CT Cop Who Wants to Kick in Doors & Confiscate Guns Placed on Leave – But Spilled the Beans on What Gun Registration is all About

On Saturday, I informed you of a Connecticut police officer who said he wanted to bust through one patriot's door and take his guns. This morning I spoke with John Cinque via telephone and he provided me with screenshots of the conversation that he mentioned in the video. Many people wanted to see the evidence of what John referenced in the video. Some thought it was nothing more than ploy since he was in the video with Connecticut gubernatorial candidate Joe Visconti. I won't attempt to judge Visconti's motives. However, the evidence is clear of what Officer Joseph Peterson of the Branford Police Department said. In the course of the conversation, he actually spilled the beans on what gun registration is all about: Taking your guns; which every red-blooded, American gun owner knows already. Take a Look for yourself:


This article was written prior to speaking with the Branford Police Department's Captain Geoffrey Morgan. Due to the efforts of a concerned citizen, Branford PD has begun an internal investigation. Freedom Outpost has learned that Officer Peterson has been placed on extended leave pending the investigation by Internal Affairs.

In the update to the previous article, we informed you that Freedom Outpost had obtained the entire conversation, which took place on Facebook, that John Cinque referenced in this video. Below is the substance of those comments and why it is important that we understand the mindset of Officer Peterson and law enforcement officers like him. (The quotes below were made on Facebook and there are a lot of issues with spelling and grammar, so for those who are sticklers over that, I'm just warning you. The links are to the actual screenshots.)

Peterson told several gun owners, some of whom he engaged were not from Connecticut,

"I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun…"

While it is disturbing that an active law enforcement officer would say such a thing, consider the fact that he then went after another Facebook user by saying he was a "criminal law breaking psycho."

Even more telling is Mr. Peterson's response when those he is engaging over the issue of police enforcing laws such as the one in Connecticut, which require citizens to register their semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines. The fact that Mr. Peterson can't distinguish between a semi-automatic rifle and an "assault weapon" should also raise concern.

Peterson was accused of wanting to enforce "Nazi policies," which he said were "not nazi policy…," but "a state statute."

Sadly, history is not on the side of Mr. Peterson when it comes to this issue.

In fact, when it was brought up that Nazis could not use the excuse he was providing when it came to dealing with the Jews, he sounded just like the Nazis at Nuremberg and attempted to escape the ultimate logical conclusion of his position.

While Peterson said that he didn't see what the big deal was to simply register the weapons, claiming that "Nobody wants to take his weapon…they want to take it because he didn't register it…," he then spilled the beans on why people don't want to register their guns. When asked, "Why do they want it registered? For what purpose?" Peterson said, "So they know who's got them (sic) that's what the purpose is (sic) there's no use for assault rifles anyways (sic) you want to own a register him just like your car."

Here is where he tells gun owners what they already know: Gun registration leads to confiscation. If you don't register your guns, which were previously legal before the law, they're going to take them. If you do register them, it isn't a matter of safety, it's a matter of knowing who has what kinds of guns. Why is that important? Logically, it is to find them, when they enact the next step in their process, which is full gun confiscation, and as Mr. Cinque noted in his talk last year, none of this protects anyone nor does it stop mass shootings. It merely will define law abiding citizens as criminals.

Again, notice that Peterson cannot distinguish between the two kinds of weapons involved here. Peterson also attempted to draw a parallel between registering an automobile and a gun.

However, it is the demeaning nature of Peterson's comments that indicate that he knows this won't do anything. As one commenter pointed out, registration is simply another way to be taxed, and it is. However, Peterson scolded the commenter telling him to move somewhere else so he can "play with (his) rifle and not hurt anyone." Think about that. Are people being hurt by law abiding citizens with semi-automatic rifles now in Connecticut? How would registering such a weapon keep anyone from hurting anyone? It won't, but Peterson has already told us why they are doing it: It's so they will know who have these rifles and who doesn't. It's not about safety, just like John Cinque told Republican representatives last year.

Peterson also told others that they were not going to fire their weapons in their homes in a residential neighborhood, presumably for protection, "because if it goes through the walls into a neighboring house and kills someone then you will truly be a felon." One wonders how registering any gun will keep that from happening. In fact, according to Peterson, policemen have registered their semi-automatic rifles that they use. I wonder if they will be felons if they fire in a residential neighborhood and kill someone. I'm betting the will be handled a bit different, don't you?

Peterson then mocked a commenter's position connecting gun registration to confiscation. "Nope not at all still not an excuse to break the law (sic) register your gun and you won't be breaking the law… you say the criminals don't have to register theirs… what's that if you can't beat them join them mentality…," he wrote. "But if it's a law I enforce it (sic) I don't make them."

Then out of nowhere, Peterson played the race card. "Hey everyone good luck with Cameron who (sic) he comes to your door as a medic if you're a racist like he is a (sic) don't see how he could give your good medical care."

This instance was completely off topic and no one still has a clue where or why it even came up.

John Cinque finally commented. According to Cinque, he and Peterson have been friends a long time, still John encourages others that not all in the Branford Police Department are like Joseph, nor do they think like him. He also responded to the comment by Peterson, in which he claimed that he didn't get to pick and choose which laws he enforced. In other words, from Peterson's perspective, if it's a law, even an immoral one, he would enforce it. This is important as he was given the scenario that took place in Nazi Germany which led up to mass exterminations, along with gun confiscation.

Cinque simply reminded Peterson, "I am glad there (sic) a good cops like you double do your job and follow orders no matter what (sic) then again there was something in our past call the Nuremberg trials but that's for another conversation. And Joe they absolutely do want to take the guns all of them but then again that is for another conversation."

If you think the conversation was going down at this point, you would be right. Peterson encouraged everyone to register their rifles and magazines and then if they came to confiscate them fight. Well, now, why would he want them to fight? After all, confiscation would be part of that whole "enforcing the law" thing that he was on a diatribe about, right? Does he not realize he'll be the one doing the confiscating? Or will he have a breakthrough moment and say, "Hey, wait a minute, I can't do this"?

John Cinque implored Peterson to remember that he is not the only one in his house, but he is the only one that has access to his weapons; so he reminded Peterson that if he were to come to his house for his guns not to shoot his son, who might be holding a XBOX controller, or his wife holding a cell phone.

Peterson went on to claim that John was making threats, when in reality all Cinque had done was to simply affirm his position of non-compliance in registering his guns. Cinque told him there was no threat. He also indicated that he never said he would win if the police showed up, but did finish by stating, "Last time I checked I still have my First Amendment rights…unless you want those also."

Peterson even went on from what he perceived as a threat to mock John's Christian faith saying, "Be nice John you carry the bible right? Then don't talk like a man that doesn't."

Cinque responded, "Don't know what my faith in Jesus Christ has to do with my comments above... othe than the fact that my freedom is granted to me by God... not man... but that is a conversation for a whole other thread."

Clearly, the conduct and language in the interaction is unbecoming of a law enforcement officer. However, that aside, the realm that we are now moving into where history is not even being acknowledged about the road we are going down and how willing law enforcement is willing to go down that road with corrupt political leaders should be enough to alarm anyone.

If you are interested, here are the complete files of screenshots provided to Freedom Outpost. You can download them here.

UPDATE: We received a press release from the Branford Police Department earlier, but it had to be cleared. The Press Release reads as follows (Thanks to Captain Geoffrey Morgan). You can download it here.

The Branford Police Department has launched an Internal Investigation into the allegation that an officer, while off duty, made certain comments during a conversation on Facebook that were later posted on the internet.

Chief Kevin Halloran confirmed the allegation and said, “We treat every allegation concerning our agency with the utmost of seriousness. This, like any other allegation will be thoroughly investigated and if any law, departmental rule or regulation has been violated the officer will be held accountable.”

Chief Halloran noted that the officer involved currently is on an extended Workers’ Compensation Leave.

Any inquires can be addresses to:
Captain Geoffrey Morgan
Administrative Division / P.I.O.
Office: 203-315-3914

Title has been changed from "suspended" to "placed on worker's comp leave" to better reflect the press release from the Branford PD press release.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



  • jpchiesa

    The largest manufacturer of "assault weapons" Colt Industries resides in this state. In fact in the very state's capital city where this legislation was passed. I'm sure Colt has paid considerable taxes to people "that bite the hand that feeds them". Stay and fight you say? I say why stay in an environment unwelcome and rife with hypocrisy. I say come to a state where you will prosper and grow and be welcome. As opposed to being choked with mind numbing regulation, oppressive legislation and crushing taxes. .

  • Joe Marlow

    That cop needs to be on a desk.

    • jpchiesa

      Agreed....And Definitely not with a firearm!

  • thestormy

    On the previous article I suggested the Sheriff. I was answered by a CT. residence stating that the state did away with the Sheriff's office years ago All of the gun owners in CT. need to contact the Tenth Amendment Center. What they did is unlawful The Sheriff's Office is in our founding documents as the supreme protector's of our individual rights.A Sheriff has more power than the state & Fed. Gov. Take the state to court. Get your Sheriff's back!!!

    • Dasrge

      It wasn't as if the Connecticutt legislature arbitrarily just removed all sheriffs from their posts. A referendum was put before the people in 2000 to change the states constitution and eliminate the position. Although what they did was incredibly stupid, the referendum pased by a huge majority, 64% for and 35% against. I also do not know how the referendum was presented to the people by the state legislation, considering that the legislation is run by liberals and quite a bit of the population are liberals (you know how easy it can be to get a vote out of a low/no information liberal...just look at our White House), I wouldn't be surprised if they used some kind of smear campaign to remove an obstacle to the state government having complete control over all areas of the state. Leaving the state to be controled with state troopers alone. Now all the state has to do is throw some money and military grade weapons at local police agencies and they will have bought them off as well...if they haven't already done this.

    • MyronJPoltroonian

      Then you're saying that the state constitution trumps the federal Constitution? Interesting conundrum vis à vis the 10 amendment.

    • Dasrge

      I don't want to appear rude, but I suggest that you reread your constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it empower county sheriffs within the states of this nation...especially not in the 10th Ammendment. The office of sheriff gets its enumerated powers from the state constitutions and from the counties within those states. There are 2 states in our country that do not have sheriffs; Connecticutt and Alaska. Alaska does not has a county system to maintain a sheriffs office and Connecticutt has a series of interconnected townships. The people of these two,, and EVERY other state of our nation, have the right to change the constitutions of their states however they see fit. If the people decide to eliminate the position of sheriff in their state, that is their right. The basic position of the sheriff and his/her deputies is to enforce local statutes, serve legal papers, take prisoners to and from the court and enforce state law in areas where they work in concert with state LEO's. But as I stated, I felt this was a very stupid decision on the part of the people of Connectiutt, but right now the libs, their minions and the freeloaders control what goes on in that once great and formerly industrious state. I should know, I was born there and lived in Terryville as a child. It was a prosperous and clean place when I was a kid. Now it is a cesspool of drugs, gangs, illegal immigrants and freeloaders that moved there because the word got out about how easy it was to welfare and food stamps there.

    • thestormy

      Oh well,all I can say is that I think what happened was an unlawful act by the state against our founding documents. Maybe people will wake up when they understand what they have done and rebel.Hopefully,it won't be to late.

    • Dasrge

      Hey Stormy...please tell me where you think our our founding documents are being violated considering that the office of sheriff gains its official powers from their state constitutions and local county charters. Please study up on it a bit further. Knowledge is power my friend. Have a good day.

    • thestormy

      The Sheriff's office was set up as our last personal line of defense to protect our rights. A Sheriff has more power than the state police and the Fed. Gov. A Constitutional Sheriff can tell the state police and the Fed. Giv.,"no,I will not enforce any law that is not backed by our founding documents" and throw them out of his/her county or arrest them if they do not wish to comply.
      In Duval Co.,FL. the Feds wanted to stop people at random and check for guns in vehicles. The sheriff told them,"no",when they said they would do it anyway he told them,"go ahead.I will send one of my officers with each of your people and my officer will release everyone you try to arrest." The Feds left!!!
      Utah has had a few cases where a sheriff stopped unlawful activity by other law enforcement agencies.
      Have you not heard about sheriff's across America who have openly stated that they will not enforce any of the new gun laws that states and the Fed. Gov. are trying to impost?

    • Dasrge

      I know what a lot of the sheriffs are doing to prevent the government from overstepping it's boundaries, especially in the area of refusing to enforce illegal gun control laws from the federal government. However, you stated that removal of the office of sheriff was a violation against our nations founding documents. The only question I asked you was which founding document because it certainly IS NOT contained in our nations constitution. The office of sheriff is created and enumerated with powers via the constitution of ANY given state and local county charters, not by our countries constitution. Please tell me where in the 10th Ammendment that a sheriffs office is created and empowered. If this was the case, sheriffs would be under the control of the federal government, which they are not. But, if a state AND it's citizens wish to eliminate the position by changing their constitution, they have every right to do so. The people of the state of Connectiutt voted for the change, primarily because township borders were becoming a serious issue of enforcing local statutes. The position of sheriff was eliminated, but all the deputies employed in 2000 were converted into state Marshall's with the ability to enforce the laws of surrounding townships if necessary. Connecticut never had a system of counties to divide their state like we are use to

    • thestormy

      If this doesn't work published by World Net Daily -written by,Jake Minor on 3/18/14

    • Dasrge

      You're still not answering the one single important question of this entire discussion. Please tell me where, in our nations constitution, is the office of a county sheriff created. You can't because it is not in any of these documents. Please tell me in which of our nations founding documents is this information located. I know it can be found in state constitutions and county charters, but not in any of our nations founding documents. Additionally, the article you sent says nothing about what you and I are discussing.