CT State Police Won’t Aid With Compliance

Bearing Arms is reporting that the Connecticut State Police are refusing to help firearms manufacturers comply with their new gun control law. I think the response should be to withdraw from the Connecticut market, including law enforcement. Then we’ll see if they want to do their jobs.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. CT State Police Aren’t Engineers
  2. What Could be Staying the Hands of Connecticut Authorities
  3. Microstamping Inserted into New York Budget

19 thoughts on “CT State Police Won’t Aid With Compliance”

  1. It follows that gun rights advocates need to withdraw from supporting the police industry.

  2. I actually don’t see an issue with the CT State Police response. The State Police are not (and should not be) in the business of deciding what is or isn’t legal. On the other hand, I understand the manufacturers’ attempt to get a CYA note from a law enforcement agency to use in case they eventually end up in court.

    I wouldn’t bet on any law enforcement agency’s interpretation of any law. They typically are only intimately familiar with a very small subset of laws that they encounter on a daily basis. The last thing I want to be telling a judge is “yeah, but Officer McGruff said it was OK!”. I don’t think that argument will sway the judge much.

    1. “The State Police are not (and should not be) in the business of deciding what is or isn’t legal.”

      Broadly speaking they kinda are. Given they’re Law Enforcement. That’s kind of what their job is.

      But yes, you going “The Police said it was illegal/legal” doesn’t actually work before a judge.

      Funny ain’t it? The citizens are fully responsible for obeying the law. But for the police ignorance of the law *is* a valid excuse and they don’t have much liability for being wrong about it.

      And of course the Govenor thinks that people trying to comply with the law is a loophole. And funny how a “common-sense gun law” is so arcane that the police are afraid of “sign[ing] off on a gun, only to have one of its components render it illegal on a technicality.”

    1. Bureaucrats will never take responsibility. It is a lot of work, and they might get in trouble!

      Stag should just spend thousands of dollars in hopes that none of the bureaucrats can find a reason to say NO! after the money is spent. After all, Stag is a corporation, and if they go broke, it will not affect any of the bureaucrats.

    2. A letter of compliance from the Attorney General should do it.
      And that opinion will be in large part the opinion of the the very state police that wouldn’t give it to the company.

    3. Even legislators duck responsibility for the laws they pass – from Obamacare down to local gun control, the standard answer is, “We don’t have time to actually read through all the laws that we inflict on you peons.”

  4. I agree that it is about time that gun manufactuers get in this game.

    NY, CT, etc. want to engage in these bands. Well, then they should suddenly discover that they can’t buy Glocks, Rugers and S&W handguns. Cannot buy magazines, etc.

    Be interesting to see the game after that play.

      1. That will end the first time a distributor loses access to the guns. The manufacturers are under no obligation to continue to sell to any particular distributor.

        Might take some contract modifications but no distributor will want to cut their own throat by pushing back.

      2. ALL of the gun community has to be in on this or it won’t work. From Manufacturers on down the line, no sales to any govt org that is not civilian legal to purchase as well.

  5. When will one of the major gun manufacturers do a modified Ronnie Barrett, and say “We will sell nothing to any government agency in your state that we cannot sell to the general public.”? Ruger and S&W are already giving up on the public market in CA. Why not cut off the government market in CA, until the laws change?

    They will get my support and MY MONEY.

    1. Hear! Hear! I’d go out and buy an S&W MP10 tomorrow, if they announced that they were cutting off support to CA Law Enforcement – AND/OR – would not ship guns to Federal agencies in CA, even if part of their current contracts.

    2. Indeed.

      Considering how much larger the private market for handguns is compared to the police market I hardly see what Ruger and S&W have to lose by cutting off California police agencies.

  6. This story from Connecticut reminds me of something that recently happened to me. I got an e-mail from somebody through craigslist last week in response to my post in the rants & raves section. He told me in this e-mail that when he lived in New Jersey a few years ago, he went to his local police station to ask about the particulars of what it takes to become a legal gun owner in New Jersey, and how he could then legally take possession of some guns that were owned by his deceased granddad in Pennsylvania. The cop on duty there told him to go talk to a lawyer about the New Jersey gun laws, and that he would be better off not even trying to bring any guns into New Jersey from out of state. What this cop told him was the final straw for this guy. He then moved to Pennsylvania from New Jersey later that same year, became a legal gun owner not long after that, and he has been a Pennsylvania resident ever since then.

    1. Different details, but pretty much what I did back in 1990, got out if NJ and moved to PA!

  8. Oh, they’ll do their job.

    Their job is to harass, intimidate, arrest, and if necessary, put down gun owners in the Constitution State. The environment there is just about as hostile as NY. Why would the police clarify the law? That might limit their ability to arbitrarily arrest people BECAUSE GUN!

Comments are closed.