Since the first day of this year, thousands of otherwise law-abiding Connecticut residents - at least 20,000 and maybe as many as 100,000 - have become criminals. They have broken a new state law that required owners of military-style rifles and high capacity magazines to register them with the State Police by last Dec. 31.
Some of these rifle owners - there's no way of knowing for sure how many - may not have been aware that the rifles and high capacity magazines they had owned for months or years now have to be registered.
Other gun owners simply missed the deadline, while some are deliberately choosing to disobey the law.
Failure to register the rifle or its high capacity magazines is a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. A sentence of this magnitude would be unheard of for a first-time offender, but committing a felony is serious and a blot on an otherwise clean record that would not be without consequences.
Since the intent of the law is to create a record and track these weapons, not to make criminals of gun owners, we would urge the administration and the legislature to find some way to provide a bit more time for registration.
No one should take any joy in having 20,000 or 100,000 citizens suddenly becoming criminals. If possible, a way should be be found to allow these gun owners a chance to reconsider and follow the law.
As to those who sincerely believe the requirement is wrong, we respect their beliefs, but that does mean they can disobey this law or any law.
There are several interesting points in this piece. The first and foremost is the numbers of those guilty of non-compliance. 20,000 to 100,000 is a far cry from the exaggerated numbers we've heard from some pro-gun fanatics who want to artificially inflate the civil disobedience aspect of this issue.
Secondly, this reasonable take on the situation fairly points out that not all the "unconvicted felons" are acting out of resistance to the new law.
Also fairly depicted is the fact that the sanctions for non-compliance include "UP TO five years in prison which would be unheard of for first time offenders." That's also quite different from the hysterical and exaggerated nonsense we've been hearing from the fanatics.
And finally, there's a reasonable and fair observation of the state's motivations. "No one should take any joy in having 20,000 or 100,000 citizens suddenly becoming criminals. If possible, a way should be be found to allow these gun owners a chance to reconsider and follow the law."
Yeah--no big deal. Just tens of thousands of newly-minted felons, a few of whom may somehow have missed all the controversy about the law in the months before the registration deadline.
ReplyDeleteMove on, nothing to see here (snicker).
Sounds to me as if some people would prefer that the lessons of Connecticut remain unlearned.
They won't.
"The first and foremost is the numbers of those guilty of non-compliance. 20,000 to 100,000 is a far cry from the exaggerated numbers we've heard from some pro-gun fanatics who want to artificially inflate the civil disobedience aspect of this issue."
ReplyDeleteActually Mike, the exaggerated numbers come from a report from the Connecticut legislature's own research arm. In 2011 they published a report in 2011 that gave this data,
"Based on Connecticut's percentage of National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks in the Unites States, NSSF estimated that the number of firearms owned by Connecticut residents is about three million. About one million of these firearms are handguns, of which 21%, or 231,000 use large capacity magazines. About 1.2 million are rifles, of which 30%, or 372,000 use large capacity magazines. Assuming four magazines owned for every firearm (assuming every firearm comes standard with at least two magazines), NSSF asserts there are over 2.4 million large capacity magazines in Connecticut that originated at the retail level. The NSSF final figure is larger than this because it counts firearms already in the state and those not purchased at the retail level."
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0158.htm
Granted, the data come from the NSSF, but my question would then be, where did the authors pull the 20 to 100k number? Also, if we use the same math as in the legislative report submitted to the legislature, there are also between 80 to 400 THOUSAND large capacity magazines.
The law that makes unregistered assault weapons also does the same to each and every one of those magazines. One unregistered magazine equals one class D felony, which then equals a prohibited person.
Even if you only get probation for a first offence of possession of that magazine, no more firearms at all. Your name goes into the NICS database. That is what makes the low percentage of registered firearms and magazines a big deal.
And of course, gun control groups in Connecticut don't want to give the scofflaws any additional time,
"On Monday, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy left the door open for the legislature to offer amnesty to gun owners and by Wednesday Connecticut Against Gun Violence began mobilizing its supporters against it."
" Connecticut Against Gun Violence is asking its members to contact legislators and ask them to oppose any sort of amnesty. However, they add that if amnesty is going to be granted then they would like to repeal a law that “exempts from the ban assault weapons manufactured before September 13, 1993.”
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/anti-gun_group_opposes_amnesty/
And don't forget that the study was conducted in early 2011, before the huge spike in sales of precisely the "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines in question.
DeleteLooks as if "Connecticut Against Gun Violence" is hoping to spark a civil war. Rather an odd approach to preventing "gun violence," isn't it?
I'd just add one thing to SSG's points:
DeleteWhen NSSF made that magazine estimate basing it on 4 per gun, that is a conservative estimate. I don't know anyone who has less than 6 magazines for these types of rifles. I know many who have 10-20. 4--double the standard number guns come with, is a very conservative estimate. If they were trying to come up with an inflated number they'd estimate 10 per rifle.
Also, having multiple extra magazines isn't a sign of someone trying to be armed to the teeth--those types get 20+. Magazines break, get dented, or wear out. Buying extras is a way of preparing for that eventuality. Magazine starts screwing up, mark it for range use only and use a good one for home defense. Magazine keeps screwing up, toss it and replace it.
I've not shot my AR enough to wear out any steel mags or p-mags yet, but I have worn out pistol mags just through practice shooting.
On a related note, I'm curious, SSG, could you estimate how often magazines have to be replaced in the army?
"Magazines break, get dented, or wear out. Buying extras is a way of preparing for that eventuality."
DeleteNonsense. Do you make up this shit as you go along? Magazines last almost as long as guns themselves. The reason some of you fanatics have so many is because of your obsessive fetishism. You just can't get enough of guns and gun-related crap.
Mikeb, are you really going to argue with people who actually know about guns again? Haven't you learned your lesson yet? Magazines are the weakest part of the gun.
Delete"On a related note, I'm curious, SSG, could you estimate how often magazines have to be replaced in the army?"
Delete"Magazines last almost as long as guns themselves."
Hi Simon, my apologies for the slow response. When we deployed, we got all new magazines. Then they get replaced as needed. They are not serial numbered or anything like that. If they are damaged, you can make a direct exchange from supply, or just get another if its lost during training.
Mike, as to your statement regarding magazines, they CAN last as long as the weapon, but not often if they are used. First, they are made from sheet metal. In the military, they get a lot of abuse, they get dropped, stepped on, fallen on, driven over, etc. If they get crushed a little bit or the lips at the top of the mag get bent, they wont feed properly. They also have a long spring that when fully loaded gets compressed, and at times will lose their strength and again wont feed reliably.
And if they wont feed reliably, then they aren't really good for anything.
No worries SSG, I've been gone all weekend too--nice to have one with warm dry weather finally.
DeleteMike,
Seriously? You've got to stop accusing people of lying on topics where people can easily realize that you are full of crap.
ss, I happen to know that. I was in the Marine Corps when I was a teenager, you knew that didn't you? What Simon said was civilian gun owners often own as many as 20 magazines because they "break, get dented, or wear out." I called bullshit on that because civilian-owned magazines do not suffer all the abuses you just listed. I provided another reason why gun owners often own so many.
DeleteA participant in any of several popular (and growing more popular) shooting sports like IDPA, IPSC, Three Gun, etc. will inflict a great deal of wear and tear on mags.
Delete"I was in the Marine Corps when I was a teenager, you knew that didn't you?"
DeleteNo Mike, I didn't know that. Learn something new every day. I will admit that civilians do tend to be more careful with their mags because the money comes out of their wallet. As opposed to soldiers, who get their stuff from the all powerful supply sergeant.
Kurt beat me to it, but as he noted, there are these active competitions that add wear and tear quickly--competitions that are growing in popularity among those people with "assault weapons."
DeleteThe simplest thing would be not to pass an unjust law in the first place--but no control freak could accept that.
ReplyDelete"No one should take any joy in having 20,000 or 100,000 citizens suddenly becoming criminals."
ReplyDeleteUnless those 20,000 to 100,000 citizens own firearms ... gun grabbers are ecstatic about this.
"That's also quite different from the hysterical and exaggerated nonsense we've been hearing from the fanatics."
MikeB is in no position to criticize someone else for "hysterical exaggerated nonsense" ... almost all of his posts fall in the same category.
-- TruthBeTold
"tens of thousands of newly-minted felons"
ReplyDeleteWait a minute. Weren't you one of the hysterical fanatics who was saying there were over 300,000 of them?
Besides, "newly minted felons" completely absolves them of their decision to break the law. It's not their fault, right? I thought you were into individual responsibility. Was I wrong about that?
It is an individual's responsibility not to cause harm. But when the law is stupid and makes illegal an action that no law should speak to, there is no moral responsibility to obey it. All that remains are questions of force and probability.
DeleteThe background check database is going to tell you three things:
Delete1. Who applied for a gun purchase;
2. Whether the gun was a long gun or a pistol;
3. Whether they were approved to purchase the weapon or not.
What it is NOT going to tell you is the following:
1. If the gun was actually purchased after approval (it isn’t entirely unheard of that a guy changes his mind after approval and doesn’t buy the gun);
2. If the gun was a scary black gun or one of the friendly wooden-stocked types, identical in every way to the scary gun, but without the scary looking features like the shoulder thingy that goes up.
3. If the person who bought the gun still owns said gun. Contrary to popular belief, it is totally legal for a man to sell his own legally owned property without asking the state’s permission.
Weren't you one of the hysterical fanatics who was saying there were over 300,000 of them?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe so. Hysterical fanaticism is not my style, as I would think you should have noticed by now. More to the point, I don't remember using that number. I may have quoted it, but I don't believe I did even that. Besides, say the actual number is "only" 60,000 (the mean of the 20,000 to 100,000 range you find so much more plausible). Are you really going to try to argue that this isn't a very large upraised middle finger directed at the Connecticut government?
Besides, "newly minted felons" completely absolves them of their decision to break the law. It's not their fault, right?
They are "newly-minted felons." They are engaged in behavior (possession of unregistered regime change rifles and/or standard capacity magazines) that was perfectly legal two months ago, and is in no way harmful to anyone. The "felons" hold the moral high ground, and it is the people who have decreed that this behavior is felonious who deserve to rot in prison for five years.
The upraised middle finger is a tiny fraction of what YOU and the other fanatics said it was. That's the point.
DeleteLaws don't create criminals. Laws don't have that power. Only people who make choices can do that. People are responsible for the choices they make - and before you get all petty on me again and point out that part of my position is that many of the scofflaws didn't even know there was a new law, I remind you of the old adage, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
When a law is enacted that criminializes what was once a legal activity, that creates criminals. The fact that the law unjustly bans something or imposes an unjust burden on that thing means that people have no moral responsibility to obey the law in question.
DeleteWrong, Greg. Keep blaming the law, but the fact is only individual people can be responsible for their behavior. If people choose to disobey on moral grounds, it's on them.
DeleteIn case anyone has missed the latest saber rattling from Connecticut's jackbooted thugs.
ReplyDeleteI love Mr. Vanderboegh's counter-move.
I'm not surprised you esteem so greatly that fat hypocrite. I'm sure he had lots to say about the newspapers that printed the names and addresses of permit holders, now he turns around and does the same thing. I can just imagine his justification is like the one he used to explain taking disability money from the federal government that he disparages so.
DeleteI'm still wondering why there'll be "bloodshed" in CT when confiscations have taken place in Illinois and California without any? The explanation is that there won't. Mike V., and you too Kurt, are among the 3% who talk tough molon labe nonsense because you think it sounds cool, but those who really are tough are about .0003%. Simon helped me with that math.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that anyone who defines this as "fat" is similarly clueless about what constitutes "hypocrisy."
DeleteAnd you really should stay away from attempts at math.
Ah, Mike shows that he is fine with passing laws he agrees are arbitrary, and thus causing shootouts with and leading to the deaths of 942 people--along with whoever else is killed in the shootouts.
DeleteOops--guess he'll have to arbitrarily toss three more zeroes into that number to get it down to one the way he did in Connecticut. Then he can cheer for that one death because it allows the passage of an arbitrary and badly defined law.
Kurt, you're right. I guess now he's just old and sick.
DeleteSimon, how many times do I have to explain it to you? Laws don't make people criminals and laws certainly don't cause shootouts. Only people can do those things.
Old and sick he might be, but he's still a thousand times the man you are, and if you manage to outlive him, his corpse will still be hundreds of times the man you are.
DeleteBy the way, it seems that some of the Connecticut legislators who voted for this abomination are now screaming for protective details.
I guess they're a bit more convinced than you are about the possibility of active, armed resistance to their thuggery.
Looks as if Connecticut Carry is calling the state's bluff (excerpts):
DeleteA recent media tidal wave based on false reports and bad journalism has proven a few things about the 2013 Gun Ban: people from Connecticut and around the nation are tired of being threatened; are ready to make a stand; and the State of Connecticut does not have the stomach to enforce the edicts and laws with which they threaten gun owners.
It comes as no surprise that the talks of relaxing enforcement expectations go along with legislators trying to get past their re-election deadlines. If the anti-gun laws they passed are so good for everyone in this state, then why are elected officials requesting increased security, both at the [Legislative Office Building] and at their private homes? The anti-gun legislators and officials are scared to implement their tyranny because they know that they did not have any sort of ‘consent of the governed’.
There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws.
“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” - Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta
Oh, hell yes.
Ed Peruta? Isn't that the name of the guy in CA?
DeleteAnyway, the expression "consent of the governed" is a riot. It implies that the vast majority of Connecticut citizens is opposed to the gun control laws there. I doubt very seriously if that's the case. Rather, I tend to think we've got the relative few members of the extremely vocal minority making as much noise as they can.
One thing for sure is it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Not to worry for your side though, if some lunatic does take a few cops out on the way down, it won't be his fault. It'll be the fault of the immoral laws, right?
Not to worry for your side though, if some lunatic does take a few cops out on the way down, it won't be his fault. It'll be the fault of the immoral laws, right?
DeleteWhat do you mean by "fault"? Dead jackbooted thugs would be to his credit.
Well, waddya' know--the state might have even more trouble enforcing this abomination than I'd thought:
DeleteTyler Jackson has emailed me an interesting story, soon to apper online (I'll link to it once it does)-- the gist is that the head of the Connecticut Peace Officers' Assn has released an open letter stating that the police will not "be party to the oppression of the people of the state by enforcing an unconstitutional law." So far 250 LEOs have cosigned the letter.
The CT law required the registration of AWs, with a deadline for doing so, and it appears that the vast majority of AW owners have simply refused. So now the State faces massive resistance, and some portion, perhaps a large portion, of police refusing to enforce.
Can there be any doubt that at least a portion of this wisdom on the part of the CT State Police can be attributed to Mike Vanderboegh's open letter, which, by the way, has been one of the most widely read of his blog posts?
Although the list of CT legislative tyrants and their addresses has also been a huge traffic generator--I guess we know why those little tin pot fascists are so nervous.
Very interesting Kurt, thanks for the update. This situation seems to be spiraling ever more out of control of the state government. The big factor of course being that no one in charge seems to have the guts to make a decision. When no one is willing to make things clear, often peoples' fears will fill in the blanks.
DeleteMuch of this bad press for the state government could have been avoided if someone had made the decision that no one was going to come actively looking to take the firearms of citizens. However, there lies a potential for making such a statement might sometime in the future make someone a liar. So, at least they aren't doing that yet.
As has been pointed out several times, there never were going to be any confiscations. Mike V. wrote his usual eloquent letter based on grandiose victimism and talking about imaginary threats. Then SOME cops responded, taking the nut seriously.
DeleteOf course, Kurt is right there with him.
Um, Mikeb, who said anything about confiscations? I haven't seen the CT state cops' letter, but Dave Hardy's post about it never mentions that word. The direct quote from the letter merely says that those who sign are refusing to "be party to the oppression of the people of the state by enforcing an unconstitutional law." There's a great deal in that law even short of confiscation that would be accurately described as "oppressive" and "unconstitutional" (creating scores of thousands of felons out of Connecticut's very best citizens, so they can be thrown in prison for five years, for example).
DeleteLikewise, Mr. Vanderboegh's letter to the Connecticut cops never mentions confiscation.
There may be someone here who is fixated on confiscation, but it's not me, Mikeb.
It's only your opinion that these laws are oppressive and unconstitutional. Until a higher court of law says so, it's just your opinion, and you know what opinions are like, right, Kurt?
Delete. . . you know what opinions are like, right, Kurt?
DeleteWell, in your case, they're just like a boot-licking, cowardly, willing slave's pleas for yet more abject serfdom.
But by all means, leave it to the courts to tell you what your rights are. Being a man, I, of course, won't.
"Being a man?" What kind of sexist nonsense is that? You could have said "being a free person," or "being an intelligent person who's free," but you reverted back to the schoolyard, misogynistic, bully talk by using "being a man."
DeleteBy the way, has everyone noticed that the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission wants Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban rewritten to prohibit vastly more guns, and to remove the "grandfather clause"?
ReplyDeleteIf that happens, the people who did docilely, obediently register their so-called "assault weapons" will have told the state's gun confiscation raiding parties just whom to raid first.