The Courant op-ed - link and observations provided by ssgmarkcr
I came upon an editorial from a Connecticut newspaper that was discussing the what seems to be widespread refusal to register rifles that the law has now determined to be an assault weapon. We went into the scope of this problem in a previous posting.
One thing that struck me though was this little bit in the paper's recommendations for a course of action.
"But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law."
"A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit."
"If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences."
So, depending on how the state government handles this, there is the potential for Connecticut to become the state which shows that gun rights advocates have a credible concern in regards to using registration to confiscate now illegal firearms and arrest gun owners. I don't envy the state government.
So, depending on how the state government handles this, there is the potential for Connecticut to become the state which shows that gun rights advocates have a credible concern in regards to using registration to confiscate now illegal firearms and arrest gun owners. I don't envy the state government.
ReplyDeleteA rare "moment of clarity" for you, Mikeb--bravo. David Codrea has made a similar observation, and I particularly like his concluding point:
And have they considered what having their bluff called will do to produce an epiphany, and embolden gun owners everywhere, when it suddenly becomes clear to all who holds the true power in this country if they would only first realize and then exercise it?
Mike Vanderboegh is having his own fun with it He has been taunting Connecticut Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Mike Lawlor mercilessly for a while now. Great stuff.
Whatever CT does, the Hartford Courant has made it even more impossible to deny that at least one faction among the forces of evil has no compunction about using background check-generated info for a de facto registry, and in turn use the registry to facilitate confiscation (and arrest and long imprisonment).
And if CT doesn't do it, they'll embolden more gun owners to defy evil.
That's what I call a win-win situation for decency.
Kurt, you missed the fact that this post was written by ssgmarkcr. But, not to let your compliment go to waste, I pretty much agree. The fact is, as ss pointed out, pro-gun fears that registration could lead to confiscation have been justified. I admit I was wrong to deny this in the past.
DeleteMy thinking when doing so was that you paranoid and frightened gun owners were talking about the government confiscating legally owned guns. Of course a change in the law would precede any attempts at confiscation, making the action legal, but still pretty much what you'd predicted.
The obvious solution for owners of the banned firearms is to swallow their pride and get with the program. Short of that, they have to take their lumps like everyone else. Not much really changes. There are simply more items on the prohibited list, but gun ownership is still possible.
I wonder if one day I'll also have to take back my statements that total civilian disarmament is never going to happen.
Kurt, you missed the fact that this post was written by ssgmarkcr.
DeleteOops, yeah, I did indeed miss that. A bit embarrassing. It's what I get for commenting while half asleep. My apologies.
Still, your acknowledgement of having been wrong is gratifying, and enormously rare, especially as compared to the amazing regularity with which you are wrong.
My thinking when doing so was that you paranoid and frightened gun owners were talking about the government confiscating legally owned guns.
I, of course, am clearly not among this notional group of "frightened and paranoid gun owners," but I've never pretended to believe that fanatical anti-gun wannabe tyrants wouldn't render the guns themselves "illegal" first, in order to justify the confiscation. That's the obvious gambit.
The obvious solution for owners of the banned firearms is to swallow their pride and get with the program.
Ah, no--that's not the "obvious solution." The obvious solution, as Mr. Codrea notes, is doing what tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners are clearly already doing--defying this evil, and daring the state to do something about it.
And if the state takes that dare, then we move to Mr. Vanderboegh's solution, and start stacking jackbooted thugs' corpses.
I would very much prefer it not come to that. The Hartford Courant editorial board, sadly, appears not to share my hope for a peaceful resolution.
Ha! I love Mr. Vanderboegh's letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant.
DeleteAh, yes. Register the gun so that it complies with the law.
DeleteUntil a new law is passed that stops allowing registration and makes even the registered guns illegal.
Then just go along with it and turn in the illegal guns. C'mon! Get with the program.
And of course, before or after that step there'll be as call for registering all semi-autos, because things like that NY SAFE compliant AR will hammer home the point that there's no REAL difference between a standard semi-auto and an "assault weapon." They won't be taken up with the "assault weapons" from this registration, so again you'll say, "Get with the program," and later admit that we were right about the goals of these registrations once those guns are also made illegal.
On and on until that last admission of yours. The real endgame that we're "paranoid and fearful" for noticing.
Either people are law-abiding, or they are not. If laws are unconstitutional, they need to be challenged in court and reversed, but in the meantime, law-abiding people need to obey them if they want to continue being law-abiding. It's simple.
Delete. . . in the meantime, law-abiding people need to obey them if they want to continue being law-abiding.
DeleteBingo! And to those of us who place a much higher premium on continuing being free, than on continuing being law-abiding, the choice is equally simple.
One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
Be assured that I will continue to meet my moral responsibility, as are tens of thousands of good people in Connecticut.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Except that lawsuits cost time and money, and too often, the property that the government stole doesn't get returned or the fees paid to the government aren't refunded.
DeleteWhat about laws that state that you must get rid of certain books? That, as a black person, you have to sit in the back of the bus? That a parent can't teach their religious beliefs to a child?
DeleteDon't get diverted into explaining to me why each of these is not equivalent to this case--I'm not bringing them up for that reason. Instead, my point is that we have a long history of respecting civil disobedience in this country, and that even the legal system recognizes that there is no requirement to obey an unconstitutional law (only an unconstitutional judicial order, because judges are the mouths of god--even when they're wrong).
Kurt, in a fit of hysteria said, "Bingo! And to those of us who place a much higher premium on continuing being free, than on continuing being law-abiding, the choice is equally simple."
DeleteThat's because adhering to the CT laws means one is no longer free, at least that's the Kurt Hofmann thinking.
I'm sorry if the word "Bingo!" (or maybe the exclamation point) strikes you as "hysterical," but I get very excited when you get something emphatically right, as you did with your "law-abiding people need to obey them if they want to continue being law-abiding" statement. Sure, you didn't carry it out to its logical conclusion, but I don't want to ask too much.
DeleteAnd yes, compliance with forcible disarmament obviously renders one far less than free, as tens of thousands of decent people in Connecticut are clearly aware.
You are, I must admit, giving me far too much credit in calling it "the Kurt Hofmann thinking," because I obviously have no more claim to that thinking than those tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners, and by extrapolation, perhaps tens of millions of gun owners nationwide.
By the way, this Connecticut (well, now formerly Connecticut) woman's account of her escape from Connecticut-style "gun control" is rather fascinating.
You and that lady are both complete idiots. You think being able to own the guns of your choice equals freedom. While your monomanic obsession continues to grow unabated, the true freedoms that made America great have disappeared. Warrant-less wiretapping, NSA spying on citizens, indefinite detention at the government's whim, exorbitant taxation to pay for foreign wars that nobody wants. And you and the other single-issue thinkers have done exactly nothing. What fools. Keep telling us about how free you are, Kurt.
DeleteSomebody seems a little fussy today. I do so love the honor of being despised by the despicable.
DeleteMikeb, why do you keep trotting out that tired line about how we're monomaniacal? You've seen many times here how we support all rights. I've argued repeatedly here and elsewhere that people who support rights would be more effective if we'd all work together for all rights. Divide and conquer is the tyrant's game. Why do you insist on going along?
Delete"While your monomanic obsession continues to grow unabated, the true freedoms that made America great have disappeared. Warrant-less wiretapping, NSA spying on citizens, indefinite detention at the government's whim, exorbitant taxation to pay for foreign wars that nobody wants."
DeleteMike, you're exactly right. Government has going much more intrusive and our civil liberties have eroded. I would argue that this government intrusiveness also manifests in gun legislation also.
Every one of these government intrusions have their advocates, be it NSA surveillance, sexual privacy, and even gun rights. But taken as a whole, it speaks to a disturbing mindset.
Gee, mikeb. How many times do we "single-issue thinkers"--according to you--have to tell you that we're pissed off about those things too? That they affect our votes too? E.G. I didn't vote for McCain or Bush's 2nd term when this stuff became obvious.
DeleteWe supposedly "single-issue" folks see all those other things, and we see laws like this one as one more brick in the wall limiting our freedoms.
Would people in CT be totally free without this law? Course not, but they'd be more free than now. Same thing if we got rid of the PATRIOT Act. Still not as free as we once were, but closer.
Sorry if that's too complicated for you, Laci, Jade, and Dog Gone.
Yeah, when I put it in your face, you're all so upset about those other rights. But moments before that, Kurt and the rest of you are insisting that the difference between having freedom or not is what's going in with the CT gun laws, that freedom exists in other places. Kurt even provided a link of a woman who left CT over the gun laws SO SHE COULD BE FREE. It's too bad you freedom-fighters need to be reminded of this, but you do.
DeleteI've never argued that uninhibited gun rights equals full freedom. I am very familiar with Jeff Snyder's superb Walter Mitty's Second Amendment, and agree that the situation it describes is a very real danger.
DeleteStill, while full gun rights does not equal full freedom, heavily curtailed gun rights does equal heavily curtailed freedom.
And I'll fight against that to my last breath.
Wow, Mike, you know me so well! How is it that you know, from over in Italy, what I've been up to in Appalachia?
DeleteOh, right, you don't.
The reason I haven't been a lurker here for months is I got bored and preferred to spend my time on other topics--educating folks around me about various of these other issues; calling an writing Congressmen and others about the current issues of privacy and other liberties that they're chipping away at now that they've moved on from attempting gun control.
Do I consider myself more free since I'm in a state with good gun laws? Sure. And I don't want to move 5 miles north to where a sloppy law would render one of my guns problematic (based on shape of magazine, not capacity)--much less to a state where most of my guns would be illegal. And that's in spite of the fact that if I moved 5 miles north, I'd have more freedom when it comes to booze laws. Ya make trade offs based on what you prioritize.
That doesn't mean that I or anyone else like Kurt, think I'm living in a totally free place. My state has plenty of infringements--just not enough to make me move yet. If it does get to that point, I'll be moving to be free--not totally free, but more free than here.
Your willful misrepresentation of us and our positions on these other issues is laughable. This is a gun control blog, so we spar with you over guns. If this was a blog in favor of the TSA patdowns I wouldn't be talking about guns, I'd be making serious arguments about the effectiveness of the TSA security theater and jokes about wearing kilts to airports. If this was a site in favor of NSA's behavior under Bush and O, I'd be sparring with you over that. As is, such discussions would be off topic, so I save it for when an acquaintance declares their love of the police state.
Do you really want us talking about all of those things on unrelated posts? I thought you disliked such non-sequiturs from your chiding the Anon gun controller who was talking gun control in the gay marriage discussion under the lube ad.
Mikeb, you keep telling us that this is a gun-control blog. So we primarily talk about gun rights here. But I and others here care a great deal about all rights.
DeleteSo, Mikeb, you admit that we were right, but you say that gun owners in Connecticut should comply with the system, while admitting that at some point in the future, you may have to admit that we were right about total disarmament. This leaves me wondering if you're benighted or cheerfully evil.
ReplyDeleteThis is why we oppose background checks. Once again, we've been proved right. As always, I ask why we should ever trust you.
Well, I admit you were right to a point. Often when you guys used the word "confiscation," you meant a sweeping forced removal of ALL guns from the poor persecuted civilian gun owners. You didn't mean the banning and removal of specific types of guns while allowing others.
DeleteThe question of whether or not this is the first step in that bizarre dystopian picture you keep pushing remains to be seen. I don't think it'll ever come to that.
But as far as registration leading to confiscation, in this limited way, it's turning out to be exactly that and I was wrong to deny it.
You didn't mean the banning and removal of specific types of guns while allowing others.
DeleteMind-reading again, Mikeb?
I've been explaining to you all along that your side has a serious problem with credibility. We can't trust you. You call us paranoid, but here we've been shown to be right not to trust you. When you lot keep swearing that you're not coming for our guns, can you see how it sounds like too much protesting?
DeleteIt's not mind-reading. It's simple communication in English. When you guys put on the persecuted, victim hat and talk about how if you give an inch the government will eventually take your guns away, if you let them, you're not talking about one specific type of weapon, you're talking about total civilian disarmament. Haven't you even re-named the gun control movement to something along those lines, the civilian disarmament movement. It's an attempt to increase the strength of your position by exaggerating the intentions of your opponents. In other words, it's bullshit.
Delete. . . talk about how if you give an inch the government will eventually take your guns away, if you let them, you're not talking about one specific type of weapon, you're talking about total civilian disarmament.
DeleteWrong, as usual. We call someone who murders one person a murderer. We call someone who rapes one person a rapist. And anyone with even a modicum of logic will call someone who confiscates one gun a gun confiscator.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the slippery slope is real, but that doesn't matter so much, because the current law is already intolerable.
Mikeb, you keep wriggling, but your side has been caught. We are justified in believing that your ultimate goal is total disarmament. We have no reason to trust you. That's your fault, but I'm actually grateful. Your side would be much more pernicious if you were believable.
DeleteThat was pretty weak for you, Kurt. "someone who confiscates one gun a gun confiscator." Give me a break.
DeleteI said what you guys mean when you talk about "confiscation" is not the banning and confiscating of one particular weapon. What you mean is total civilian disarmament. You do this because if you don't exaggerate the position of your opposition you'd sound like a bunch of dopes arguing against things that make good sense.
What you mean . . .
DeleteWhat I mean (unlike you, much of the time), is what I say, and I say that he who bans one gun is a gun banner, he who confiscates one gun is a gun confiscator, and he who tyrannizes one person is a tyrant.
And Mikeb, the precedent of being able to ban one class of firearms makes it easier to ban many more types.
DeleteAh yes. We'd sound like dopes arguing against things that make good sense--such as assault weapon bans which ... you have ... admitted don't make sense ... except as a ratcheting down of gun ownership toward an undefined threshold.
DeleteApparently we're supposed to be appreciative if the government confiscates some or only one of our guns, but not all of them. Still, that wouldn't happen. If you're getting one confiscated, you're getting them all confiscated because it's most likely going to be a felony possession charge that got the first gun confiscated.
DeleteYou're still dodging the issue, Kurt, and that's not like you. What happened to you, man? This is why I was making those silly remarks the other day about your abusing the meds.
DeleteThe issue is NOT whether one single gun confiscation can be called gun confiscation. It's the overblown meaning of your famous lament that registration leads to confiscation. When you guys say that, you don't mean one type of weapon being confiscated - you mean total forced civilian disarmament.
I keep telling you that you are in no position to tell me what I mean. If I mean "total forced civilian disarmament," I won't omit the word "total."
DeleteYou routinely accuse me and other gun rights advocates of grossly exaggerating in order to bolster our position of what your side is after, and now, suddenly, you accuse us of meaning more than what we explicitly say.
Just who is abusing meds?
Mike,
DeleteLemme clear this up for you: registration leads to confiscations means that whatever is registered will likely be confiscated since it makes confiscation easier. If it's a total registration scheme--like you propose--then the danger is total disarmament. If it's registration of a type of gun, it means that that type will likely be confiscated.
Of course, registration of "assault weapons" doesn't lead to confiscation of shotguns. Only a subsequent registration of shotguns brings that danger.
Simple causality that we don't go into each and every time because it's so mind-numbingly obvious and would become tedious to write each time, and tedious for you to read each time.
The State will take the power we allow them to and confiscation is definitely their goal.
ReplyDeleteWhat CT needs to do is issue a bounty law - turn in a scofflaw, make $100. We need to register these guns used mostly by criminals.
ReplyDeleteWe need to register these guns used mostly by criminals.
Delete"[U]sed mostly by criminals?" Were you born stupid, or did you sustain serious brain damage later in life?
James Brady and Gabrielle Giffords at least have that excuse.
"We need to register these guns used mostly by criminals."
DeleteThat isn't correct Lib. Rifles are used rarely in firearm crimes. In 2012, out of 8,885 total firearm homicides, 322 were committed by rifles of all types. I believe that comes to about 4%.
What's that phrase about snitches again?
DeleteAh, but Kurt and ssg, CT just created 330,000 felons who greatly outnumber the compliant people who registered their "evil" guns, so they created a situation where they can say that most "assault weapons" in their state are in the hands of not just criminals but felons.
DeleteI think I see their justification for a new law ending the legal status of registered guns and demanding that they be turned in.
P.S. Kurt, that comment goes right up with "Did your parents have any children who were born alive?" H/T
Thanks, Simon, but I think you're giving me way too much credit.
Delete"CT just created 330,000 felons"
DeleteCT gun owners who decide to practice civil disobedience should be prepared to pay the price for their actions. Blaming their decision on the law is a cop-out. The principle of individual responsibility demands a more honest view of the situation.
That concept of being willing to take one's lumps is one school of thought on civil disobedience. Other schools of thought aren't so passive.
DeleteRemember, it's one thing to take your lumps when it means taking a beating, spending one or a couple nights in county lockup, getting charged with a misdemeanor, etc. which is what is at stake in most cases of civil disobedience.
It's completely another thing to sit back and take one's lumps when those lumps are a SWAT raid, 5 years in the klink, and a potentially future killing felony conviction.
The principle of individual responsibility demands a more honest view of the situation.
DeleteYou wanna talk personal responsibility? Alright, let's talk.
The state is entirely responsible for the fact that, by inflicting an egregiously unjust law on the people, they have imposed on the people the moral obligation (because, as Martin Luther King tells us, defying unjust laws is a moral responsibility) to become felons.
I don't believe in either gods or souls, but in case I'm wrong, may God have mercy on the blighted souls of the people responsible for this legislative abomination.
On second thought . . . nah, they don't deserve mercy. Throw the book at 'em, God.
Simon, no one is going to jail for 5 years for failure to register his gun in CT. Grow up, will ya.
DeleteSimon, no one is going to jail for 5 years for failure to register his gun in CT.
DeleteSo the plain text of the law doesn't mean what it says? As reported by the editorial board of the Hartford Courant (and I notice you aren't telling them to "grow up"), possession of an unregistered "assault weapon" is a Class D felony, punishable by 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Simon isn't the participant in this conversation who is in dire need of growing up.
Mikeb, you have a lot of faith that a law won't be used in exactly the manner that it was written. Of course, what's to stop governments from winking and nodding when it comes to gun control? Isn't that exactly what happens in rural areas of California--it's a may-issue carry license system, and as long as the local sheriff likes you, you can get a license. This is the problem with discretionary systems. It's better to have one rule that broadly recognizes the rights of everyone.
DeleteYou told us that nobody would have their guns confiscated before, but you're calling for it now. Yet you expect me to believe that nobody will get the sentence called for in this law? Riiiiight.
DeleteAbout the only thing you can say to back that up is that most people will be out in less than five years because of overcrowding, and that it'll probably be the un-connected who get jailed while more connected folks will get house arrest or probation, etc.
Of course you've only attempted to address one factor that makes this law different. You've not addressed the danger to the owners and their families from raids (and the danger to people whose houses the police raid due to having the wrong address). You've also ignored the fact that a felony conviction, even without jail time, results in some drastic effects on the rest of a person's life.
"About the only thing you can say to back that up is that most people will be out in less than five years because of overcrowding, and that it'll probably be the un-connected who get jailed while more connected folks will get house arrest or probation, etc."
DeleteVery true Simon, and even if someone gets less than the maximum sentence, its still a felony and now there is the potential of 330,000 prohibited persons.
"punishable by 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine."
DeleteIs that what it says, Kurt? Or, does it say "UP TO 5 years?"
You posted the link yourself--why the hell do you need me to tell you what it says?
DeleteFine, it says " . . . sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine." Happy now?
Actually, if it had said "up to five years," what of it? The fact remains that a sentence of "up to five years" clearly denotes the possibility of a five-year sentence." Don't try to tell me that an oppressive law isn't so bad because those convicted will rarely, if ever, be subjected to the maximum sentence.
That's the authority worshipingest, boot-lickingest attitude I can imagine.
"Punishable by" means up to.
DeleteYes, Mike, there's no mandatory minimum. However, people convicted of felonies still do a portion of that "up to" period, and may do all of it depending on factors. Imagine someone with an unregistered AR variant and 20 magazines they didn't register--21 violations. They may get to serve concurrently, but will probably get the full period. One gun and 2 mags--maybe out in 1-3 years, but still could be violated by their probation officer and serve the rest.
DeleteIt's disingenuous to act like felony convictions won't result in jail time. That's not how it works under any other felony laws I've ever seen.
Even Greg, who's been nicknamed the site's lying coward, and with good reason, admits that punishable by 5 years means UP TO 5 years. You other liars are backing off now that I've called you on it, but initially you were painting a false picture that everyone will go away for a mandatory 5 years.
DeleteThis is what you do. You exaggerate your opponents' positions because what we actually do say is not all that bad. If you really had right on your side you wouldn't have to resort to such petty tricks all the time.
I was giving a quick summary of the POTENTIAL price to be paid which is UP TO 5 years. Might be less, but for the purposes I brought it up for, it was perfectly appropriate to mention the maximum sentence to show the contrast with misdemeanors which are punishable with a maximum of 11 months and 29 days.
DeleteYou're the one exaggerating and misconstruing what I said so that you could take us down a rabbit trail and avoid dealing with the issue I was raising--that your glib statement about taking one's lumps for civil disobedience is one thing when the lumps are a misdemeanor and a completely different thing when they're a felony and everything that comes with it.
No, Mikeb, don't try to drag me over to your side. I understood the law all along to mean that a five year sentence was the potential. Your problem is that you think gun-hating prosecutors in slave states will be lenient to all those good citizens who had the nerve to own an icky gun instead of killing someone or defrauding investors.
DeleteFirst Simon said this: "It's completely another thing to sit back and take one's lumps when those lumps are a SWAT raid, 5 years in the klink, and a potentially future killing felony conviction."
DeleteThen Simon said this: "I was giving a quick summary of the POTENTIAL price to be paid which is UP TO 5 years. Might be less, but for the purposes I brought it up for, it was perfectly appropriate to mention the maximum sentence to show the contrast with misdemeanors which are punishable with a maximum of 11 months and 29 days."
Based on this exchange I call Simon another gun nut who plays loose with the truth. He says one thing one minute and then later denies he said it. In the first instance he did what all gun nuts do, exaggerate the reality, naming the maximum sentence as if it were mandatory and would come down inexorably on every one of the scofflaws. When called on it he back pedaled with a bunch of double-talking justification. Typical.
The truth is not in you, Mike, and you wouldn't recognize it if it masticated your posterior.
DeleteMy first quote was immediately proceeded by: "Remember, it's one thing to take your lumps when it means taking a beating, spending one or a couple nights in county lockup, getting charged with a misdemeanor, etc. which is what is at stake in most cases of civil disobedience."
When you look at the sentence in that context, it becomes clear that I was contrasting the potential punishments for misdemeanor civil disobedience and civil disobedience in this case. In both cases, I listed potential things that would not happen to everyone--potential sentence and SWAT raid for this law, potential beatings for misdemeanor civil disobedience.
You are an intelligent enough person that you understand this. You just keep taking things out of context to falsely smear me as a liar because you want to keep dodging the fact that you keep saying "just take your lumps" as if the punishment here is no different that the punishment faced by people getting arrested for "parading without a permit."
First Par: Preceded not proceeded.
DeleteWhat happened to all the glib statements that 99% of gun rights people are all talk and would show up to register or even turn in their guns if told to?
ReplyDeleteHere we have approximately 5.7 % compliance on one demonized group of guns and potentially a smaller percentage on magazines since most people have 5 or 6 rather than the average of 2 that seems to have been registered (5 or 6 at the low end--some have well upwards of 20 or 30).
Methinks we need more admissions of error and from more than just mikeb.
I don't think anyone said there'd be 99% compliance. What I remember saying is armed resistance to confiscation will not happen despite all the tough talk from guys like Kurt H. and Mike V.
DeleteDon't get hung up on the exact percentage. I don't know that you gave an exact percentage, but you guys did go on and on that there would be no fighting, and indeed that there would even be massive compliance with only a few people refusing to register because, you said, gun owners were too cowardly to resist and risk arrest and jail/prison.
DeleteActually I am surprised at how many have not complied with the new laws, if the reports are accurate. I may have to admit yet another wrong prediction. But, let's see how it plays out. So far in Chicago and certain places in California, not-a-one of the staunch 2A tough-guys resisted when the cops came a-knockin'. Are you saying if confiscations begin in CT there'll be bloodshed?
DeleteHonestly, I couldn't say. I hope that the fear of it keeps us from having to find out--that is, keeps them from starting such a campaign of confiscations. If they do start, some people will probably go quietly and trust in the system, hoping for either jury nullification or to get the statute declared unconstitutional--they may also be hoping for a change after this fall's election. Those would be far preferable ways to correct this.
DeleteA few may not go so quietly off the bat, but they likely will be few and far between until the other solutions above have run their course. What would likely cause massive bloodshed would be if elections and courts failed to correct the situation, and there was a confiscation campaign, and you had some cases of police excess (e.g. especially a non-resisted SWAT raid where one or more family members died, or a resisted one where everyone was killed due to hosing down the house with indiscriminate fire). Get a trifecta like that and yeah, I can see things getting really bad really quick.
"massive bloodshed" Hahahahahahaha
DeleteYou mean like the 3% who will go down fighting to the death? Hahahahahaha. Those types are really more like .03%, if that.
Yeah--why shouldn't you roll the dice, Mikeb? It is, after all, not your life you're wagering on your extrapolation from your own cowardice.
DeleteAh yes. Pull one phrase out to deride while ignoring the rest.
DeleteActually, I wasn't thinking in terms of exact numbers like 3%. You'll note that immediately before that I said that a tiny few would likely be all who react that way off the bat--I didn't set a number like .03%, but since you did, I decided to see what .03% of 330,000 scofflaws is: 99 people.
Half that many shootouts would be a horrible tragedy.
As for the context where I used that phrase "massive bloodshed," I said that such would only happen if there was a perfect storm of conditions one would hope wouldn't happen. If such did happen and it caused even half a percent to resist violently, that would be over 1.5 thousand people.
Still, even if that didn't happen, your suggested 99 shootouts, with their likelihood of more than 99 corpses, would still qualify as massive bloodshed over a law that you admit is arbitrary and problematic, and is an outcome I would not like to see happen.
If it did happen and I had cheered the law on as glibly as you have, while acknowledging the arbitrariness of it, I would tremble at even the thought of having to answer to a just God.
Thanks for doing the math for me. Obviously my .03% is way too high. I should have said .0003%.
DeleteAnd so you dodge the issue and continue to be glib about the one shootout you expect to result from what you admit is an arbitrary exercise of government power.
DeleteAnd all in a post where you've had to admit that you were wrong about registration leading to confiscations and wrong about the percentage of non-compliance. Of course, there's no way you could be wrong a third time about the number who might resist, and even if you are, you obviously don't care about the lives that will be lost. You've made that much clear.
It's also interesting that you think only one out of 330,000 non-compliant gun owners with "evil assault weapons" will resist, and yet you think that people with all guns are crazy loons just looking for a chance to murder someone.
DeleteQuite the cognitive dissonance.
Lets keep in mind that this isn't the government talking, yet. This is an editorial piece from a newspaper. So its hardly a statement of proof of gun advocates' contention that the goal of gun control advocates is confiscation.
ReplyDeleteWhat the paper did however was call attention to the policy challenge the state government has now. As Mike said, for good or ill, the law was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Now the challenge is what does the state government do about it.
Hopefully, it will be a solution that doesn't involve the potential of 20,000 some odd(that is the lowest number I've heard) SWAT team entries into homes. To say nothing of the legal challenge of legally gaining entry to these homes. For example, is a judge going to approve 20,000 search warrants based on background check records of a legal sale at some earlier time?
One potential solution is for the state police to do what federal law enforcement does, prioritize resources. For example, tell the people, we aren't going to come looking for the guns, but, commit a crime with them and you get the extra five years in prison for no extra charge. The same with those two million odd magazines that didn't get registered. Currently these "scofflaws" outnumber the state militia (National Guard) by about three to one.
I routinely tell the soldiers I train that sooner or later, someone is going to get on the radio and tell them to do something stupid. Lets hope the Connecticut State Police aren't about to suffer that leadership challenge.
SSG,
DeleteI have to disagree with your first paragraph. This is proof of gun control ADVOCATES end game. It's not proof of their favored legislators' intent yet, as you indicated, but it does indicate the intent of this paper and all of the advocates, such as mikeb, who have gone on the record agreeing with it.
As for your suggestion of a better way they might enforce the law, I agree that that would be a method that would cause far fewer problems. That being said, this law is a bad way to reach that goal. It leaves too much room for abuses via selective enforcement--know somebody who didn't register but is a buddy: leave em alone--they're a political rival/donor to a rival/black sheep in the community: throw the book at em.
I'd have no problem with putting stiffer penalties on armed robbery than we currently have. Same goes for putting penalties on using a fiream--make that stiffer than using other weapons. Putting them on types of firearm--getting into silly territory--dead is dead, .22 or .50 cal tactical ninja loads. Such a law would enhance sentences for more criminals than such an enforcement of this law, and it wouldn't have the problem of banning guns and creating registries.
It would seem like a win win, but I doubt mikeb et al would agree to using it in place of these laws--only along side them. After all, problematic as they admit AWBs are, they still want them for that ratchet effect they adore.
Lets keep in mind that this isn't the government talking, yet. This is an editorial piece from a newspaper.
DeleteThat's a valid and important point, and indeed, Governor Malloy's anti-gun hatchet man, Michael Lawlor, has indicated precisely that Connecticut will not use the background check data as the basis for a "suspect list" for purposes of gun confiscation and imprisoning the state's best people.
That could change, and clearly the Hartford Courant is trying to push exactly such a change, but as you point out, the logistics would be a nightmare.
Still, this does prove that influential elements of the anti-gun jihad (and the editorial board of Connecticut's largest newspaper is certainly that) do support using background check information that way. It's certainly not an implausible stretch to imagine a state government, or even the feds, actually doing it.
More to the point, perhaps, is that if the state does not do that, their bluff has been called, and they have nothing left. This is a vital message for gun owners all over the country. Massive non-compliance with the tyrannical evil of "gun control" works. People can meet their moral responsibility to defy unjust laws, and without paying the great personal cost that the government has threatened.
Checkmate, nanny-statists.
"This is proof of gun control ADVOCATES end game. It's not proof of their favored legislators' intent yet, as you indicated, but it does indicate the intent of this paper and all of the advocates, such as mikeb, who have gone on the record agreeing with it."
DeleteGood point Simon. In the area of newspapers, advocating for minimizing ownership of guns and even total elimination of them is often their stated position. There are also groups which have reimaged themselves to appear less extreme. For example, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was earlier named the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
I'm in total agreement in your concern over potential abuses. For example, how tough would it be to park a police car at a range and do the old show me the papers routine.
Actually this can be laid at the feet of the legislature. And from what I've read, it could have been much worse,
"Defending his leadership in passing the bill, McKinney said that the question was not whether Democrats and Gov. Malloy passed a gun control bill, but instead, "what bill they were going to pass."
"That's a fact. They had the votes," said McKinney, who pointed to compromises in the bill. "They wanted to confiscate guns and magazines – they didn't get that."
http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-republican-debate-0217-20140214,0,3535287.story?track=rss
SSG,
DeleteI figured you knew and would agree with that stuff. Mostly said it for the benefit of any lurkers in the audience who might not have thought these things through.
Unfortunately, we, as a nation, seem to have lost the habit of looking at bills and laws to see how they could be abused and then looking to see if a better option exists for reaching our goal. Add to that various motivated groups of left or right leaning authoritarians/fascists/collectivists/whatever term du juor, who like power and control and purposefully write laws that can be abused, and you get our current situation.
I've been seeing some more interesting comment on the situation the state government has gotten itself into. In typical bureaucratic fashion, those that tried to register their firearms late were rewarded as one would expect from the government.
ReplyDelete"Some people actually tried to comply with the registration law, but missed the deadline. The state's official position is that it will accept applications notarized on or before January 1, 2014 and postmarked by January 4. But, says Dora Schriro, Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, in a letter to lawmakers, anybody sufficiently law-abiding but foolish enough to miss that slightly extended grace period will have to surrender or otherwise get rid of their guns.
This, of course, is the eternally fulfilled fear of those who oppose registration of things governments don't like—that allowing the government to know about them will result in their eventual confiscation. Such confiscation, despite assurances to the contrary, occurred in New York, California, and elsewhere. Connecticut has accomplished something special, though, by making "eventual" a synonym for "right now."
You know who won't have to surrender their weapons? People who quietly told the state to fuck off."
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/18/round-up-tens-of-thousands-of-gun-regist
In fact, New York is actually refusing to release information on the compliance level of the new registration requirements under the SAFE Act.
"I'd bet good money that New York is experiencing the same low compliance with its new gun registration law as Connecticut. But that's a bet you can't take unless you have insider information. While Nutmeg State officials publicly lament the slow trickle of registration forms, New York officials refuse to reveal their numbers at all. To keep their secrets, Governor Andrew Cuomo's troopers rely on an odd legal interpretation, with which even the state official who oversees government transparency strongly disagrees."
http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/04/new-york-wont-reveal-how-few-residents-h
I'm not terribly surprised about New York since the SAFE Act was passed with pretty much no debate through a questionable procedure which was intended to use in an emergency. They have already had to deal with several politically embarrassing mistakes in the law, and there is very little support for the law by law enforcement.
Say . . . speaking of scofflaws, did you hear that compliance with the offensively misnamed "SAFE Act" in New York is gloriously low?
ReplyDeleteOnly 45,000 assault-style weapons have been registered in New York state since a landmark gun control act went into in effect in 2013, a new analysis of gun statistics shows, suggesting that Empire State gun-owners are largely ignoring one of the signature elements of the watershed legislation.
[ . . . ]
Law enforcement experts have estimated that there are nearly 1 million assault-style weapon in New York City alone, suggesting that many New Yorkers are ignoring what had been touted by gun control advocates as a milestone law.
In New York, of all places.
Evil laws get defied. That's the only thing they're good for--giving decent people the satisfaction of defying evil.