Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Another innocent man being railroaded by gun control

I guess “innocent” is technically not true but what was not a crime a week ago is one now, as Tyrone Watson found out.

The 30 year old Bridgeport man is the first person to be charged in Connecticutt for having a “high capacity magazine”.

Or, rather, for having the magazine that came with his handgun known by most rational people as a normal magazine.  But this is what happens when gun controllers get to arbitrarily dictate what is “high capacity” and define what is “normal”.

Few pistols now a day hold less than 11 rounds, the noticeable exception being the 1911 and its clones.  But Glocks for instance, favored by law enforcement departments around the country hold 15 rounds standard.  Springfield Armories popular XD line hold 13 rounds for the .45 (also standard) and even more for the smaller caliber rounds.  The Baretta 9mm holds 15 rounds as does the Ruger .40 and most Sig Sauer’s have a capacity from 11 to 15 rounds.

These are some of the most popular makers of handguns in the world yet somehow their “standard” magazine has been ruled “high capacity” by some bureaucrat in Hartford and as such law abiding gun owners are having their rights infringed.

Gun owners like Tyrone Watson who was pulled over for having a dented license plate at 1 in the morning.  While searching for his license to give to the officer the officer spied Watson’s Concealed Carry Permit.  At which point the officer asked if Watson had a firearm with him.

Since Connecticut isn’t a”must inform” state the correct answer Watson should have given was “I have nothing illegal in this car officer”.

If the officer wanted to take it further that is on him but one should not facilitate their own injustice.

But Watson said that he did have his firearm on him and was removed from his vehicle and disarmed.  The officer noted that the pistol had a standard 15 round magazine in it and cited Watson with Connecticut’s idiotic high capacity law.

The law being that you must register all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds with the state by Jan. 1st 2014.

How does this stop crime I wonder.  Like a criminal is going to just walk into the police station and say; “oh yeah, I have all these 15 round magazines that I need to register before I rob the bank down the street…I don’t want to break the law while I am breaking the law.”

So it is the law abiding that have to jump through the hoops of gun controls tyranny and by doing so create a de facto handgun registration for the state.  I mean, registering magazines for handguns over 10 rounds means chances are you OWN handguns.

So where does this leave Mr. Watson?  According to the police the officer wrote Watson a summons and gave him back his gun and the magazine, telling him to store the items in his trunk until he arrived at his home.

Gun control saves the day!

Hold on, what?

I’m glad Mr. Watson was allowed to go home and his property wasn’t stolen from him but what is the point of this BS law?  If Watson HAD been a bad guy he could have just driven off, loaded his gun and went on a late night kill spree.  Of course, if he was a bad guy he probably wouldn’t have his concealed carry permit or a legal gun that could be traced back to him in the first place.

It’s mind numbing how counter intuitive gun control is.

Is Watson’s court date on Jan. 17th and ticket stopping another Sandy Hook?  Not at all.  To think otherwise is to be willfully ignorant and naive.  Gun control is set up to punish the law abiding and dissuade the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. To place as many deterrents to the practice that many people just toss their hands up and say “forget about it.”  The gun control movement is built on disenfranchisment, not of criminals but of the people who are willing to follow the law.

And while the law abiding are getting screwed the criminals are tripping the light fantastic in a night where only they are armed and police are far away.

Of course this isn’t the first case of a gun owner railroaded in the state, lest we forget Sung-Ho Hwang, President of the New Haven Bar Association when he was arrested on the orders of the Chief of Police and publicly vilified by the Mayor just for having the sense to be legally armed when seeing a movie at 1am.

You can read the full account here: New Haven tries to hang Hwang

Fortunately, after the public outcry all charges against Mr. Hwang were eventually dropped.

Apparently though, not railroading the innocent isn’t something that the politicians have gotten around to embracing yet.

Good luck Connecticut.


Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Time to look to something more potent than the Second Amendment, which acknowledges merely an right. We were sold down the river when the framers replaced non-optional, un-repealable, God-expected responsibilities with optional, repealable rights, which are easily controlled by whatever government is in the power at the time. There’s no better example than the Amendment with the wording “shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty-seven. This is the inherent nature and danger of rights, unlike God-expected responsibilities:

    “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)

    “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house [including spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

    For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight” at Scroll about half-way down the home page to our Featured Messages.

    If you prefer to read, see our blog article “You Can’t Win Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight.”

    • psychicbloodbrother

      there you go again……..The framers did nothing of the sort. The entire premise of your argument against the framers is weak and unsubstantiated. Why do you hate the US constitution Ted?

      • Why do you hate Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11)?

        • psychicbloodbrother

          I don’t hate the founders nor god. The premise of your argument is false.

          • You can’t have it both ways anymore than the Israelites could on Mt. Carmel. See “Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians” on our blog and “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” on our Online Books page.

          • psychicbloodbrother

            There you go again trying to get people to go to your site. To be perfectly clear the laws are the laws and it is what we do with them that is the real issue (works). Whether the issue is Gods laws or mans laws the principles herein to protect yourself and your property are in harmony. Remember your first property right is your conscience. Your premise argues against the constitution when you use this approach you are pitting one against the other in straw man fashion. Your argument against the founders and our constitution could also be interpreted as to be against Gods laws when you consider the principle and the spirit of the law. You go even further diminishing the founders in a personal way using an ad hominem and fallacious premise. Ad hominem reasoning is used to diminish or discredit the founders of our country. I am not against you Ted i am against the fallacious reasoning that you are using, much like my opening sentence on this post which really is uncalled for. I am arguing that it is the works to be hated as Jesus Hated the works of the nicolaitans in Rev 2. I am arguing both for Gods laws and our great American constitution as originally founded as they are in harmony, not at odds as you so often argue. We must unite on first principles if were are to overcome the next examination.

          • There you go again trying to recruit others in your double-minded sedition against Yahweh. And, by the way, that is not an ad hominem attack at all, but a conclusion anyone who has examined the Constitution by the Bible should be able to surmise about you from what you’ve written in this post and every other response to my posts.

          • psychicbloodbrother

            I like the way to try to connect everything I have ever said in your response, while at the same time hoping to diminish me personally, while not responding to any of the arguments i have made. Very creative way to use textbook Ad hominem & psychological projection in your straw man argument (anyone who has examined the constitution agree’s with you……very Obamaesque). If as Christians we cannot find common ground we are lost. People of faith will discern truth for themselves through the holy spirit. God Speed in your search for the truth.

          • Not responding to any of YOUR arguments!?! I’ve written a 565-page book answering yours and other similar arguments. The fact is, it’s you that’s yet to answer even one of the places where I show the Constitution is Biblically hostile.

          • psychicbloodbrother

            I wrote a book so i know better than you……..Blah Blah blah. You are arguing for a theocracy and against the constitution. I disagree with your premise and you cannot make the case that unites and creates, you only make a case that diminishes and divides. We should be able to find some common ground on this but if we cannot agree on the premise we cannot get started. I love God and I love America as founded. I don’t accept your premise that these are mutually exclusive and i don’t support your conclusion that we should create a theocracy. There is my position.

          • Am much as you would like there to be, there is no more common ground between Constitutionalism and Yahweh’s law than there is between Baal and Yahweh. In fact, Baal was just an ancient form of We the People.

            The fact that I wrote a book in irrelevant. The fact that Yahweh wrote a book that the Constitution is hostile to is anything but irrelevant.

          • psychicbloodbrother

            So there it is for all to see you are anti-constitution. Therefore you are anti-American. Therefore you are pro Theocracy or worse you are pro Tyranny. Nuff Said. I completely disagree with you.

          • When one understands that the principal means by which we keep the First Commandment is by observing Yahweh’s other moral laws (of course, under the New Covenant, through Christ as Lord and Savior, motivated by love) and that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

            Furthermore, all non-existent false gods (1Corinthians 8:4-6) always have been and always will represent we the people in one form or another.

            “…There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

            “People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

            For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” at

          • psychicbloodbrother

            We know you Hate America Ted. It is here for all to see. You are simply hiding behind your cultish faith to try to diminish America and it speaks for itself. So long as you stand against America and its founding i will stand against you. I don’t like what America is becoming as we have drifted away from its founding but I don’t hate my country nor do i think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Have a great day !!

          • Eventually, you always resort to ad hominen attacks and, in this instance, usurping Yahweh’s place as God and the judge of my heart, something only He can do. In doing so, you’ve also violated the Ninth Commandment because I love America and her people enough to tell them the truth about the Biblically seditious Constitution that has put them on the precipice of degradation and destruction:

            “…3. Every problem America faces today can be traced back to the fact
            that the framers failed to expressly establish a government upon
            Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes,
            and judgments. (Would infanticide and sodomy be tolerated, let alone
            financed by the government, if Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether
            righteous judgments were the law of the land? Would Islam be a looming
            threat to our peace and security if the First Amendment had been
            replaced with the First Commandment? Would Americans be in nearly as
            much debt if usury had been outlawed as a form of theft? Would crime be
            as rampant if “cruel and unusual punishment” had not been outlawed and
            criminals were instead punished with Yahweh’s altogether righteous
            judgments? Would we be on the fiscal cliff if we were taxed with a flat
            increase tax rather than a graduated income tax?)….

            For more, see our Featured Blog article “5 Reasons Why the Constitution is our Cutting-Edge Issue” at

          • Proverbs 18:13 states “He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him.”

            I used to proclaim much of what you are saying in favor of the Constitution, thinking there was almost no difference (from the Civil Laws of God proclaimed in the Scriptures), and that the founding fathers almost all proclaimed Christianity (or some nebulous form thereof).

            Some years ago I first became introduced to the possibility of some conflicts between God’s Law and those that are “man-ordained”. Some, of course, are obvious; others are less evident. It’s these more subtile that have caused much of America’s downfall. There are many other studies to collaborate with those of Pastor Weiland. His just happens to be amongst the most copiously supported with original source documentation.

            I would urge you to read Weiland’s book (or at least the Primer — which he offers anyone who asks — FREE), before defending a position that is only supported by ignorance & government-schooled education. Let me affirm: I’ve been there with you — I can fully relate to where you are in your present understanding and defense of the Constitution.

            Also, you might note that the Constitution itself forms for those who would submit to it a “theocracy”, whose “god” is “We the People”. Weiland explains that very concisely elsewhere.

            God bless & guide you as you seek to serve the King of kings.

          • psychicbloodbrother

            Nice Projection Norm. I might say the same in response to you. I am a self educated man and discern the truth from the holy spirit. I admire your persistence and proselytization to follow the Weiland Cult but no thanks. I too have read the original sources and have drawn a different conclusion. I don’t wish to live in a theocracy and join the Weiland cult. I am just fine following Christ. I love America as founded and will not join an anti-American cult, that in my view, misinterprets the true meaning of the American constitution. The american constitution is an instrument of the good for men to be free to pursue happiness. The parallel to the holy scripture cannot be more clear to me. The free will and the liberty to choose to do good and to pursue happiness. Where the lord is there is liberty. God Speed.

          • If We The People get their laws from God, as you so often claim, it should be simple enough for you to provide me something from the Bible that provides for a litigant appellate system in Article 3, for a man-made law to be the supreme law of the land per Article 6, for the cancellation of Biblical qualifications per Article 6, for the open proliferation of gods other than Yahweh per Amendment 1, for the replacement of Yahweh’s righteous civil judgments with kind and usual punishments, for starters.

          • psychicbloodbrother

            Its about principles Ted, something you seem to have abandoned. Your response is simply ridiculous and mocks the very principles you claim to espouse. Have a great day hating America!!

          • In other words, you’re unable to provide me from the Bible any of things listed above.

          • T. Edward Price

            I AM a man of faith. The Holy Spirit HAS blessed me with discerning the truth. And the truth is that I CHOOSE the perfect, immutable laws of Yahweh, including Luke 22:36 and 1 Timothy 5:8, which describe my DUTY to be armed, versus man’s fallible, seditious laws, including the optional 2nd Amendment “right.” Nothing ad hominem here, just sola scriptura!

          • psychicbloodbrother

            The 2nd Amendment is not optional. Why create these straw men arguments against the constitution? Why do you guys all huddle together to make this argument against the constitution when clearly these things are in harmony? The principles are the same and you should support the second amendment rather than argue for theocracy. Same ole song and dance from you guys over and over……..When you make this argument you are actually agreeing with the statists that want to diminish the second amendment and to change the constitution that represents the principle of self defense and property rights. The Wall of separation is to protect the church from the state and to keep the state out of the church. Your theocracy arguments are aligned with those who are trampling the constitution. Why don’t you support the American constitution and the principles of the bill of rights that are in harmony with the christian faith?

          • T. Edward Price

            If the 2nd Amendment is NOT optional, then by definition, it must be MANDATORY. The truth is, ALL “rights” are optional, for one has the choice whether or not to exercise said right. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is weak, and doesn’t REQUIRE a Christian man to be armed and trained, in defense of himself, family, and neighbor. As for supporting “the bill of rights that are in harmony with the christian faith”, I would support them one hundred percent, if you could show me but just ONE that is harmonious with Scripture, and God’s perfect, unchangeable, eternal laws. It couldn’t be more simple: if Yahweh be God, then follow Him; if the Constitution be god, then follow it. We both have made our choice.

          • psychicbloodbrother

            Wrong. Free will and freedom are in harmony. Rights come from god and lead to like advantage of ever other individual are by definition cannot be rights. You cannot force rights on people that is tyranny. Rights come from god they cannot be given or taken away by man. The bill of rights enshrines to most basic of those god given rights. When you make the leap that there is no free will and you are advocating against the teachings of Christ and for Tyranny. There are many of these parallels and I can site more. The constitution is written to protect individual liberty and Christianity is for individual salvation. Both are based on free will and both depend on people choosing to be good. Its fundamental. If we cannot agree on these basic premises we will remain divided. I love America as founded & I love Christ they are not mutually exclusive. A house divided cannot stand…….

  • Gendo Ikari

    I’m still waiting for all these gun owners to start protecting us from Government tyranny. The guns don’t seem to be doing much right now.

    Any day now, right? Or are we waiting for ammo prices to drop to something reasonable again?

    • Barefoot in MN

      I wonder the same thing sometimes. The only “excuse” I can think of for the delay, is that the ones who actively participate in disarming people, are 1)so numerous, 2)so anonymous, and 3)so innocuous. If the innocent man described herein had shot the officer, he’d be rightly despised & charged for such. But the officer ought NOT to be enforcing such unConstitutional “law”. Who gives the officer HIS orders??? do we shoot THAT guy instead? where, exactly, IS the head of the snake?????

    • smitty6398

      Most of the politicos that need to be shot aren’t worth the cost of the bullet.

Send this to friend