Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams, the
Chanticleer of gun regulation in Connecticut, was in a crowing mood when he
announced publically a set of gun regulations the General Assembly was expected
pass in response to the mass slaughter of students and faculty at Sandy Hook
Elementary school.
"There were
some,” Mr. Williams said, “who said the 'Connecticut effect' would wear off —
that it would wear off in Connecticut and it would wear off across the country.
What they didn't know was that Democrats and Republicans would come together
and work to put together the strongest and most comprehensive bill in theUnited States to fight gun violence, to strengthen the security at our schools, and to
provide the mental health services that are necessary.”
Republican state
House Minority Leader Larry Cafero concurred. “Knowing that that tragedy
happened in Connecticut, it was up to Connecticut to show the way. And I'm very
proud to say today the package that we are introducing ... has accomplished
that goal."
Connecticut, head ofthe pack in regrettable firsts – first in the nation in high taxes, first in
high debt obligations, first in poor credit rating, first in the worst
Achievement Gap
-- now, according to Mr. Williams, is first in the nation in gun regulation,
presumably outpacing even Illinois. Cook County in Illinois includes Chicago, murder
capital of the United States and, prior to the Connecticut bill expected to be
reported out of committees and quickly passed into law, a city with the most
stringent gun regulations in the United States.
Most gun
regulations, however comprehensive, do not affect the misuse of weapons by
criminals who, generally, are no respecters of laws or persons; which is why,
come to think of it, many people choose to arm themselves with weapons
sufficient to repel home invasions of the kind that occurred in Cheshire some
months before the General Assembly repealed capital punishment laws in
Connecticut. The Cheshire home invasion in which three women were murdered by
two paroled prisoners induced a massive spike in gun sales in the state.
The prospect of the passage of the current bill further restricting the lawful
use of guns by non-criminals produced the same effect: People in the state,
especially those who lived in rural areas distant from first responders were
stocking up on guns and ammunition before the Connecticut legislature could
restrict the supply.
The provisions of
the bill expected to be written into law by a bipartisan majority in the
General Assembly will not likely affect the criminal misuse of firearms: The provision
requiring a criminal background check of sales, while useful, will move underground
the illegal sale of weapons used in crimes; so also with provisions restricting
the sale of magazines to ten rounds and a provision requiring the safe storage
of weapons.
Major studies on the
criminal use of weapons conclude that instant background check systems on all
sales of weapons, which force criminals to use straw purchasers, as well as
liberal open carry laws minimally deter the criminal use of weapons.
A study that correlated the FBI’s gun crime rankings for homicides, robberies
and assaults with both Brady Campaign rankings measuring the strength of state
gun laws and Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ rankings showed no correlation between
crime rates on the one hand and the strength of such laws and disclosure requirements
on the other.
The impetus for the
Connecticut legislation that adds 100 new guns to an already long list of
proscribed weapons was, as Connecticut politicians never tired of reminding us,
the mass slaughter of school children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
It was always a chancy proposition to extrude an effective bill from that
slaughter house, chiefly because investigators have kept close to their chests
much of the necessary data that could inform such a bill. A final criminal
report is not due until late June, months after the bill has been passed.
Under that section of
the current bill describing measures to increase school safety, the impetus for
the entire legislative effort, one finds a provision creating a “School Safety
Infrastructure Council” tasked with developing standards for upgrading the physical
infrastructure of school buildings, but no provisions requiring or financingthe placement of Security Resource Officers (SROs) in schools.
The people of Newtown,
doubtless more interested in securing the safety of their children than most concerned
politicians, leapt far ahead of Connecticut’s General Assembly and the national
legislature when the town’s Board of Finance appropriated early in March $420,000
to pay for armed security guards in
all of its public schools, also setting aside $180,000 in its Board of
Selectmen’s budget to pay for armed guards in its private schools.
Sandy Hook has
taught the people of Newtown – and most recently Enfield, which has also
financed armed personnel in schools -- that bullets cannot be stopped by teachers,
however brave, or oleaginous politicians, however genuine their concern may at first
sight appear.
Comments
No wonder we cannot get any winning candidates with these careerists
This is nothing more than a "feel good" measure that only punishes legal gun owners and will not appreciably effect the crime rate.
Hopefully, it will be struck down when it makes it's way to the courts.
---------------------------
We can hope. I'm still hoping that Obamacare will be tossed for having violated the "origination" clause requiring tax bills to come out of the House. But, if this new Nutmeg anti-gun law is to be thown out, it will have to be by the Feds. Our State Supreme Court has a precedent in place that says the State Constitution's right to bear arms is not violated as long as the statute doesn't outlaw all guns. At the federal level, my confidence in the "conservative" majority is diminished since John Roberts gave Obamacare thumbs up.
It will go through. But Republicans should make a fuss over the stow-away passenger: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2013/04/lawlors-stow-away-bill.html
Mr. Lawlor has been permitted to get away with murder, and I am not speaking hyperbolically.
-------------------
But George Mocsary, a visiting law professor at the University of Connecticut and co-author of “Firearms Law & the Second Amendment,” said some provisions of the bill “clearly don’t pass (constitutional) muster.”
Mocsary pointed to the provision involving the state’s assault weapons ban, which he said would not pass even the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny.
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/04/05/news/doc515e54dcb7bc8067622904.txt