Is this leagal?
Well-Known Member
How low can you go?
https://pluralist.com/connecticut-man-pistol-stolen//44450
https://pluralist.com/connecticut-man-pistol-stolen//44450
Last edited:
1)- Totally agree.1)- Stupid and irresponsible leaving his pistol in an unlocked car. Especially in the NE!
2)- WTH doesn’t law enforcement go after THE CRIMINALS?!?
He was trying to do the "right thing" by reporting it stolen. He must have not been aware of this new law. How many people will find themselves in this same situation?He was a criminal, apparently he admitted that he was when he reported the theft. Not necessarily the right thing, but it is what it is.
He who obtains a firearm by the King’s decrees.I'm starting to wonder what the definition of "criminal" is...
Having "legally owned" weapons...now he's a criminal. What in the world is in the water these days?After all, he did have a cache of weapons in his home.
That woulda been my story and I woulda stuck to itSo note to self. Was in a locked box cable mounted to the floor. They must have used a slim-jim to get in and cut the cable.
Well, I would say I feel sorry for him, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for irresponsible idiots.
If the car window had been broken out of a locked car, I might care. He basically violated every state's law on firearm storage...
1. Don't leave guns in the car overnight unless they are secured
2. Lock your damned car. We live in the real world.
The law up there is ridiculous, but it's the law and regardless he was negligent.
agree. But grabbing the other firearms in his residence????
And if he called and reported on Tuesday (oct 1st), technically the action of leaving the firearm in the car was in September, before the law came into effect?
a class A misdemeanorMaybe. I don't know what the repercussions of the law he broke is. If it's a felony, he loses his guns. The only issue I really have with it is he's not been convicted of anything yet, but he did admit to it. It's a slope I'm not interested in standing on, but not a hill I'll die on. He F'ed up. Big boy rules have big boy consequences. Sucks for him. Lesson for us...
I agree. He's a dumbass. But what was the law on September 30th? And how does that give them the right to grab his other firearms for his residence?He still left a firearm accessible to whoever by not locking the car.
a class A misdemeanor
Technically, my house is a glass box too.Capt. Richard Conklin told The Register the state believes storing a firearm in a car – even a locked car – is not “a prudent thing to do.”
“A car is like a glass box. If you take out any of the windows, it is no longer locked,”
Conklin said.
So wtf does he expect us to do when we have to go in a posted location? That was a pretty stupid statement.
After seeing "Connecticut" ...How low can you go?
https://pluralist.com/connecticut-man-pistol-stolen//44450
Standard LEO response.Sucks for him.
holy cow.How low can you go?
https://pluralist.com/connecticut-man-pistol-stolen//44450
Really? Really? Only a 2 word response form you?? Disappointed.holy cow.
Speechless...Really? Really? Only a 2 word response form you?? Disappointed.
OP or article author?You guys are being baited into having these convos by a self admitted convicted felon, who thinks he should still be able to own firearms.
He dumps a sensationalized article and title then sits back and watches the responses.
OPOP or article author?
OPOP or article author?
Perhaps he posted as bait, perhaps not. Perhaps given his situation he's more attuned to rights violation issues. For the record, this prohibited person thing is a bunch of BS (as is how we deal with crime and criminals in general). It's also irrelevant to the case at hand.You guys are being baited into having these convos by a self admitted convicted felon, who thinks he should still be able to own firearms.
Perhaps he posted as bait, perhaps not. Perhaps given his situation he's more attuned to rights violation issues. For the record, this prohibited person thing is a bunch of BS (as is how we deal with crime and criminals in general). It's also irrelevant to the case at hand.
Still, if the article in the OP is true, I see it as a dangerous escalation against gun owners in states that are rapidly becoming totalitarian while little to nothing is being done about it. People who are victims of a crime are having their property stolen under the farce of law. Saying that they failed to meet some standard for securing their gun may sound reasonable on the surface but it doesn't alter the fact that they were crime victims, nor does it answer who sets what arbitrary standard? There's a video out there, granted its make believe, about a couple in CA whose home is being broken into and by the time they get authorization for the release of the locks on their guns the intruders have already killed them. If they could, this is what some of these states would demand.
I would like to say that it amazes me that some here appear to be willing to accept such infringements as justified so long as it's colored as "law", but unfortunately it doesn't.