By Nathan Barton
Connecticut is nicknamed the “Constitution State” because it claims to have been the first polity in history with a written constitution (the Fundamental Orders, published in 1638). Apparently the fifth state to ratify the Constitution, Connecticut has NEVER ratified the Bill of Rights: apparently the state convention and subsequent governments have never felt that these were needed. However, Article First of the State Constitution, Section 15, states simply: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
Based on the laws passed in the State in recent years, especially the recent hoplophobic laws, its nickname needs to be changed. But its current actions, as I discuss below, definitely indicate that its nickname appropriately be “The Police State.”
In Connecticut, a woman quested a State Police officer about the 200+ letters which have been sent out to people who did not register their “assault weapon” or “high capacity magazine” in time. The National Examiner has video and a transcript, which I am copying partially here.
“I want to know, if it comes down to it, will the police go to my home if my husband refuses to give up a weapon that was formerly legal and now has been made illegal by a corrupt legislature?” she asked. “Will the police actually go to my home and threaten my family, ’cause I’m scared to death?”
“We don’t threaten people, ma’am,” Lt. Vance said. “That doesn’t happen.”
“If you’re going with the force of government, that’s a threat,” she responded.
“Ma’am, it sounds like you’re anti-American, it sounds like you’re anti-law. I can’t answer your question,” Lt. Vance remarked.
Ashley told Lt. Vance in no uncertain terms she is pro-American and took exception to being called anti-American, a charge Lt. Vance tried to walk back.
He also told Ashley she should contact an attorney to learn what her options are under the law.
Later, after Ashley said Lt. Vance works for the people of the state, he informed her that he, in fact, is her master.
“You’re the servant, we’re the master,” she said.
“I’m the master, ma’am. I’m the master,” he said in response.
So, THERE WE HAVE IT. In the formerly Sovereign and Free State (Commonwealth) of Connecticut, a relatively low-ranking officer in the military occupation force that CLAIMS to be a “law enforcement agency” is the MASTER of the citizens of the state.
This isn’t Darth Vader breathing heavily as he proclaims his tyrannical powers: this is the real world of 21st Century Police States. The CSP, 111 years old, has about 1,248 “troops” and almost 1,600 employees, is “heavily militaristic” and rules (that’s what masters do) over about 3.5 million residents (subjects?) of Connecticut. They “protect” the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the state, and their families, which I guess means that even those people are servants.
Not only that, but this “master” of people says that someone objecting to unconstitutional gun control laws is “Anti-American.” It is now about 72 hours since that statement was made, but I hear no official, no senior officer or civilian official, publicly stating that this lieutenant thug was wrong in what he said. “Silence is consent.”
I am Texian by ancestry, and therefore you should not be surprised to find that I am very much NOT a lover of the concept of a State Police. State Police are an integral part of Police States: or certainly, the germ of such. In fact, except MAYBE for special, limited-duty, highly specialized, units like Texas Rangers or Colorado Rangers, I am opposed to ANY statewide (much less nationwide) law enforcement OR peace officer OR public safety organization. Given any justification for government at all, law enforcement/peace-keeping belongs strictly at the COUNTY level, with an elected official (a SHERIFF) directly responsible to the people of the county or township, and his/her deputies. If there is a need for a state highway or courtesy patrol, it should be HIGHLY limited (as with Rangers) to a very few specific tasks and responsible NOT to the legislature or the executive branch of the state government, but to the Sheriffs – either in general assembly or through a board of directors elected by them. Even then, we know the danger of tyranny is heightened.
(Connecticut does not have viable, functioning counties and no Sheriffs: indeed most of its many municipalities are patrolled by “local” officers that are part of, or report to, the State Police. Is that messed up, or what?)
Supposedly, there are between 20,000 and 100,000 residents (can’t call ’em citizens, any more) of Connecticut who have not registered or gotten rid of their “assault weapons.” (JPFO has a good summary article here.) Presumably many more have “sniper weapons” (any long arm from .223 caliber on up). This occupation army, with only between 1200 and 1700 thugs, could disappear from the face of the earth and have to answer to God for their evil deeds in a matter of minutes. The Police State COULD end that quickly. If there are enough people with courage and conviction and love of liberty left in that state. (There are some, at least, as Freedom Outpost describes.)
It is obvious that the present, intolerable situation cannot remain unresolved. Was it not Abraham Lincoln who quoted Christ Jesus that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” and went on to say: “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
Though no great fan of Abe Lincoln, he had a point. Connecticut is no longer free. Other states may too be in that situation, as certainly are many cities (NYC, Chicago, are two that come to mind). We must decide NOW that we in the mostly free states (Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, perhaps Arizona, North Dakota, and Idaho) must aid our brothers in states that are Police States, to regain their freedom. BUT we can’t do it for them.
Mama’s Note: The idea of “the Union” and all the talk about division creating a fall… have nothing to do with voluntary associations. The “fall” comes about when each faction demands the power to control and plunder the others. I have been a part of a good many voluntary associations, with people of all different background, needs, talents, etc. We were able to work toward a mutual goal, in peace and prosperity, because we did not have any desire to RULE one another. The law of non-aggression, and the desire for peaceful, free trade is all that is required. The most desirable division in society is the individual, freely associating and trading with others on mutually agreeable terms. And, just as important, leaving all others free to associate differently and work toward other goals.
The collectivist standard of “country” or the “state” as an indivisible, sacred whole – which must be maintained as such by whatever violence is necessary – is the very antithesis of individual liberty and justice.