Tweet
The following are the 18 gun control recommendation by the so-called Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, and my responses to the same. I post it here to see if I missed anything, or made any errors.
This was already the case, not only in Conneticut, but in New Jersey as well. It didn't affect any real protection
This is already de facto the case for guns bought in Connecticut and for handguns imported into Conn. after April 2014. Bizarrely, they also created a requirement to register "machine guns" acquired before Jan 1, 2014. Apparently redundancy with the NFA will fix a problem that has never existed (legal machine guns are simply never used in crime).
But we see what they mean by "certificate of registration" is something more insidious.
Firearm permits? Currently you need a permit to purchase, either a handgun or a longgun (you can, in theory, buy a longgun out of state without one, but still have a waiting period of 14 days imposed)
No, what they mean is that the certificate of registration is really an ownership permit. The UK started its gun control in much the same way.
Already the law in Conn.
We all know how stupid such a law is.
Handgun AP rounds are already illegal. This sounds like a rehash of what was tried in 1986, when it was pointed out that the proposed ban would ban virtually all centerfire rifle calibers.
Also, I cannot find anywhere that Adam Lanza, or any other school shooting nutjob used AP or incendiary rounds, and even if they had, it is not like the kids are wearing plate carriers.
Really? What if I want to buy some for my dad or vice versa? And if the fear is that some people will not report their firearms, and you can force them to by cutting off ammo, what stops me from having a registered gun in 9mm, and 20 unregistered ones? Especially since I already need a permit to buy ammo in Conneticut, hence can certainly buy a gun and pass the background check.
Those that cannot pass the check, cannot buy ammo already.
Here is an area Congress could act (and I think we should pressure the GOP here), to ban states from interfering with interstate commerce. If the item is legal in your state, then you cannot infringe, place duties upon, etc interstate commerce in the same (with very limited exception vis-a-vis customs/duties that are necessary for funding necessary inspections, as with produce)
We already need to either meet in person, or have it shipped to an FFL. If we already have No.1, then we have to use an FFL in either case. If we don't, we are already breaking the law. All the internet does is put two people in contact. I cannot click buy it now on ebay and have an AR15 at my door. Haven't been able to mail order handguns since the federal ban on that in 1928, or longguns since the 1960's
Why? A man can only carry so much on his person. And that number is less than what a competitive shooter or even a regular joe spending the day at the range might use in one day. So any limit above that amount would have no effect, and any limit below that amount would hamper legitimate activity, and could only possibly slightly delay a spur of the moment decision to do a mass shooting. Limit me to 3 boxes, or 60 rds. Fine, I can hit Walmart, then Gunrunners, Big 5, a Pawn Shop, etc and have hundreds of round. But in reality, mass shooters tend to plan their shooting a little ahead. Not hard to stockpile for a one off.
So banning the magazine's was not enough? Now all guns, at least all with detachable magazines, would be banned and not even grandfathered in. Even if we read capable to me not only in theory (One could make an extended 1911 mag with 15 rds, in theory) but in practice, that is still a boat load of guns, as many guns accept magazines with 10+ that are available on the market. Even the LCP has such an extended mag.
Already the case with handguns nationwide. A trigger lock is readily defeated, and can actually poise a significant safety hazard. E.g., CA law about "unsafe storage" only applies to loaded guns, but then excludes from criminal charges those that used a trigger lock, but a trigger lock on a loaded gun is a negligent discharge waiting to happen.
I have made a point of this to some of the nannies on this board, who would deny the poor their rights because they cannot afford an expensive safe. Any actual secure and tamper resistant container is EXPENSIVE. And some of the good ones, like my Fort Knox pistol box don't meet the CA DOJ standard because of the number of possible combinations being less. Am I to expect the same here?
And moving to longguns, requires bigger RSCs. Sure there are economical ways of storing guns relatively securely (e.g. steel tool boxes can be used and locked), but mandating standards limits those options. And in anycase this is real victim blaming. I am not responsible if someone steals from me as long as I was not careless. Someone would already have to break into my home or car to get to my guns, which means they already are criminals. the sort of container I could afford might protect children from getting access, but won't stop a criminal But this law pretends such measures would.
And I guarantee you that quick-access and other HD options will not be on most approved lists.
Fine. What little money you get from say non-resident hunters, kiss that goodbye
Mandatory reporting of crimes is a slippery thing. There is a reason that "misprision of a felony," ultimately failed to survive in common law. It places an undue burden on private individual, encourages a break down of trust among neighbors and ultimately resembles something more like the Stasi in East Germany.
Even the Federal USC which does make misprision of a felony punishable by 3 years, requires active concealment of the felony, and not merely failure to report, and in practice is only applies to those who had a special obligation, such as LEOs, government officials, etc. The tendency to try and restore a law that was rejected even under common law, as harmful to the common good is despicable.
Further, not every negligent or reckless thing done at a gun range is criminal, and should no injury ensue there might be an occasion for RSO's, etc to correct such behavior through education. But under this, you force them to call the cops. Which will lead to ranges actually tolerating more behavior, insofar as if they expel someone for violating range rules and do not call the cops they now break the law, but if they pretend not to notice more minor infractions...
Why?
I guess microstamping is not complicated enough. Even if this would not be very expensive, the millions upon millions of cases used, reloading, etc would make this a nightmare to track.
They already do. Be thankful we only have the FSC here. In Connecticut to get the permit to purchase you need to pay for and take a training course, as well as an additional background check.
Amendment 14th to the Constitution of These United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was already the case, not only in Conneticut, but in New Jersey as well. It didn't affect any real protection
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2. Require registration, including a certificate of registration, for every firearm. This certificate of registration should be issued subsequent to the completion of a background check and is separate and distinct from a permit to carry.
But we see what they mean by "certificate of registration" is something more insidious.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3. Require firearms permits to be renewed on a regular basis. This renewal process should include a test of firearms handling capacity as well as an understanding of applicable laws and regulations. Status: Not adopted.
No, what they mean is that the certificate of registration is really an ownership permit. The UK started its gun control in much the same way.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4. Institute a ban on the sale, possession, or use of any magazine or ammunition feeding device in excess of 10 rounds except for military and police use. In proposing this recommendation, the Commission recognized that certain sporting events at times involve the use of higher capacity magazines. However, the consensus of the Commission was that the spirit of sportsmanship can be maintained with lower capacity magazines.
We all know how stupid such a law is.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5. Institute a ban on the possession or sale of all armor-piercing and incendiary bullets, regardless of caliber. First-time offenses should be classified as a Class D Felony.
Also, I cannot find anywhere that Adam Lanza, or any other school shooting nutjob used AP or incendiary rounds, and even if they had, it is not like the kids are wearing plate carriers.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6. Allow ammunition purchases only for registered firearms.
Those that cannot pass the check, cannot buy ammo already.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 7. Evaluate best practices for determining the regulation or prohibition of the sale and purchase of ammunition via the Internet.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8. Evaluate the effectiveness of federal law in limiting the purchase of firearms via the Internet to only those individuals who have passed the appropriate background screening.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 9. Limit the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at any given time.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10. Prohibit the possession, sale or transfer of any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. This prohibition would extend to military-style firearms as well as handguns. Law enforcement and military would be exempt from this ban.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11. Require that trigger locks must be provided at the time of sale or transfer of any firearm
I have made a point of this to some of the nannies on this board, who would deny the poor their rights because they cannot afford an expensive safe. Any actual secure and tamper resistant container is EXPENSIVE. And some of the good ones, like my Fort Knox pistol box don't meet the CA DOJ standard because of the number of possible combinations being less. Am I to expect the same here?
And moving to longguns, requires bigger RSCs. Sure there are economical ways of storing guns relatively securely (e.g. steel tool boxes can be used and locked), but mandating standards limits those options. And in anycase this is real victim blaming. I am not responsible if someone steals from me as long as I was not careless. Someone would already have to break into my home or car to get to my guns, which means they already are criminals. the sort of container I could afford might protect children from getting access, but won't stop a criminal But this law pretends such measures would.
And I guarantee you that quick-access and other HD options will not be on most approved lists.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 13. Require non-residents seeking to purchase a firearm or ammunition in the State of Connecticut to obtain a Certificate of Eligibility and conform to all other regulations applicable to Connecticut residents.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 14. Require gun clubs to report any negligent or reckless behavior with a firearm, or illegal possession of any firearm or magazine, to the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Commissioner of Public Safety, and local law enforcement.
Even the Federal USC which does make misprision of a felony punishable by 3 years, requires active concealment of the felony, and not merely failure to report, and in practice is only applies to those who had a special obligation, such as LEOs, government officials, etc. The tendency to try and restore a law that was rejected even under common law, as harmful to the common good is despicable.
Further, not every negligent or reckless thing done at a gun range is criminal, and should no injury ensue there might be an occasion for RSO's, etc to correct such behavior through education. But under this, you force them to call the cops. Which will lead to ranges actually tolerating more behavior, insofar as if they expel someone for violating range rules and do not call the cops they now break the law, but if they pretend not to notice more minor infractions...
RECOMMENDATION NO. 15. Requiring promoters of gun shows to receive a permit from the Chief of Police or Chief Elected Official as well as provide notice to the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 16. Require that any shell casing for ammunition sold or possessed in Connecticut have a serial number laser etched on it for tracing purposes.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 17. Any person seeking a license to sell, purchase or carry any type of firearm in the state should be required to pass a suitability screening process.
Amendment 14th to the Constitution of These United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Comment