Retaliation: Home Addresses of CT Legislators Who Voted in Favor of Gun Registration Posted By Patriot Activist

by: Thomas Jefferson

gun seiez

by Kim Paxton

Sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire. And that is exactly what Mike Vanderboegh has chosen to do. The state of Connecticut wants to make a list – a list of gun owners. So, Vanderboegh has created his own list – a list of those state legislators who are insisting that certain firearms be banned or registered.

If you recall, most of the gun owners who own these weapons have refused to register them, with tens of thousands of residents engaging in acts of quiet civil disobedience.

The state responded by sending out letters, demanding that gun owners across the state turn in all of their newly-banned, unregistered firearms and magazines or face felony prosecution.

Vanderboegh, who is himself a member of at least one list (the SPLC has profiled him on their “Hatewatch” blog, which is really kind of a badge of honor in certain circles), has responded to this by compiling a list of his own: it is a list of all of the legislators in the state of Connecticut who voted in favor of the recently passed gun registrations laws in the state. Vanderboegh is the leader of the Sipsey Street Irregulars, a group of patriot activists who identify with the 3% of American Colonists who fought back against tyranny during the Revolutionary War.

Here is the post, A Sipsey Street Public Service Announcement: The Connecticut Tyrants List:
The state of Connecticut is making lists of firearm owners to raid. It seems obvious to me that it is thus only fair to list those anti-constitutional tyrants who will have blood on their hands the moment the first Connecticut citizen is shot by the CT state police while carrying out their orders. I will be sending these folks my own email later today.
CT State Senators voting Yes on “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety, also known as Public Law 13-3 or Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1160,” 3 April 2013. List includes home addresses. Photos and home phone numbers of these tyrants are available here: http://www.cbia.com

John W. Fonfara, 99 Montowese St., Hartford 06114-2841
Eric D. Coleman, 77 Wintonbury Ave., Bloomfield 06002-2529
Andrea Stillman, 5 Coolidge Ct., Waterford 06385-3309
Gary LeBeau, 501 Canyon Ridge Dr., Broad Brook 06016-5602
Kevin Kelly, 240 York St., Stratford 06615-7952
Steve Cassano, 1109 Middle Tpke, E Manchester 06040-3703
Anthony J. Musto, 15 Maymont Ln., Trumbull 06611-2111
Beth Bye, 99 Outlook Ave., West Hartford 06119-1432
Andres Ayala, PO Box 55106, Bridgeport 06610-5106
Terry B. Gerratana, 674 Lincoln St., New Britain 06052-1833
Michael A. McLachlan, 47 W Wooster St., Danbury 06810-7731
Bob Duff, 50 Toilsome Ave., Norwalk 06851-2425
Toni Boucher, 5 Wicks End Ln, Wilton 06897-2633
Paul Doyle, 38 Thornbush Rd., Wethersfield 06109-3554
Carlo Leone, 88 Houston Ter., Stamford 06902-4449

Toni N. Harp (no longer in the Legislature, she is now the Mayor of New Haven, CT).
John McKinney, 986 S Pine Creek Rd., Fairfield 06824-6348
Martin M. Looney, 132 Fort Hale Rd., New Haven 06512-3630
Donald E. Williams, Jr., 41 Malbone Ln., Brooklyn 06234-1563
Edward Meyer, 407 Mulberry Point Rd., Guilford 06437-3204
Dante Bartolomeo, 167 Reynolds Dr., Meriden 06450-2568
Gayle Slossburg, 14 Honeysuckle Ln., Milford 06461-1671
Joan V. Hartley, 206 Columbia Blvd., Waterbury 06710-1401
Leonard Fasano, 7 Sycamore Ln., North Haven 06473-1283
Joseph J. Crisco, Jr., 1205 Racebrook Rd., Woodbridge 06525-1822
L. Scott Frantz, 123 Meadow Rd., Riverside 06878-2521
CT House members voting Yes on “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety, also known as Public Law 13-3 or Connecticut Senate Bill No. 1160,” 3 April 2013.

Photos and home phone numbers of these tyrants are available here:

http://www.cbia.com

Catherine Abercrombie, 64 Parker Ave., Meriden 06450-5945
Ernest Hewett, 29 Colman St., New London 06320-3558
Peter Tercyak, 150 Belridge Rd., New Britain 06053-1008
Brenda Kupchick, 85 Liberty St., Madison 06443-3258
William Tong, 99 Chestnut Hill Rd., Stamford 06903-4030
Gary Holder-Winfield, 480 Winchester Ave., New Haven 06511-1920
James Albis, 369 Coe Ave., Apt 14, East Haven
David Alexander, 277 Pearl St., Enfield 06082-4368
Bryan Hurlburt (Stepped down to take a position with the USDA’s Farm Service Agency.)
Diana Urban, 146 Babcock Rd., North Stonington 06359-1334
Gail Lavielle, 109 Hickory Hill Rd., Wilton 06897-1135
Claire Janowski, 263 Hany Ln., Vernon 06066-2740
Edwin Vargas, 141 Douglas St., Hartford 06114-2422
Angel Arce, 248 Franklin Ave., Hartford 06114-1841
Susan Johnson, 120 Bolivia St., Willimantic 06226-2818
Joe Verrengia, 160 Colonial St., West Hartford 06110-1814
David Arconti, Jr., 141 Great Plain Rd., Danbury 06811-3844
Tom Vicino, 92 Carter Hill Rd., Clinton 06413-1230
Joe Aresimowicz, 248 Lower Ln., Berlin 06037-2231
David Kiner, 5 Cranberry Hollow, Enfield 06082-2200

Toni Walker, 1643 Ella T Grasso Blvd., New Haven 06511-2801
Patricia Widlitz, 12 Island Bay Cir., Guilford 06437-3058
Timothy Larson, 33 Gorman Pl., East Hartford 06108-1450
Christina Ayala, 506 Brooks St., Bridgeport 06608-1303
Terry Backer, 125 Jefferson St., Stratford 06615-7810
Roland Lemar, 6 Eld St., New Haven 06511-3816
Roberta Willis, PO Box 1733, 30 Upland Meadow Rd., Lakeville 06039-1733
Tom O’Dea, 37 Holly Rd., New Canaan 06840-6406
David Baram, 5 Warbler Cir., Bloomfield 06002-2233
Matthew Lesser, 1160 S Main S.,t Apt 110, Middletown 06457-5034
Christopher Wright, 35 Ruth St., Apt 49, Bristol 06010-3218
Arthur O’Neill, 617 Bucks Hill Rd., Southbury 06488-1952
Brian Becker, 14 Candlewood Dr., West Hartford 06117-1009
Rick Lopes, 208 S Mountain Dr., New Britain 06052-1514
Elissa Wright, 51 Pearl St., Groton 06340-5732
Elizabeth “Betty” Boukus, Legislative Office Bldg., Rm 4017, Hartford 06106

Geoff Luxenburg, 45 Chatham Dr., Manchester 06042-8522
James Maroney, 22 Saranac Rd Milford 06461-9401
Larry Butler, 70 Blackman Rd., Waterbury 06704-1203
Juan Candelaria, 28 Arch St., New Haven 06519-1511
Brandon McGee, 43 Warren St., Hartford 06120-2117
Robert Megna, 40 Foxon Hill Rd., Unit 54, New Haven 06513-1166
Charles “Don” Clemons, 130 Read St., Bridgeport 06607-2021
Michelle Cook, 499 Charles St., Torrington 06790-3420
Patricia Miller, 95 Liberty St., Apt A4, Stamford 06902-4732
John Shaban, 29 Ledgewood Rd., Redding 06896-2916
Bill Aman, 878 Strong Rd., South Windsor 06074-2006
Philip Miller, 24 Bushy Hill Rd., Ivoryton 06442-1108
Victor Cuevas, 17 Keefe St., Waterbur,y 06706-1616
Mike D’Agostino, 575 Ridge Rd., Hamden 06517-2519
Russ Morin, 495 Brimfield Rd., Wethersfield 06109-3209
Richard Smith, 25 Jeremy Dr., New Fairfield 06812-2109
Prasad Srinivasan, 268 Grandview Dr., Glastonbury 06033-3946
Bruce Morris, 315 Ely Ave., Norwalk 06854-4619
Stephen Dargan, 215 Beach St., West Haven 06516-6133
Paul Davis, 335 Smith Farm Rd., Orange 06477-3127
Ted Moukawsher, 48 W Elderkin Ave., Groton 06340-4933
Mitch Bolinsky, 3 Wiley Ln., Newtown 06470-1812
Stephen Walko, 7 Charter Oak Ln., Greenwich 06830-6911
Mike Demicco, 6 Deborah Ln., Farmington 06032-3031
Mary Mushinsky, 188 S Cherry St., Wallingford 06492-4016
Patricia Dillon, 68 W Rock Ave., New Haven 06515-2221
Sandy Nafis, 49 Whitewood Rd., Newington 06111-2133
Larry Cafero, Jr., 6 Weed Ave., Norwalk 06850-2224
Terrie Wood, 50 Saint Nicholas Rd., Darien 06820-2823
Joe Diminico, 26 Finley St., Manchester 06040-5616
David Yaccarino, 1804 Hartford Tpke., North Haven 06473-1248
Elaine O’Brien, 1321 Hill St., Suffield 06078-1024
Kim Fawcett, 234 Collingwood Ave., Fairfield 06825-1877
Chris Perone, 8 E. Rocks Rd., Norwalk 06851-2919
Christie Carpino, 29 Sovereign Rd., Cromwell 06416-1136
Lonnie Reed, 60 Maple St., Apt. 44, Branford 06405-3562
Andy Fleischmann, 25 Sherwood Rd., West Hartford 06117-2739
Mae Flexer, 452 Main St., Danielson 06239-2104
Emmett Riley, 150 Yantic St., Unit 160, Norwich 06360-4248
Daniel Fox, 14 Carter Dr., Stamford 06902-7013
Matt Ritter, 169 N Beacon St., Hartford 06105-2246
J. Brendan Sharkey, 600 Mount Carmel Ave., Hamden 06518-1606
Jason Rojas, 128 Langford Ln., East Hartford 06118-2369
Gerald Fox, III, 66 Fairview Ave., Stamford 06902-8129
Mary Fritz, 43 Grove St., Yalesville 06492-1606
Livvy Floren, 210 Round Hill Rd., Greenwich 06831-3357
Henry Genga, 5 Elaine Dr., East Hartford 06118-3515
John Frey, 2 Copps Hill Rd., Ridgefield 06877-4013
Linda Gentile, 158 Hodge Ave., Ansonia 06401-3236
Robert Sanchez, 269 Washington St., New Britain 06051-1024
Minnie Gonzalez, 97 Amity St., Hartford 06106-1001
Ezequiel Santiago, 991 State St., Bridgeport 06605-1504
Jeffrey Berger, 134 Gaylord Dr., Waterbury 06708-2181
Auden Grogins, 155 Brewster St., Apt 5L, Bridgeport 06605-3111
Hilda Santiago, 86 South Ave., Fl 3, Meriden 06451-7624
DebraLee Hovey, 296 Fan Hill Rd., Monroe 06468-1329
Bob Godfrey, 13 Stillman Ave., Danbury 06810-8007
Antonio Guerrera, 194 Catherine Dr., Rocky Hill 06067-1096
Brian Sear, 11 N Canterbury Rd., Canterbury 06331-1209
Elizabeth Ritter, 24 Old Mill Rd., Quaker Hill 06375-1319
Tony Hwang, PO Box 762, Fairfield 06824-0762
Joseph Serra, PO Box 233, Middletown 06457-0233
Gregg Haddad, 28 Storrs Heights Rd., Storrs Mansfield 06268-2322
John Hampton, 33 West Mountain, Simsbury 06092
Charlie Stallworth, 35 Wickliffe Cir., Bridgeport 06606-1929
Themis Klarides, 23 East Ct., Derby 06418-2640
Noreen Kokoruda, 85 Liberty St., Madison 06443-3258
Jonathan Steinberg, 1 Bushy Ridge Rd., Westport 06880-2104
Jack Hennessy, 556 Savoy St., Bridgeport 06606-4125

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/retaliation-home-addresses-ct-legislators-voted-favor-gun-registration-posted-patriot-activist/#oOfX2KplTCGCdms5.99

129 Responses to “Retaliation: Home Addresses of CT Legislators Who Voted in Favor of Gun Registration Posted By Patriot Activist”

  1. Ryan Poling

    Everyone do not obey obamas laws ! Just quit everyone needs to quit what they're doing and turn on them !!! We need to storm the White House and take it back !!

  2. Ryan Poling

    Everyone do not obey obamas laws ! Just quit everyone needs to quit what they're doing and turn on them !!! We need to storm the White House and take it back !!

  3. Michael Cooper

    Time to repay the anti gun crowd.

  4. Billy Hoylman

    I would like to know if CT has enough jail space to house and care for these hardened criminals. Who will be out working and paying the taxes of they all go to jail?

  5. Billy Hoylman

    I would like to know if CT has enough jail space to house and care for these hardened criminals. Who will be out working and paying the taxes of they all go to jail?

  6. Jim Pfrommer

    The same people who were working before.
    This list is NOT of productive citizens. They add no value to society, produce no product.

  7. Jim Pfrommer

    The same people who were working before.
    This list is NOT of productive citizens. They add no value to society, produce no product.

  8. Michael Santarella

    Stick it to em CT, you will be the spark that takes this country back

  9. Michael Santarella

    Stick it to em CT, you will be the spark that takes this country back

  10. Mark Winter

    They're not illegal fire arms. They're undocumented fire arms. After all, we can't call people who are here illegally illegal aliens. Bullshit!!!! They are illegal aliens. Until they're all removed from this country, then the police need to get busy rounding them up. Not legally owned firearms.

  11. Mark Winter

    They're not illegal fire arms. They're undocumented fire arms. After all, we can't call people who are here illegally illegal aliens. Bullshit!!!! They are illegal aliens. Until they're all removed from this country, then the police need to get busy rounding them up. Not legally owned firearms.

  12. Ryan Poling

    Sorry about that sudden outburst .. I just don't know what to do anymore . I know dan arts but they aren't going armed … It's not going to so anything but land them in jail /or killed..

  13. Dan Arts

    Ryan Poling I wouldn't count on people being unarmed it states peaceful not defenseless. They don't have enough room for mass of expected people!

  14. Joanna Hyatt

    I lived in CT a long time ago, damn glad I left. You have my best wishes to win this battle of your Constitutional Rights against this alien, illegal, and unconstitutional government and your totalitarian state. If I remember your license plate says, "Constitution State" add UN as the prefix and put ads in the paper. I'll be sure to circulate this article with the names, addresses, and numbers and ask my friends to do the same. Go viral ! Vanderbough is a patriot.

  15. James Gibbs

    FEMA camp if all hell don't break out . But I see a lot of state cops getting shot . And this thing snow balling across the country.

  16. Eric Yanco

    It's not about the anti-gun crowd. They are entitled to their opinion. This is about the legislators who ignored the Constitution.

  17. John Breland

    As a lawyer and a Soldier, I urge the good citizens of Connecticut to firmly refuse to comply and to resist all enforcement efforts. The Constitutional right to bear arms trumps any Connecticut statute to the contrary. But since neither the state nor federal government has the courage or inclination to enforce the Constitution these days, the People must do it themselves.

  18. Gregory Rossi

    When the CT state nazi's declare war on gun owners they should expect and gun owners should give them what they ask for DEATH.. If they get away with it in CT the Cancer will spread !!!

  19. Anthony Botta

    That pic is not ct look at the way the cops are dressed.

  20. Angel Sue Lankford

    Missouri just came out with this the other day about the guns.Missouri Dems Introduce Alarming Gun Confiscation Bill Giving Law-Abiding Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Certain Firearms or Become Felons.This all isn't looking good at all people. http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=1266

  21. Ryan Sparks

    Jim Pfrommer I believe He was talking about the Legal Gun owners, not the Useless Legislators

  22. Steve V. Lee

    Will someone PLEASE do a comprehensive list like this of ALL congressmen?
    You'll see the change you've been looking for from DC; right fast!

  23. Steve V. Lee

    Will someone PLEASE do a comprehensive list like this of ALL congressmen?
    You'll see the change you've been looking for from DC; right fast!

  24. E. June Crooks

    Next election…vote these traitors out of offic! Those that are left after they realize that the citizen are beginning to show TRUE support of our Constitution and they resign for "health" reasons.

  25. E. June Crooks

    Next election…vote these traitors out of offic! Those that are left after they realize that the citizen are beginning to show TRUE support of our Constitution and they resign for "health" reasons.

  26. Desiree Seifert

    Every single one listed on this list who voted to confiscate these fire arms should be voted out of office, then hunted down and tried for treason and hung!

  27. Desiree Seifert

    Every single one listed on this list who voted to confiscate these fire arms should be voted out of office, then hunted down and tried for treason and hung!

  28. Stephen Bozich

    You should mention that the SCOTUS has incorporated the 2nd Amendment through McDonald v. Chicago; prior to that, statists could claim that in the absence of incorporation, the 2nd Amendment does not apply.
    We have to keep our arguments sharp, and out powder dry.

  29. Stephen Bozich

    You should mention that the SCOTUS has incorporated the 2nd Amendment through McDonald v. Chicago; prior to that, statists could claim that in the absence of incorporation, the 2nd Amendment does not apply.
    We have to keep our arguments sharp, and out powder dry.

  30. Mark Thomas

    Stephen Bozich . Could you please explain what is meant by incorporated or absence of incorporation in the context of your comment? Incorporated into what? I would like to understand what you are wanting to communicate. I'm not quite there.

  31. Mark Thomas

    Stephen Bozich . Could you please explain what is meant by incorporated or absence of incorporation in the context of your comment? Incorporated into what? I would like to understand what you are wanting to communicate. I'm not quite there.

  32. Stephen Bozich

    Mark Thomas Sure. So the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal Government, not the individual states. In short, it is a list of things that the Federal Government CANNOT do, or MUST do.
    The problem with that is that states, then, presumably have free reign to do as they please. With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the issue of "incorporation" emerged. The Supreme Court has found that many of the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the states just as they apply to the Federal Government.
    Here's a wiki article on Incorporation as it applies to the states. Take it with a grain of salt, but if nothing else, wiki articles provide a good reference for "hard" sources.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
    In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the SCOTUS found that the 2nd Amendment did apply to the states as it did the Federal Government.

  33. Stephen Bozich

    Mark Thomas Sure. So the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal Government, not the individual states. In short, it is a list of things that the Federal Government CANNOT do, or MUST do.
    The problem with that is that states, then, presumably have free reign to do as they please. With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the issue of "incorporation" emerged. The Supreme Court has found that many of the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the states just as they apply to the Federal Government.
    Here's a wiki article on Incorporation as it applies to the states. Take it with a grain of salt, but if nothing else, wiki articles provide a good reference for "hard" sources.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
    In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the SCOTUS found that the 2nd Amendment did apply to the states as it did the Federal Government.

  34. Stephen Bozich

    I hope that helps. I bring up the issue of incorporation, because I feel it is imperative that we be fully informed on the issues, so that we can dominate any debate.

  35. Stephen Bozich

    I hope that helps. I bring up the issue of incorporation, because I feel it is imperative that we be fully informed on the issues, so that we can dominate any debate.

  36. Stephen Bozich

    Eric Yanco Yeah, that would be the anti-gun crowd. Since when do people in Boston know/care about the Constitution to begin with?

  37. Stephen Bozich

    Eric Yanco Yeah, that would be the anti-gun crowd. Since when do people in Boston know/care about the Constitution to begin with?

  38. Grant Collinsworth

    With this type of authoritarian practice, leverage for free citizens has drastically shifted away. It wont be too long , before somebody gets hurt. While most civilians may obtain and develop shooting skills with their personal weapons, most of them lack training for strategic and tactical defense against the state/Federal law enforcement agencies . I've noticed, that in most cases of violence in America, its always been imposed against the wrong victims. The only way to stop this government from snow-balling in the current direction it is taking, is to kill the people behind it. They must then replaced thoroughly scrutinized professionals. Simple as that. Now some would argue against the violence tactic… Okay then, how about instead of killing these people…get out of the damn house and attend the town halls and verbally rage on these candidates BEFORE they are elected into those positions of authority?

  39. Eric Yanco

    Stephen, just like your first comment above, regarding incorporation, this comment of yours is cryptic. It's passive aggressive, actually. I see the importance of defending the condition but not all who do get into this bloodthirsty mindset. As much as I find it detestable, anti gun people are entitled to their opinion – that falls under the right to free speech. So, apparently, we in Boston care about the constitution enough to not want to hurt people with offensive speech and ideas.

    But acting on those ideas it's a different story. As I'm sure you've had few thoughts in your lifetime that would've landed you in jail if acted upon…

    As far as this incorporation crap… the time for debate has past. Of ppl want to argue some crap about incorporation, they can do so at their own peril. The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed… period.

  40. Robert Dunning

    organize my friends god bless you all.

  41. Stephen Bozich

    Eric Yanco They might be entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to enforce their opinion through the force of law. I believe that blacks should be considered the property of whites. That is my opinion. Do I have the right to enforce that opinion through legislation? Of course not. (and to be honest, I don't think that blacks should be the property of whites, I'm just trying to make a point. Indeed, given the current state of black society, I don't know any whites that would want to own a black).
    As for you Bostonians, you have lost the right to call yourself Americans. You don't even deserve a star on the flag. You have voluntarily disregarded nearly all of the fundamental rights that produce a republic. Even if you are against the political majority in MA, by living there you grant them power, via your taxes, and electoral and congressional representation. In other words, you might not be able to vote with your ballot, but you can vote with your feet. I did. You didn't.
    You want to take about passive-aggressiveness? What do you call cowering before the police as they enter your home without a warrant? What do you call abdicating your rights as a free man?
    Hope you have a happy Patriots' Day.

  42. Stephen Bozich

    Grant Collinsworth Most "civilians" where I live are retired military or veterans. Hell, I am a firearms instructor and gave a class to a SF Soldier and his wife, and she shot better than everyone else in the class (except for him).
    As for "strategic and tactical defense" against…LEA's, it is in the blood of every real American. I'm not worried about those that aren't.

  43. John Gleichweit

    Obama doesn't even obey his own damned laws, so why should we?

  44. Ed Reagan

    In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the federal constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I see no time or place limitation on where and when you can petition the Government. Maybe someone should organize rallies to shame these politicians where they live.

  45. Grant Collinsworth

    Stephen Bozich, I get the spirit of what your are saying, but realistically , a weapons-trained civilian cannot win against a swat team, for example. To Illustrate: I watched, from beginning to end (about 2-3 hours) a case where a criminal shooter was holed up in a house (In CA), and the swat fired tear- gas canisters, which caught the drapes on fire, which then burned the house down, (with the perp inside). He died in the fire , of course. It took that house about 45 minutes to become reduced to rubble from that fire. At no time, did the fire department respond to that house. Instead, they did Damage control and prevention on the surrounding houses.
    One could cite malice, behind the negligence of those authorities,,, But what for? … The people of California were drinking the koolaid, which California has been brewing for years. Seems now that Connecticut is following the same pattern…

  46. Rlee Emerysgt

    Some one should pick one of those traitors each, and start documenting the traitors daily routines and habits, along with those traitors family members, and post that data on line, as it is public knowledge hence not illegal to do so!

  47. Ronald Greene

    Stephen Bozich,

    They could claim it but it was incorrect to begin with. It applies no matter what…no diiferent than the right of speech or press.

    It has absolutely applied through the 14th Amendment.

    All MacDonald v Chicago did was affirm an all ready known position.

  48. Stephen Bozich

    Grant Collinsworth Who said that we will not suffer casualties? There are more of us than them. So long as we take one out apiece, we'll win. BTW, if you're talking about the Dorner case, your example is completely anecdotal and not relevant whatsoever to this topic.

  49. Steven Gurganus

    When the SHTF a good distraction would be to set fire to the section 8 (welfare) homes. Everyone will scramble to protect there most beloved voters and drop the numbers of doing door to door

  50. Dan Platt

    Toni Harp DID vote for it. It doesn't matter whether she is no longer in the legislature. Her address should be published.

  51. Jay Sims

    Are voices will be heard, the constitution will be followed, the oath of office our elected take must be enforced by the people for the people.

  52. Roger Mowery

    We shall see if CT stands or become slaves. It's pretty clear cut.

  53. Joe A. Sanders

    Micheal, you bear an uncanny resemblance to Clint Eastwood!

  54. Scott Conklin

    Grant Collinsworth This will be the case a few times. But very quickly people will acknowlege what is coming and split into two camps: Those who roll over and surrender and those who band together to prevent the state's obvious first tactic of picking off lone victims.

    In short, the sheep will remove themselves from the issue, the wolves will coalesce into packs and the fight will begin in earnest. Just as these things always happen throughout history.

  55. Scott Conklin

    Grant Collinsworth This will be the case a few times. But very quickly people will acknowlege what is coming and split into two camps: Those who roll over and surrender and those who band together to prevent the state's obvious first tactic of picking off lone victims.

    In short, the sheep will remove themselves from the issue, the wolves will coalesce into packs and the fight will begin in earnest. Just as these things always happen throughout history.

  56. Eric Yanco

    Stephen, why do you take twice as many sentences to agree with me? Im appr approaching this as if you're intelligent but you're making it very difficult for me to continue in that spirit. After the example you gave, it's clear to me you have a bit of a comprehension problem.

    Furthermore, your comments about Boston are nothing more than a sign of your immaturity… and that's not an opinion. That's your behavior.

  57. Travis Watkins

    Looks to me like he just listed the 10% that registered too. The other 90% is the Faithful Constitutional Law Abiding American Patriots doing Our Country a Service which every United State's Citizen is OBLIGATED to do by Law and Constitutional decree, which is to stand UNITED against such Tyranny in Government.

  58. Ross Don

    It's time to fight or let the JACK ASS to take control of our lives and tell what we can and can't do in a free land!!! What will the gun owners of CT. do now!! ???

  59. Jared Dalen

    Herein lies the problem. The 14th Amendment and it's federal citizenship converted rights to privileges:

    "This necessary "right of the people" existed before the Second Amendment as "one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen." Id. at 2797-98. Heller identified several reasons why the militia was considered "necessary to the security of a free state." First, "it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary…. Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny." Id. at 2800-01. In addition to these civic purposes, Heller characterized the right to keep and bear arms as a corollary to the individual right of self-defense. Id. at 2817 ("[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right."). Thus the right contains both a political component—it is a means to protect the public from tyranny—and a personal component—it is a means to protect the individual from threats to life or limb. Cf. Amar, supra, at 46-59, 257-66.

    "We must trace this right, as thus described, through our history FROM the Founding UNTIL the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    NORDYKE v. KING
    563 F.3d 439 (2009)
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted January 15, 2009.

    The right to bear arms (NOT firearms, I suggest people look up the difference. Not all "firearms" are technically firearms) is protected in the CT Constitution:

    "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Art. I, § 15

    ^This was in reference to de jure CT citizens. Again, the 14th Amendment incrementally converted State Citizens to US citizens.

    "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …" Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

    "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

    Unfortunately, ALL citizenship in the USA is federal as it has come full circle in 140+ plus years. This is the problem and it was all done under military duress. Read Congressional Record House, June 13, 1967, pg 15641-15646.

  60. Ronald Greene

    Jared Dalen

    Not correct. The 14th Amendment does not change rights. It says what is says…nothing more.

    The Consitution and the Amendments are the SUPREME law of the land.

    They supercede the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.

    The Amendments are laws.

    Just as the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear Arms from government…it does not grant that right.

    That right exists in the 9th Amendment.

  61. Kenny Golden

    this might get worse before it gets better !!

  62. Kenny Golden

    this might get worse before it gets better !!

  63. Davilyn Kokualani

    haha wonder how they like their address and phone numbers published. Go Connecticut. Stand for your rights. If they take this away then whats next? Sooner or later its gonna hit all the 50 states so everyone needs to be ready…

  64. Davilyn Kokualani

    haha wonder how they like their address and phone numbers published. Go Connecticut. Stand for your rights. If they take this away then whats next? Sooner or later its gonna hit all the 50 states so everyone needs to be ready…

  65. Jared Dalen

    Well, Ronald, argue with the authorities I posted because it is you that is incorrect. The 9th and 10th Amendments have been subverted because of the NON RATIFIED 14th Amendment.

    Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 269, 267 (1968): "In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chose as the basis for INVADING the rights and prerogatives of the sovereign states… [The Supreme Court] has DEPARTED from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers in foisting upon this Nation laws which even Congress could not constitutionally pass. IT HAS AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION IN A MANNER UNKNOWN TO THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. While it takes three fourths of the states of the Union to change the Constitution legally, yet as few as five men who have never been elected to office can by judicial fiat accomplish a change just as radical as could three fourths of the states of the Nation. As a result of the recent holdings in that Court, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES IS PRACTICALLY ABOLISHED, and the erst while free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system."

  66. Jared Dalen

    I might add the 14th Amendment says the citizens are subjects. Tell me where in the Constitution prior to said Amendment it said anything about people being "SUBJECT to the jurisdiction thereof"… Please tell me why legislators, state and federal can legislate upon your so-called rights?

  67. Robert Rasgaitis

    Eric Yanco You may want to do some research on corporation America.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    ——————————————————————————–

    (note : the copy of the Constitution used herein for quotes has been certified by the National Archives to be a true copy of the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791)

    This preamble clearly establishes, and history has shown, the intentions of the founders of this country. We will go through the preamble briefly then, in more detail consider the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791 from a legal perspective and compare what we find with some of it's detractors claims.

    Firstly, you will notice that 'We the People' did not create the Union (of the Several Sates) at this time, it created a NEW 'more perfect Union'. Instead this document was intended to cure the defects of the Articles of Confederation, wherein, said Articles, the Union was formed on November 15th, 1777. The preamble of the Articles is "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia.” Notice the words 'perpetual Union'. These are very important as to intent which we will cover later.

    The next portion of the preamble 'to…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity', state the intentions of the founders desired outcome for establishing this constitution. On the previous Constitutional Republic page we saw the Declaration of the founders concerning the purposes and origins of their government. This preamble is entirely consistent with their Declaration of 1776.

    The last portion of the preamble is also very important, "…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Notice that THIS Constitution is being established FOR the United States of America. In other words a different Constitution is being created for the existing Union of the Several States. There is NO title to this document and it is not 'THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES'. This may seem obscure at the moment but there is a great deal of newspeak centered around these words requiring some further explanation as to the Truth.

    One of the most debated portions of the Constitution is the phrase 'We the People'. Detractors claim the people either did not form this document and or that it was designed for only a certain class of people, and therefore the Constitution is at the very least fraudulent or at the very worst tyrannical. It can not be expected that the majority of educated/brainwashed Americans understand the basis of society and government. We will briefly explain this so that the purposes of the Constitution and the reasons for the way it was written become understandable.

    The largest objection to the Constitution is that, only certain classes of people were allowed to be Electors (note : not registered voters) and of those who were Electors not all agreed for ratification. As to class let us look at the classes, white propertied males, white non-propertied males, women, children, mentally incapable people and slaves. There is no question that white propertied males were the Electors. Today newspeak defines the new (1947) word 'elitism' to depths of shame even beyond that of racism. But just what is this 'elitism', besides another 'ism'? The word it is meant to cover is, are you ready?? – Aristocracy, gasp! But what is the notion of aristocracy? Hollywood pictures of depraved and decadent kings and princes come to mind. But it is the ruling of a society by those within it who have risen above the crowd and achieved something beneficial for society. Obviously not all hereditary aristocrats were beneficial to their society. But in this country hereditary titles and rank are outlawed, so that leaves the actual achievers for our discussion.

    Who were the achievers in colonial America? White propertied males. Makes your egalitarian blood boil, doesn't it? Well don't let your ignorance be revealed by too much animation on your part. Because there was land for the taking, real honest money (although in short supply), and no income or property taxes, why a man would CHOOSE to be long non-propertied was cause for suspicion. This person had no ties in the community, why should he participate in its running, especially if he could pack up and leave at a moments notice? University was available for up and comers, for free if needed. University was not the trade school it is today. America was the land of opportunity, not the lottery, or the welfare state England had begun to degenerate into.

    Non Christians and many so-called Christians will not understand the doctrine of coverture. This Biblical doctrine of the relationship between husband and wife was of course followed by the colonists. In this doctrine when a girl is unmarried, she lives in her fathers house under his care and protection. As a child she is of course unable to enter into contract as a minor. As a married woman, her identity fused with that of husband as in the Bible and she was dead to the Law. Only by her husbands permission could she enter commerce because he was liable for her. The woman attained the status of her husband. If he was free, so was she. Marriage is a status, not a contract as you have been told. Elementary law will tell you that as a contract marriage is a 'nudum pactum' because consideration is only at the will of the parties. The woman's status changed from child to that of her husband. Women could not own newly acquired property while married, title vested in the husband as he was legally responsible for the wife. So the woman on the most elementary level could not be an Elector. This doctrine of coverture is so powerful that the Individuals Representing Satan (IRS) needed a way to attack the wife. By taking out a 'Marriage License' you contract with the STATE OF XX and agree to abide by their rules. Then the Individuals Representing Satan gets the wife to take out another STATE SERIAL NUMBER (SSN) so that she becomes a person visible to them. Women's Liberation is the greatest con of all times, as you can see. For the 'right to vote', in 1920 after the Income Tax and Federal Reserve Act were passed in 1913, you sold your soul to the Individuals Representing Satan and also granted permission to be sued. Under coverture, if you were a spinster or your husband was incapacitated or absent you were 'femme sole' and had all the rights of a man. You've come a long way, baby.

    read more:
    http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/2nd-amendment-2/retaliation-home-addresses-ct-legislators-voted-favor-gun-registration-posted-patriot-activist/

  68. Robert Rasgaitis

    Eric Yanco You may want to do some research on corporation America.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    ——————————————————————————–

    (note : the copy of the Constitution used herein for quotes has been certified by the National Archives to be a true copy of the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791)

    This preamble clearly establishes, and history has shown, the intentions of the founders of this country. We will go through the preamble briefly then, in more detail consider the Constitution ratified as amended in 1791 from a legal perspective and compare what we find with some of it's detractors claims.

    Firstly, you will notice that 'We the People' did not create the Union (of the Several Sates) at this time, it created a NEW 'more perfect Union'. Instead this document was intended to cure the defects of the Articles of Confederation, wherein, said Articles, the Union was formed on November 15th, 1777. The preamble of the Articles is "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia.” Notice the words 'perpetual Union'. These are very important as to intent which we will cover later.

    The next portion of the preamble 'to…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity', state the intentions of the founders desired outcome for establishing this constitution. On the previous Constitutional Republic page we saw the Declaration of the founders concerning the purposes and origins of their government. This preamble is entirely consistent with their Declaration of 1776.

    The last portion of the preamble is also very important, "…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Notice that THIS Constitution is being established FOR the United States of America. In other words a different Constitution is being created for the existing Union of the Several States. There is NO title to this document and it is not 'THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES'. This may seem obscure at the moment but there is a great deal of newspeak centered around these words requiring some further explanation as to the Truth.

    One of the most debated portions of the Constitution is the phrase 'We the People'. Detractors claim the people either did not form this document and or that it was designed for only a certain class of people, and therefore the Constitution is at the very least fraudulent or at the very worst tyrannical. It can not be expected that the majority of educated/brainwashed Americans understand the basis of society and government. We will briefly explain this so that the purposes of the Constitution and the reasons for the way it was written become understandable.

    The largest objection to the Constitution is that, only certain classes of people were allowed to be Electors (note : not registered voters) and of those who were Electors not all agreed for ratification. As to class let us look at the classes, white propertied males, white non-propertied males, women, children, mentally incapable people and slaves. There is no question that white propertied males were the Electors. Today newspeak defines the new (1947) word 'elitism' to depths of shame even beyond that of racism. But just what is this 'elitism', besides another 'ism'? The word it is meant to cover is, are you ready?? – Aristocracy, gasp! But what is the notion of aristocracy? Hollywood pictures of depraved and decadent kings and princes come to mind. But it is the ruling of a society by those within it who have risen above the crowd and achieved something beneficial for society. Obviously not all hereditary aristocrats were beneficial to their society. But in this country hereditary titles and rank are outlawed, so that leaves the actual achievers for our discussion.

    Who were the achievers in colonial America? White propertied males. Makes your egalitarian blood boil, doesn't it? Well don't let your ignorance be revealed by too much animation on your part. Because there was land for the taking, real honest money (although in short supply), and no income or property taxes, why a man would CHOOSE to be long non-propertied was cause for suspicion. This person had no ties in the community, why should he participate in its running, especially if he could pack up and leave at a moments notice? University was available for up and comers, for free if needed. University was not the trade school it is today. America was the land of opportunity, not the lottery, or the welfare state England had begun to degenerate into.

    Non Christians and many so-called Christians will not understand the doctrine of coverture. This Biblical doctrine of the relationship between husband and wife was of course followed by the colonists. In this doctrine when a girl is unmarried, she lives in her fathers house under his care and protection. As a child she is of course unable to enter into contract as a minor. As a married woman, her identity fused with that of husband as in the Bible and she was dead to the Law. Only by her husbands permission could she enter commerce because he was liable for her. The woman attained the status of her husband. If he was free, so was she. Marriage is a status, not a contract as you have been told. Elementary law will tell you that as a contract marriage is a 'nudum pactum' because consideration is only at the will of the parties. The woman's status changed from child to that of her husband. Women could not own newly acquired property while married, title vested in the husband as he was legally responsible for the wife. So the woman on the most elementary level could not be an Elector. This doctrine of coverture is so powerful that the Individuals Representing Satan (IRS) needed a way to attack the wife. By taking out a 'Marriage License' you contract with the STATE OF XX and agree to abide by their rules. Then the Individuals Representing Satan gets the wife to take out another STATE SERIAL NUMBER (SSN) so that she becomes a person visible to them. Women's Liberation is the greatest con of all times, as you can see. For the 'right to vote', in 1920 after the Income Tax and Federal Reserve Act were passed in 1913, you sold your soul to the Individuals Representing Satan and also granted permission to be sued. Under coverture, if you were a spinster or your husband was incapacitated or absent you were 'femme sole' and had all the rights of a man. You've come a long way, baby.

    read more:
    http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/2nd-amendment-2/retaliation-home-addresses-ct-legislators-voted-favor-gun-registration-posted-patriot-activist/

  69. Steven Spaziani

    Quite a comprehensive list. I thought connecticut was the Constitution State, what has happened to it ? Oh yeah they voted in a bunch of liberal minded pansies.

  70. Larry Gallo

    Criminals- These people don't have the balls, nor common sense to protect their families from you guys. Help yourselves. March on the state capitol like illegals and homos.

  71. Stephen Bozich

    Jared Dalen The 14th Amendment requires that the states respect the rights granted to citizens and duties imposed on the state, subject to the jurisdiction thereof does not make anyone a "subject". Your ignorance is astounding.

  72. Philip Averill

    In 1944, a group of military officers and civilians attempted to over throw a tyrannical regime bent on destruction of it's homeland. They died trying, but the message was clear, that not all will follow tyrants.

    YOU DID NOT BEAR THE SHAME
    YOU RESISTED
    SACRIFICING YOUR LIFE
    FOR FREEDOM, JUSTICE, AND HONOR

    - FROM THE GERMAN RESISTANCE MEMORIAL, BERLIN

  73. Jared Dalen

    Stephen, MY ignorance is astounding? Speak for yourself… I like how people like to argue points that lack any kind of authority.

    Since you are a post reconstruction constitutional scholar, please explain to me why lawmakers consistently legislate against "rights" purportedly secured by the various constitutions? You must also believe in the "democracy" and the USA being a country despite evidence to the contrary?

    You are a consenting SUBJECT as a US citizen. You have benefits and privileges incorrectly called "rights." The 13th Amendment never outlawed voluntary servitude, did it?

  74. Eric Yanco

    What the hell is wrong with people? I mention the incorporation comment was cryptic in describing someones inability to communicate clearly… not because I don't know about it.

  75. Rick Blasch

    One way to level the playing field!

  76. James Andrews

    Awesome………keep these on file, and when the crap hits the fan, you've got a got starting point to figure out who to go after!

  77. James Andrews

    Proud of you, Mr. Breland, and thank you for your service! Thanks for standing with good people.

  78. Gerard Black

    What ever happened to good old fashioned tar and feathers?

    Constitution State? In a pig's eye!

  79. Donald Hilton

    Now you realize why 1.7 billion hollow point rounds were purchased by the government

  80. Tom Dunne

    i have my copy of the list of TRAITORS.TREASON IS STILL A CAPITOL CRIME.

  81. Christopher LaMotte

    They love hookers. Don't do them a favor.

  82. Earl Graham

    Folks on this list deserve an in person visit from some true patriots…

  83. Greg Brown

    Got 'em copied and saved. Should the SHTF in CT. Guess where we'll be starting OUR roundup?

  84. Betty Dieterle

    Think is beautiful and I thank you.

  85. Mike Young

    Stephen Bozich Not necessarily Stephen, as with all Rights, just like our Right to Travel, every Court in the U.S. has recognized we have a free Right to Travel, and most people are unaware of the fact that they do not need a permission slip called a License from a State to exercise that Right, because they are not Drivers they are Travelers, Drivers are people who use the roads in connection with Commerce or Commercial Activity such as Truck Drivers, Bus drivers, or Taxi-Drivers and they are the only people legally required to have a Drivers License. The Right to keep and Bear Arms is also a Right that States do not have the Statutory Authority to Regulate. If people actually knew what their rights were, the vast majority of arrests for exercising those rights would be stopped almost immediately. People as well as police officers need to realize that police officers need a Valid Cause of Action before making any arrests and if all 3 parts of a valid Cause of Action are not present the State has no case against the alleged perpetrator the police arrest and bring in for the prosecutor to prosecute for the alleged crime.

  86. Mike Young

    Stephen Bozich Not necessarily Stephen, as with all Rights, just like our Right to Travel, every Court in the U.S. has recognized we have a free Right to Travel, and most people are unaware of the fact that they do not need a permission slip called a License from a State to exercise that Right, because they are not Drivers they are Travelers, Drivers are people who use the roads in connection with Commerce or Commercial Activity such as Truck Drivers, Bus drivers, or Taxi-Drivers and they are the only people legally required to have a Drivers License. The Right to keep and Bear Arms is also a Right that States do not have the Statutory Authority to Regulate. If people actually knew what their rights were, the vast majority of arrests for exercising those rights would be stopped almost immediately. People as well as police officers need to realize that police officers need a Valid Cause of Action before making any arrests and if all 3 parts of a valid Cause of Action are not present the State has no case against the alleged perpetrator the police arrest and bring in for the prosecutor to prosecute for the alleged crime.

  87. Dean Allen Chrismon

    Joe A. Sanders He does!

  88. Dean Allen Chrismon

    Joe A. Sanders He does!

  89. Michael Santarella

    Joe A. Sanders Everybody says I look like Curley. Woo Woo Woo Woo

  90. John Martin

    Many sleeper cells in the other party just waiting for their little bite of the totalitarian apple. Boehner, Ryan, McCain…..

  91. Prevette Kenneth

    The names of the people involved with the false flag operation at Sandy Hook should also have there names posted

  92. Mark Grams

    Stephen Bozich each state also ahs a bill of rights which are very similar to the federal bill of rights

  93. Clint Mahan

    My stepfather told me that if a policeman comes to the door to confiscate our armory, to shoot his ass. I mean no hesitation, end his life. I agree.

  94. Doug Plank

    Need e-mail addresses too. so the entire firearms owning population of the United States can start sending " e-mails of encouragement (sic)" to these lovely people. Start with "A" then move to "B" down the list… I'm sure these people would love having folks drop by to give them a "pat on the back" so-to-speak. Every one of these domestic enemies of the Constitution would I am sure just LOVE to discuss their views with you on their front porches, or as they are going about their daily chores. :-D

  95. Shelley A Gentry

    How much do you want to bet they will have armed police officers "protecting" them …

  96. Doug Plank

    Shelley A Gentry Of course.. but there's only so many of those too. When 1000 people show up at 1 time on someones doorstep to have a "peaceful" discussion…. how many police will have to show up? That leaves a whole lot of other names "without" police. BTW… I am thinking of running a sale on "tar and feathers" Something tells me there may be a run on them. A good old style way of expressing ones "displeasure" as it were. LOL

  97. Peggy Pazereckis

    There r female camps everywhere set up to put Americans in for things just like this

  98. Peggy Pazereckis

    Dang auto correct…fema. camps

Leave a Reply