AN Open letter to CT State police - Page 8
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

AN Open letter to CT State police


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-15-2014, 12:31 PM   #71
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Quote:
Whatever beef you have with a CoP giving a public apology for one of his off-the-rails underlings, it's with him, not Cinque.
I have no beef with Cinque, in fact I think he is a hero.

My point is Officer Peterson was only Parroting what Lt. Vance has been saying for weeks. Vance is on tape and on record stating the This Law is now the Law of the land and until the courts or the legislators say otherwise he WILL Enforce it and he Will order confiscation. Peterson just repeated it in his own Nazi style of Law Enforcement.

An Apology in regard to Peterson's comments isn't going to change what Vance and other high ranking officials have said or what they have planned. What they have planed is Confiscation. I suspect they are more upset with Peterson for letting this Cat further out of the bag, drawing even more attention to their plans, not what he actually said, or the way he said it.

Last edited by mseric; 03-15-2014 at 01:14 PM.
mseric is offline  
CzarChasm Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 02:41 PM   #72
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 64
Liked 58 Times on 31 Posts
Likes Given: 133

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
I have no beef with Cinque, in fact I think he is a hero.

My point is Officer Peterson was only Parroting what Lt. Vance has been saying for weeks. Vance is on tape and on record stating the This Law is now the Law of the land and until the courts or the legislators say otherwise he WILL Enforce it and he Will order confiscation. Peterson just repeated it in his own Nazi style of Law Enforcement.

An Apology in regard to Peterson's comments isn't going to change what Vance and other high ranking officials have said or what they have planned. What they have planed is Confiscation. I suspect they are more upset with Peterson for letting this Cat further out of the bag, drawing even more attention to their plans, not what he actually said, or the way he said it.
I misunderstood then. My apologies.

I'd say this goes back to at least last April when the legislature passed the Act. Shortly thereafter Vanderboegh spoke on the steps of the Capitol Bldg. and Cinque started becoming the voice of the movement. The more awake folks everywhere knew the implications of the new law without Vance or Peterson having to say anything out loud.

What Cinque is trying to do now is extract a statement from the CoP countering what Vance said, saying that his department won't enforce the law until it's had the chance to work its way through the courts. If he can get a statement anywhere near that out of a small town CoP in response to the spokesperson (Vance) of the State Police, I would see it as a very significant first step towards fracturing the solidarity between agencies and basically nullifying the law at least until it has seen the inside of a court room.

Point being, though the Chief approached Cinque to help him out of the PR kerfuffle Peterson created for him, Cinque has handled it (so far at least) such that whatever comes out of that office will cover a much wider scope of issues than a simple apology for a specific FB discussion. The word "hero" doesn't come naturally for me to use, but I do think we agree that John Cinque has proven himself to be a natural leader and a very impressive, principled advocate for gun rights.

CzarChasm
__________________
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
CzarChasm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 02:47 PM   #73
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5012 Times on 2430 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

Where are CT's County Sheriffs on this?

Seems to me, THEY are the top authority within their Counties.

Tack
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 03:25 PM   #74
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
Where are CT's County Sheriffs on this?

Seems to me, THEY are the top authority within their Counties.

Tack
Can a Sheriff order his deputies to ignore State Law and only enforce laws of their choosing?

Can a Sheriff order his deputies to interfere with other law enforcement agencies from enforcing State Law?

Can a Sheriff suspend or punish a deputy for enforcing State Laws?

I think the answer to all three of these is a definite NO. The opinions of the "elected" Sheriff have little to do with reality. They are basically politicians with a badge trying to stay in office and I highly doubt they can order their Deputies to violate their sworn duties as Peace officers.

Like I said, until the courts or the legislators say otherwise this IS the Law in CT and they will enforce it, they have to.
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 03:49 PM   #75
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5012 Times on 2430 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

If he has the balls to exercise his authority... Yes, he can do any of those things.

The County Sheriff is the ONLY Constitutionally recognized Peace Officer in the USA.

The County Sheriff is the Constitutionally recognized commander of the militia with the authority to call up, equip, and deputize as many men as he needs to protect the rights of his constituents.

Nearly 600 of America's 3300 County sheriffs have sent open letter to DC flatly stating that will not enforce any new Federal Gun laws and many threatened to arrest any State of Federal officers who tried...

The only difference here is that CT has a State Law... But that State law clearly
Conflicted with the Heller Decisions "common use" language and violated the constitution the day it was signed.




Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
Can a Sheriff order his deputies to ignore State Law and only enforce laws of their choosing?

Can a Sheriff order his deputies to interfere with other law enforcement agencies from enforcing State Law?

Can a Sheriff suspend or punish a deputy for enforcing State Laws?

I think the answer to all three of these is a definite NO. The opinions of the "elected" Sheriff have little to do with reality. They are basically politicians with a badge trying to stay in office and I highly doubt they can order their Deputies to violate their sworn duties as Peace officers.

Like I said, until the courts or the legislators say otherwise this IS the Law in CT and they will enforce it, they have to.
Tackleberry1 is offline  
CzarChasm Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 04:14 PM   #76
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Political Rhetoric and Grandstanding.

They are also being stripped of their authority as we speak.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/democrats-revive-bill-to-strip-sheriffs-of-power/

http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars/strong-478811-officers-special.html

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/09/ag-beau-biden-mandates-that-sheriffs-no-longer-have-arrest-powers/

http://www.coastalpoint.com/content/supreme_court_rules_county_sheriff_has_no_arrest_p owers

Last edited by mseric; 03-15-2014 at 04:20 PM.
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 04:24 PM   #77
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5012 Times on 2430 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
Political Rhetoric and Grandstanding.
So... CT Law enforcement, having several thousand "late" applications in hand, knowing exactly where several thousand BANNED ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HI CAP MAGAZINES are... Have so far booted exactly ZERO doors because?

The law is law and we enforce the law... So says Mr. Vance and Mr. Peterson.
So... Why no SWAT raids?

Could it be because CT Gun owners called the bluff and the State realizes that they do not have the resources or desire to actually push the issue?

Tack
Tackleberry1 is offline  
CzarChasm Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 04:51 PM   #78
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
So... CT Law enforcement, having several thousand "late" applications in hand, knowing exactly where several thousand BANNED ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HI CAP MAGAZINES are... Have so far booted exactly ZERO doors because?

The law is law and we enforce the law... So says Mr. Vance and Mr. Peterson.
So... Why no SWAT raids?

Could it be because CT Gun owners called the bluff and the State realizes that they do not have the resources or desire to actually push the issue?

Tack
Could be. It's possible that Vance and the State Legislators are at a loss right now on how to proceed. Maybe they are making plans, maybe they are shell shocked and don't know what to do, or just maybe they are waiting for further instructions.

Maybe they are just waiting for those much needed resources to arrive?

Whatever the reason, they sure as hell are not going to give up. They have wanted this for years and this little show of defiance isn't going to stop them.

BTW, the State of CT knows a lot more than where the few "Late Application" guns and mags are. CT requires form DP-3 when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.

One copy goes to the state police, another goes to the chief law enforcement in the buyers community. This has been CT law for many years.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/dps-3-c.pdf
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 07:10 PM   #79
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5012 Times on 2430 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

I suspect they recognize that their collective Alligator mouths have outrun their collective Canary Asses and they've no interest in starting an actual fight they know they can not win over a law that has a strong possibility of being found unconstitutional.

Tack


Quote:
Originally Posted by mseric View Post
Could be. It's possible that Vance and the State Legislators are at a loss right now on how to proceed. Maybe they are making plans, maybe they are shell shocked and don't know what to do, or just maybe they are waiting for further instructions.

Maybe they are just waiting for those much needed resources to arrive?

Whatever the reason, they sure as hell are not going to give up. They have wanted this for years and this little show of defiance isn't going to stop them.

BTW, the State of CT knows a lot more than where the few "Late Application" guns and mags are. CT requires form DP-3 when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.

One copy goes to the state police, another goes to the chief law enforcement in the buyers community. This has been CT law for many years.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/dps-3-c.pdf
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 07:31 PM   #80
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,788
Liked 1392 Times on 750 Posts
Likes Given: 790

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
I suspect they recognize that their collective Alligator mouths have outrun their collective Canary Asses and they've no interest in starting an actual fight they know they can not win over a law that has a strong possibility of being found unconstitutional.

Tack

Well then if that is the case then they have a decision to make. Either enforce it or repeal it. Not!

My guess is they will do neither and just pick away at the "Law Breakers" one at a time, bit by bit, day by day, until they put the fear of god into those that have not complied.

Going door-to-door would cause a united front of defiance and a true uprising. Picking of Joe offender here and there during traffic stops will get the job done, it will just take longer and without the United Front of an all out assault on the citizenry.

It's pretty simple really. The Deputy Sheriff, runs the plates, they come up unregistered AR owner, pull him over, arrest him or shoot him, done, on to the next traffic stop.

Last edited by mseric; 03-15-2014 at 07:43 PM.
mseric is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Open Letter to Congress jcd390 Legal and Activism 0 12-21-2012 06:31 PM
Open Letter to Kylie TWMIM The Club House 66 08-29-2012 01:56 PM
Open Letter To Obama CA357 Politics, Religion and Controversy 8 08-10-2009 07:24 PM
An Open Letter to Barack Obama opaww Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 07-04-2009 06:41 PM
An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community Chuck Legal and Activism 3 10-09-2007 11:51 PM



Newest Threads