have firearm rosters. CT is the red headed step child that no one like's to mention or deal with when it comes to anti 2A laws and 2A legal challenges. The feds like to jump into legal challenges on the larger states with larger populations like CA, NY and VA. And keep in mind the midterms are coming up, and the Trump administration is gone on January 20, 2029. If a Democrat wins in 2028 then all of Trump's pro 2A DoJ folks will be shown the door, and possibly shown "trumped" up criminal charges if some Democrats have their way. Gotta love two sets of our tax dollars being used to fight each other.  |
|
I love how the politicians know this but ignore it. You being disarmed makes their job safer and easier. Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File They get crime reports. Source is this week from CT Police Live on FB Notice no machine guns charges for the switch. Their goal is to make you fear being thrown in jail for longer than these fine folks with mandatory sentencing for merely possessing items that the state says you should not be allowed to own. Convincing their base that you are the real problem because only a criminal would want to own a gun is the easy part. It works in CT. The politicians make sure criminals and the crimes they commit stay away from big time donors while making sure that defiant districts are disarmed ahead of time to protect the much needed imports for the next proposed DSS/DMHAS project . |
|
Originally Posted By gardenWeasel: I love how the politicians know this but ignore it. You being disarmed makes their job safer and easier. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1957/Screenshot_20260416_193842_Facebook_jpg-3747809.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1957/Screenshot_20260416_193920_Facebook_jpg-3747811.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1957/Screenshot_20260416_193926_Facebook_jpg-3747812.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/1957/Screenshot_20260416_193929_Facebook_jpg-3747813.JPG Those people are not the target of gun control legislation. They will be back on the street forthwith, free to continue their antics. This is intentional, and by design. We are the target of gun control legislation. They want us disarmed. Plan accordingly. |
|
Just one more law for you to follow while the criminals ignore all of them. I guess supporters of this garbage need to pretend that these shitbags care about buying and carrying guns legally. Morons. I bet the state is more upset about the potential for lost revenue from the unlicensed marijuana than the firearms violations. |
|
Originally Posted By DOW: Why is it these people are not being charged with possession of a machinegun (unless I'm missing it)? You fucking know a suburban white male would have the book thrown at him. Am I missing something, or is it really that simple? A friend asked a CT prosecutor that very question. Why the discrepancy between a hood rat and a working stiff? The answer: Because a working stiff has something to lose! |
|
Originally Posted By gardenWeasel: I bet CSP regrets getting non-MOS G45s. No exemptions. The Senate still has their crack at the bill, and could decide to amend it. But behind closed doors I gotta wonder if they (the people writhing this garbage) know something we don't about why police and the other kings men are not specifically called out as exempted. They're not banning possession, and with the way the sales ban is written it leaves some questions about how it would work and what would be banned from retail sales. |
