Three reasons for gun registration in Connecticut: Stigmatization, Confiscation and Revenue

Why registration? Why registration of “in common use” semi-automatic rifles? Why registration of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds? There are three reasons the gun-control crowd in Connecticut wants registration … and none of them are to prevent crime or save children.

The three reasons:

  1. Stigmatize gun owners. The we-want-to-control-you crowd think that because you own a firearm – especially one of those guns that look evil and hold “a bunch” of bullets – you need to be monitored and should not be trusted. There is something wrong with us. We’re irrational for the simple fact we bought a gun.
  2. Future confiscation. Having a list of firearms and magazines will ensure the state can come take them away – from law-abiding citizens – in the future. Trust me, that is what they want, they just can’t get there yet … their bullying tactics have yet to evolve to maturity.
  3. Revenue for the state. Of course, these registration schemes will cost money, and the state will gladly take money from the irrational folks. Higher fees and long wait times will result in many gun owners giving up, for the simple fact it’s too damn expensive … and the gun-control crowd loves that.

As noted, these reasons have nothing to do with preventing crime or saving children. The reasons are listed above, there are no other reasons.

There is absolutely no reason the Connecticut State Legislature must push this law through the process using an emergency certification. There is no emergency at all, rather we have a bunch of gun-control enthusiasts who want to shove these new regulations down the throats of gun owners since they have had enough of listening to the people. Those who have chosen to stand up and speak at preliminary hearings – prior to the legislation becoming official yesterday – have been against additional gun control something like 9 to 1 or more.

These are political bullies and they should be thrown out of office immediately.

I challenge the Connecticut governor or any of the gun-control faithful to tell me how registration of magazines or firearms will prevent crime or save children. I’m waiting. If you don’t want to register on our site, just send us an email and include your real name. My real name is available, and if you’re going to take the time to limit my freedom through legislative tyranny, you should at least have the guts to do it using your real name.


Yes, their goal is confiscation. Read this Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies memo from the National Institute of Justice. It’s less than 10 pages … read it. Even though people keep telling me nobody is suggesting confiscation, it’s a total lie … of course that is the end-game. Note this memo was written in January, after the Newtown shooting.

On an assault weapons ban…

Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions … Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.

In other words, without confiscation of semi-automatic firearms that are currently in common use, an assault weapons ban is not effective. And on so-called “large capacity” magazines. More confiscation is their solution…

In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.

The Institute of Justice – right in the first paragraph – suggests we should be looking elsewhere to address the firearm homicide issue.

Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings.

Posted in ,

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. Dimsdale on April 2, 2013 at 9:16 am

    The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives (real conservatives) is that liberals believe in everyone being guilty until proven innocent, while conservatives believe in everyone being innocent until proven guilty.? This low information legislation is proof of that.
    Never let a crisis go to waste, especially the made up ones.

  2. Steven on April 2, 2013 at 10:13 am

    The Monster of Sandy Hook was turned down how many times on the NICS check from purchasing guns???? How many times did law enforcement visit his house to investigate this?
    Getting a Brady denial means it’s illegal for you to be in possession of any firearms, even those you already own at home.?? Did anyone check to see if he had any firearms?

  3. SeeingRed on April 2, 2013 at 10:28 am

    I guess I’m now a felon, nice.? Can I put that on a resume?

  4. Don Lombardo on April 2, 2013 at 11:00 am

    REVENUE drives those turds in Hartford. Feel good, do nothing, show me the money legislation.

  5. joe_m on April 2, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Registration? Really? When all the “law abiding citizens” don’t rush to register, then what?
    Another crisis and search warrants?

  6. Murphy on April 2, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    Warning NON – PC comment coming . BTW I’m from the sticks and stones era
    Register Retards Not Rifles

  7. yeah on April 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    any “law” that is unconstitutional does not have to be obeyed.

  8. JBS on April 2, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    I thought the Republicans in Congress were spineless . . . the Connecticut crew must be practicing their very wimpiest spinelessness in hopes of making it to Washington. The latest infringement on our civil rights is going to be passed as a bipartisan measure. Our vaunted representatives have sold us out for a short-term gain on their careers. Good Grief! The go-along-to-get-along politicians are sickening!
    Gun owners have been maneuvered into a very bad corner.
    Moving out of this “Socialist Workers’ Paradise” is looking more and more to be the only alternative. It has come to that.

    • JBS on April 2, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      Why are my comments ALWAYS “awaiting moderation“???

    • Steve McGough on April 2, 2013 at 8:57 pm

      The Terms of Use page on the site answers your question. Please do not complain about it again.

    • Dimsdale on April 3, 2013 at 8:29 am

      You used the “S” word…..?? Been there, done that!? 😉

    • yeah on April 4, 2013 at 9:03 am

      yeah apparently if you mention things like ELECT*RAL *fr@ud or st0len e*lections your comment just doesnt even show up.? what’s the deal with that, not mentions in ToS at all, but I put something in about governor foley wouldnt sign this garbage, but thanks to iraq’s elections being more secure than ours, well cripes we might as well have saddam running this state.

  9. Vizionmusic on April 2, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    First and foremost: MOST Liberals OWN guns & are hypocrites. 51% is most. Secondly- the laws on the books are NOT followed. Example? Someone I know, bought a semi-auto handgun here in Ct a few years ago. They told me just a few months ago their ‘brother-in-law’ had SOLD the gun ( without my friends permission! ) to someone UNKNOWN and without his permission. When my friend recently went to have his pistol permit renewed, per my advice, he reported this to the State Police and was told… “Oh…there’s nothing to worry about” ?and they shrugged off a FELONY?? So, seems to me that THIS kind of B.S. causes more crime. So…this handgun will turn up sooner or later ( probably in a crime ) that is blamed on those of us who are LAW-abiding gun owners. Sorry for the ‘CAPS’ Steve..but I am disgusted. Also tried to contact my local Senator here in Manchester and was ignored. Lastly… It doesn’t matter to me ( what ) laws they make. You are a FOOL if you ever turn in your firearms….. I will never.

  10. Common Man on April 2, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    The Democratic legislature crafted this so the could say they did ‘something’ & made CT citizens ‘feel’ ?safer yet not actually be safer. They also voted to approve early release of criminals. I ‘feel’ so much safer now. And the Republicans who went along with this would say ‘it was this or a total ban’. Kind of like saying ‘They wanted to cut your whole hand off, but we got them to take just your fingers.’

  11. mparadise on April 2, 2013 at 10:57 pm

    Had it! Time to move! The Libs control CT anyway! Question to CT politicians…what will you do when all the tax paying, law abiding citizens move away from this state that wants to tax and regulate everything? Pretty soon there won’t be anyone left. People are already leaving in droves. We need to require background checks on the politicians. The state needs to get tough on criminals and not legal gun owners. What was the point of the charades of the gun legislation hearings? The politicians should be ashamed of themselves. Oh, by the way gov Dannel- we are not the “fringe of the fringe”. If anything, you are infringing on our right to own guns through you’re proposed legislation. I suspect there will be lawsuits over this.?

  12. Linda Mae on April 3, 2013 at 12:10 am

    Echos of “Give us Barabus…” How fitting this travesty happens so near Easter. Give us a law – any law – we don’t care if it will work or not..we need to be the first in the country…we need to prove our point…we need to show how wonderful we are… We have a problem – we need to find a solution – no matter if it makes sense….give us a law..any law…
    Except this is too much of an Alinsky rule – never let a crisis go to waste; tell people we have a problem; tell them they need a solution; then manipulate the useful idiots into demanding a solution; give them a useless law and they will be happy because their bellies will be filled…They got Barabus…

  13. wfiguy on April 3, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Striking the amount of people that were there today.? I would posit that the majority, like 99 to 1, were opposed to this legislation.? Oddly, I don’t think it will matter to the legislature.

    • Plainvillian on April 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm

      Oddly?? Isn’t it SOP now?

  14. yeah on April 4, 2013 at 8:57 am

    yeah this is what happens when the voting process gets captured – you think our correctly elected governor foley wouldnt be signing this unconstitutional piece of crap??
    thanks BYCEWICZ for overseeing electoral fraud, thanks to our legislature that ignores us for our own good and gives us punitive taxes so it can spend the resources wisely and correctly…
    …you’ll kill CT completely before TOO long…


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.