Greenwich’s Jack Moffly Republicans and their “bi-partisan” pals have whooped through what they proudly proclaim is “the toughest gun law in America” and will now get back to their regularly scheduled business of finding new ways to reward unions and punish the middle class.
All of which was expected, of course, but it is a bit galling to hear these gun confiscators pretend that yesterday’s action wasn’t merely the next step in banning guns in Connecticut and was instead a genuine, sincere effort to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens, just like the two week waiting period to purchase guns, enacted a decade or so ago.Unless you’re a hunter, you probably don’t remember that law, ushered in with the same solemnity as this new one, because it gets absolutely no attention from the press or the Hartford Harassers. They’d prefer you’d forget it because it has done nothing – nothing – to reduce gun homicides; the gangbangers who cause that mayhem are (a) already ineligible because of their criminal histories to own or possess guns and (b) Ignore the law by buying guns out of channel, just as they did before its passage.
Now we have another set of laws which will be ignored by the very people this legislation is purportedly aimed at. If you believe that gangsters intent on murder will be deterred from breaking the law requiring a background check when they are already violating laws against murder and the possession of any kind of weapon by a criminal, then you deserve the government you have.
So given that these laws will have no effect on criminals, who will they punish?
Law abiding citizens who can no longer buy ammunition on the Internet or even purchase box of shells from a sports store without proof of an “ammunition certificate”. The politicians claim that this certificate will only cost $35 but don’t mention the six month process of local, state and federal investigations of their suitability to own a bullet and a mandatory “gun-safety” class. Each step will cost money and the cost of each will rise every year the legislature meets. Internet sales will indeed stop: no supplier will bother to set up a compliance system for citizens of our tiny state, they’ll just stop shipping to Connecticut, as they have done with California. The lack of legitimately purchased ammunition will not stop a criminal from obtaining it, just as the lack of legitimate heroin or cocaine has not stopped drug use. There are “alternative sources.”
Suffering from depression, anorexia or any other mental affliction? Don’t check into a Connecticut hospital unless you want to be on a permanent register of crazies, barred from exercising a constitutional right and subject to a newspaper like The Journal News publishing your name and home address on an interactive map. Would this law have stopped any of our mass murderers in the past century? Nope, but it will certainly discourage troubled individuals from seeking professional help. How many people suffering from depression will now shun treatment, how many deaths by suicide will that cause? We’ll find out, over time.
Banning high capacity ammunition magazines. The best estimate I’ve seen of the difference this would have made, had he obeyed it (and anyone eager to shoot school children is an unlikely candidate to comply with this law) is that, instead of his killing spree lasting 5 minutes, Adam Lanza would have had to spend 5 minutes and 20 seconds. So it won’t stop that sort of incident but it will make felons of every citizen who owns such magazines and fails to register it or surrender it to the police. While I certainly don’t own any of these evil things – police, take notice – I haven’t heard a single gun owner who does have one state that she will comply. When a law makes felons out of tens of thousands of law abiding citizens there’s something wrong with the law, not the citizens.
Banning “assault rifles” which are merely ordinary rifles mocked up to look like military weapons. Do you think that banning gun stocks that adjust in length to fit different sized people – women tend to be shorter than men, for instance – would have prevented Sandy Hook or will prevent a massacre in the future? No? Well certainly the new prohibition against bayonet mounts will do it.
I could go one (and on – the bill has 92 sections and hundred of pages) but here’s the gist: this law will not affect criminals one whit, but it will make gun ownership in Connecticut more expensive and burdensome. Which, again, is the entire point of this exercise. Advocates for confiscation of all guns in our state have already acknowledged that this scheme is just another step towards achievement of their ultimate goal and have vowed that they’ll be back, again and again, until they win completely.
And Scott Frantz acquiesced in all this to preserve an illusion of bi-partisanship.