CT News Junkie | National Shooting Sports Foundation Challenges Legislative Process In Court

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

National Shooting Sports Foundation Challenges Legislative Process In Court

by | Jul 8, 2013 6:12pm
() Comments | Commenting has expired

Christine Stuart file photo

Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for NSSF, with gun manufacturers at a press conference earlier this year

The National Shooting Sports Foundation filed a lawsuit Monday against Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, legislative leaders, and other state officials for using a process called “emergency certification” when it passed the 139-page gun control bill.

The bill — which was the legislature’s response to the Dec. 14 shooting of 20 children and six educators — was passed on April 4 without first going through the committee and public hearing process, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the General Assembly “misused” the emergency certification process when it passed the legislation.

It claims that House Speaker Brendan Sharkey and Sen. President Donald Williams “failed to set forth any facts which necessitated an immediate vote,” when they declared the issue an emergency that could bypass the normal legislative process.

“Because the emergency certification exception dispenses with basic safeguards of the legislative process, the requirements of the exception must be strictly construed such that a certification which lacks ‘the facts which . . . necessitate an immediate vote’ fails to satisfy the requirements of the emergency certification exception,” the complaint reads. “In addition to dispensing with the printing requirements, the emergency certification procedure also permits a bill to bypass the committee and public hearing processes through which the voices of the citizens of Connecticut are communicated to, and may be incorporated into proposed legislation by, their elected representatives.”

By bypassing the process the state deprived “the citizens of Connecticut of any opportunity for their voices to be communicated to the legislators and incorporated into SB 1160,” the complaint reads.

Attorney General George Jepsen, who was named as a defendant and who will defend the state against the lawsuit, has not been served with the complaint.

A spokesman in Jepsen’s office said since they had not seen the lawsuit they would have “no comment about the specific suit at this time.”

However, when previous lawsuits challenging the new gun law have been filed, Jepsen’s office has said “it is our belief that this legislation is lawful, and the Office of the Attorney General is prepared to vigorously defend the law against this and any other potential court challenge.”

The new gun law passed in April increases the number of firearms that are banned in the state and limits the size of ammunition magazines. It also reduces the time an insurance company has to make a decision about whether it will cover a mental health event and increases the amount of money available for school security.

Unlike the first two lawsuits, which focus more on the substance of the bill, the National Shooting Sports Foundation lawsuit focused only on the legislative process.

“A 139-page bill was assembled behind closed doors, bypassing both the public hearing and committee processes, and quickly sent to floor votes on the same day in both the House and Senate where legislators did not have adequate time to even read the bill. The governor then signed the package into law the next day. All of this is in violation of guarantees citizens are supposed to have under Connecticut State Statutes and protections in our State and U.S. Constitutions for which our forefathers fought,” Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for NSSF, said. “Our suit focuses on this abuse of process that has resulted in enacted law that does nothing to improve public safety, while resulting in adverse effects on law-abiding citizens, manufacturers, retailers and sportsmen’s organizations.”


Connect with Christine:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(32) Archived Comments

posted by: Fisherman | July 9, 2013  7:42am

Malloy has CATEGORICALLY ABUSED the E-Cert process; using E-Certs for everything from generating revenue (retroactively increasing taxes), to passing unbalanced budgets with ridiculous expenditures; to changing teacher certification requirements.

NOT ONE OF THESE WAS AN ACTUAL “EMERGENCY”!

This action is long overdue.

posted by: DirtyJobsGUy | July 9, 2013  8:37am

Both the NY and CT gun bills were passed on emergency certification.  Remember these laws implemented rules that would not take effect for months if not years from enactment.  What is it with Democrats these days and their impatience with their own rules?

posted by: Chien DeBerger | July 9, 2013  2:41pm

I am sorry, but I have no confidence in the Connecticut Supreme Court to do the right thing here. You have Andrew McDonald who was just appointed with no opposition by the republicans. You have a liberal group of justices who saw no problem with imposing the redefinition of marriage on the citizens of this state when it was strongly opposed by the majority. I expect them to rubber stamp their colleagues illegality.

posted by: Greg | July 9, 2013  3:38pm

@Chien- Suit was filed in federal court, not state.

posted by: Chien DeBerger | July 9, 2013  5:56pm

@ Greg-

My bad….I don’t have much confidence in the 2nd Circus either.

posted by: Dan, Lauren, Abby, Connor and Robert Garrett | July 9, 2013  8:48pm

Most posters on this thread, I would, and many others would consider to be gun nuts. Most reasonable people side with children, these Fox news viewers, anti President Obama commenters side with assault weapons that massacred our children.

posted by: sensiblegunlaws | July 9, 2013  9:45pm

Let’s not forget that 2 public hearings were held and hundreds of people did participate

posted by: DirtyJobsGUy | July 10, 2013  8:31am

Sensible,

The public hearings were not on the legislation nor were there any legislative readings or hearings.  Now that the specifics of the legislation are ‘ahem’ needing correction (sic) we see the sorry results of e-cert

posted by: 17beachboy | July 10, 2013  3:03pm

To the Garretts - you are wrong - the posters here are not gun nuts.  What you have to accept and apparently do not is that these new laws make it harder for the “good guys” to have guns.  What we need to do is go after the “bad guys” that have guns.
In 1974 - after the Donna Lee bakery Murders in New Britain (Google this to learn about the most gruesome killings in CT before Sandy Hook) strict gun laws were passed.  But they did nothing.  After the Columbine massacre, strict gun laws were passed.  But they did nothing.  Our politicians are always using horrific murders to introduce and pass new gun control laws.  And they do nothing.  If the new laws worked, we would not have these tragedies happening again and again.  Gang members, criminals and people who are mentally out of balance are still easily able to obtain guns in the black market while the “good guys” end up with more paperwork.  We need our politicians to go after the criminals and go after them hard.

posted by: Dan, Lauren, Abby, Connor and Robert Garrett | July 10, 2013  7:34pm

Beach boy you are so wrong, Guns kill. Australia had a mass killing in 1993. Strict gun laws were passed. Now they are one of the safest places in the world. Stop siding with the NRA, the NRA kills our kids. I am on the side of children, you are on the side of Mossburg, Remington, Glock, Sig, Marlin. How proud your parents must be.

posted by: dano860 | July 11, 2013  8:08am

Garrett gang,
It isn’t the NRA that is the driver of any resistance to change and it isn’t the law abiding citizen that is the problem. Military styled firearms aren’t the problem either.
In 2013 the NRA membership is reported as 5 Million.
The FBI reports that there are 350 million firearms in the U.S. with an average of 4 per person (owner) or that there are 87.5 million firearms owners in the U.S.
Therfore there are approximately 82.5 million firearms owners that DON’T belong to the NRA.
The recent upsurge in carry permit requests in all States, especially by females, belies your claims.
When you perpetuate thugs like Aaron Hernandez, Jay Z and others that have committed crimes with firearms as roll models you get the wrong results.
Follow the statistics of our illustrious cities after a weekend. They are appalling, over the past holiday weekend the report from Chicago alone makes one wonder if it’s a city or a shooting gallery?!
Maybe we need to be getting back to the days of shooting clubs and teach respect for them. Teach students how to handle firearms and properly aim them, fewer innocent bystanders will be hit or killed.
It’s pretty obvious that they can’t stop gangs or drug dealers.

posted by: 17beachboy | July 11, 2013  10:33am

Garretts - I am not siding with the NRA.  What Australia did was excellent-they passed STRICT gun laws.  Same has happened in many foreign countries.  What I am saying is out laws are weak and ineffective-and statistics show that the new gun laws enacted over the last 30+ years have done little to reduce our (US) gun murder rate.  This is why I said our politicians need to go after the criminals and go after them hard.  If you are caught with an unregistered gun today, your punishment is basically a slap on the wrist.  What it should be is 15 years in jail doing hard time-period.  That would make the criminals think twice about having a gun of any kind.  By the way - you sound like a typical liberal in that you cannot handle someone else’s opinion on a subject so you resort to insults.  My parents both died of natural causes in their late 80’s.  They were very proud of me and my personal and professional accomplishments.  If your parents are alive, enjoy them as much as possible.  When they have passed and someone comes along with the comment “how proud your parents must be” in an attempt to be sarcastic, you will realize what a fool that person is.  I am done posting now as I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 11, 2013  4:12pm

I would caution the Garrett’s and anyone else who would use Australia or GB as bastions of gun control.  If you study their crime statistics, violent crime has risen in those countries… more violent crime.  If you care about violence, that would be BAD right?? During the same time period our violent crime has gone down in spite of the new laws, gun ownership is at an all time high, and violent crime has been dropping consistently with more and more concealed carry states.  Go to the FBI crime statistics page - where are violent crimes occuring?  it isn’t in the country - it’s in the cities.  The urban areas account for over 80% of all violent crime - of that - (i can’t remember the exact percentage) an extreemly high percentage is from gang, drug, illegal/illicit activity.  What percentage of violent crime is committed by who you call “gun nuts”?  you know the type… permitted, recreational shooters, or concealed carry holders - collectors… what percentage is committed by them??  > 1%... so respectfully speaking, know your facts before you shoot your mouth off… see what i did there ;-)

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 11, 2013  4:45pm

gutbomb86

@astanvet - You’ve missed the mark on your assessment of the successes in Australia and elsewhere. You’re attempting to attribute the drop in crime in the rural/suburban US to the presence of “legal” firearms, while conveniently ignoring the simultaneous rise in overall affluence in those communities over the same time period. Meanwhile you’re also ignoring the fact that urban areas in the US are public policy dumping grounds for the poor (social services and public transit are available) and the formerly incarcerated (nearly all of the halfway houses & drug treatment centers are conveniently located in urban areas).

There is zero connection between the drop in crime and the presence of “legal” guns. Zero. Nada. That’s a fantasyland created by people who love their guns so much that they can’t see reality. There is however a measurable and provable connection between the presence of firearms and the incidence of shootings. The shootings happen generally along with other crimes related to economics. Murder for the sake of murder is a different case and is far less prevalent. Easy access to firearms (the status quo of US public policy) has made it easier for criminals to get guns. Gun addiction is a sickness and many of the folks who comment here suffer from that sickness.

You can’t have it both ways - you can’t use NIMBYism to protect your pretty little rural communities from halfway houses and drug treatment centers and then claim that violence is only happening in the communities where you’ve managed to foist all the so-called undesirables. The criminals in your communities don’t end up back home post incarceration. They end up in the cities. The law is the law - the problem is easy access to firearms for the mentally ill and the criminally minded. Fewer firearms, fewer shootings.

posted by: Dan, Lauren, Abby, Connor and Robert Garrett | July 11, 2013  6:54pm

I have three young children so I don’t have time to debunk your cr*p. Adam Lanza was not a criminal, his mom was not a criminal. Ms. Lanza never should have been able to buy the weapon that destroyed the lives of those wonderful children and many others. If that gun were not legal to buy, Ms. Lanza never would have purchased the assault rifle that massacred those kids. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only, to kill. I, and all reasonable people side with children, you gun nuts side with AR-15’S.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 12, 2013  7:49am

aaaahhhh the gutbomb - so, you are trying to tell me that Australia and GB and all of the other nation states who banned the majority of private firearms ownership have less violent crime now… ummm you might want to check that little tid bit again.  So, do you care if crime is committed so long as no one has a gun to use?  Dead from being bludgeoned or stabbed is still dead.  What is the hatred towards rural living?? You have the full ability to start a methadone clinic in your garage (permitting pending) - so spare me the hypocrisy of the NIMBY argument - You presume too much.  But to your point, no, there is no study that suggests that the increased firearm ownership has been the cause of the drop in violent crime in the US over the last 25 years.  That is anecdotal.  But those ARE the facts.  Inconveniently, the facts are also in about rural crime rates vs. urban crime rates… but you seem to think that crime exists in a vacuum.  Maybe you should look at the last 100 years of social tinkering to keep people enslaved to the government program, or the false “assistance” through the minimum wage and what that has done to urban unemployment and poverty.  I would offer some reading from Thomas Sowell about the minimum wage and urban issues if you want the academic fact based arguments.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 12, 2013  12:12pm

gutbomb86

Never said that, astanvet - there’s less gun violence in those places now. And you know that. You’re trying to obfuscate the issue. Firearms are far more likely to kill more people than knives or baseball bats or other less lethal weapons. Crime is crime, there’s going to be some crime no matter what. The value of gun control - and there is ENORMOUS value in gun restrictions - is in mitigating the potential damage.

Making firearms less available to criminals and the mentally ill is what works toward decreasing murders with firearms. That’s what the data from Australia and GB tell us. It can’t be ignored, can’t be hidden, can’t be obfuscated.

Regarding my comments about rural and suburban residents in relation to urban, there’s no hatred here - only facts. I’ve lived in all three. Rural and suburban communities have managed to dump many of their problems into urban areas through protectionist public policy. You may not care, but that is fact. The social services don’t create the need, they are a reaction to the need. This is the fundamental failure in conservative logic because conservatives believe the carrot chases the horse, rather than the other way around.

Further, crime statistics are only a sampling of actual crime. Where there are more police officers, there is more police activity, and crime statistics are more a reflection of police activity than they are a reflection of actual crime. Having 1 cop for every 5,000 residents vs. 5 to 10 cops for every 5,000 residents serves to skew the data and the public’s perception of criminal activity.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 12, 2013  2:50pm

GUTBOMB – “there’s less gun violence in those places now”, true, but there is a rise in violent crime - the two go hand in hand, (that is what spawns my comment about not caring about violence only guns) – because if you disarm people, they are less able to stop bands of others from inflicting crime or violence on them. THAT is what the data points to.
Making firearms less available -  has not made the public safer there, only decreased one part of the crime statistics which you seem to focus on “gun” crime.  If bats were used in crime would you care?  I don’t think the victims of crime much care what instrument is used.  By the way, the rural and suburban crime in the US is still significantly safer (statistically per 1000) than in either of those places.  They are not safer.
Protectionist public policy??? What do you suggest – we invite gangs and mobs into our neighborhoods?  I am protectionist about My property – you should be about yours, the urban areas should be about theirs… but you seem to think that the city is a dumping ground.  People are Free in this country to move wherever they want.  If a family wants to move from P.T. Barnum area of Bridgeport to Woodstock, they are free to do so. Why don’t they… hmmm… good question… it comes down to individual choices and government provided incentives. 
To suggest that crime statistics are flawed because they are a ‘result of police activity’… is an insane proposition.  Why do we have large police forces in the cities… because there is crime there and the Citizens have demanded protection from criminal activity… you’re out there man… really out there.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 12, 2013  3:30pm

gutbomb86

@Astanvet

“there’s less gun violence in those places now”, true but there is a rise in violent crime - the two go hand in hand

You’re still missing the point. You can’t seem to see the difference between the potential for death/destruction with a gun vs a bat or a knife. Lowering the risk of death works.

because if you disarm people, they are less able to stop bands of others from inflicting crime or violence on them. THAT is what the data points to.

There is no such data. That’s an NRA fantasy. Both sides shoot at each other.

Making firearms less available -  has not made the public safer there, only decreased one part of the crime statistics which you seem to focus on “gun” crime.

Inaccurate statement. We have yet to make firearms less available here. You and your pals have made sure of that and you’re complaining now about the possibility of no longer having unfettered access to what are essentially weapons of massive destruction.

If bats were used in crime would you care?

I’ll take my chances against a roving band of of thugs (fiction, btw) armed with bats rather than guns any day.

Protectionist public policy???

The placement of drug treatment and halfway houses is based on protectionist policies that benefit the wealthy. It’s not hard to understand. No one suggests inviting gangs or mobs anywhere. Just like the gated community types, they are protecting their own.

People are Free in this country to move wherever they want.

Bologna! Wealthy are free to move around wherever they want, not the poor or the post-incarcerated. This is your blind spot showing again. No one makes the individual choice to be born poor and treated like a second class citizen by suburbanites who live in mansions and who make sure drug treatment centers aren’t in their neighborhoods.

To suggest that crime statistics are flawed because they are a ‘result of police activity’

... is another statement of fact. Look at it on a statistical basis. Thousands of crimes go undetected/unreported every day. Police only respond to some of them. Find me some statistics that show actual crimes prevented by the presence of police - there are none.

Crime is an ongoing phenomenon of human behavior that is imprecisely measured & less often reported. The only statistics you really have available are those provided by the police after they respond. For instance, in some CT cities there are so many addicts walking around (see previous statements about siting of drug treatment centers and halfway houses) that cars are broken into all the time. Police don’t even send an officer for car break-ins in some urban areas unless there’s a surveillance camera nearby. That’s fact. When they say crime is up or crime is down, they do so for political reasons. The numbers are bunk.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 13, 2013  7:14am

Gutbomb - you still don’t get it - there is JUST MORE CRIME in australia - and the UK - as there will be here.  Chicago (high crime rate and high gun control), NEW HAVEN, BPT, HARTFORD - how many of those crimes are committed by lawfully owned pistols?  If all your progressive policy ideas were successful wouldn’t we already live in your utopian paradise?  100 years of ‘progressive thought’ has brought us to our current position… awesome.  FYI BY your logic, I should still live in the ghetto - guess what - i was poor…destitute really - lived in a condemned building… so as for upward mobility out of poverty - you don’t know what the heck you are talking about.

posted by: dano860 | July 13, 2013  8:12am

Garrett Gang, we are not putting forth cr@p as you put it. The fact remains tha t banning anything only changes the course of action to obtain the same results. Look no further than the wacko Muslim extremists.
Adam Lanza became a criminal the instant he stole his mothers firearm. She was guilty on negligence by not properly storing the firearms, especially when she knew that her son was ‘a little off kilter’. True, she loved him but not in the correct way. Not as a mother but as a friend, pal. That is not parenting!
Those of us that enjoy shooting sports, target skills, shooting competition, friendly shooting competition often belong to cubs or other organizations. They cost money, $500 per year or more, the firearms cost, the ammo costs, all the related supplies and items that support the getting there and back cost. In this State that all helps the economy. Now we have misguided legislation, foisted upon the law abiding citizen that will not stop another Newtown. Look at the tragedy in Africa last week, 50 students burned to death for getting an education.
The real problem exists in the cities of our country. We offer everyone an education and some refuse it. They prefer gangs and drugs.
Where else have you ever seen funeral homes advertising on TV for customers other than in Hartford, New Haven or other crummy cities?
The only one advertising just happens to be operated by a person of the same ethnicity as a majority of his clients.
That alone speaks volumes!!!

posted by: JH_1 | July 13, 2013  3:15pm

Gutbomb makes some valid points, but I agree with Astanvet.  Even if you eliminate guns, violent crime will likely increase because fewer people will be able to defend themselves.  It may not be as deadly, but violent crime is still violent crime.


I don’t need any crime statistics or studies to come to that conclusion.  It’s simply logical. 


If guns were eliminated all together, would there be more crime in a neighborhood with no police presence?  Of course there would be with no one or nothing to mitigate the threat of crime. 


Guns, in the hands of responsible people, prevent violent crime.  Like it or not, that’s what I believe and no one will ever change my mind.  Everyone, liberals, conservatives, in between, etc is entitled to their own opinion.  That’s mine.

posted by: Dan, Lauren, Abby, Connor and Robert Garrett | July 14, 2013  12:53pm

Dano860 You don’t rely on facts. You said our misguided legislation will not stop another Newtown. Well of course it would have stopped the massacre. Adam Lanza’s mother a non criminal would not have been able to purchase this killer weapon under our new laws. She would not have bought a gun illegally. Those children would still be alive today under the strict Connecticut laws. How sad it would be if you could not go to target practice. Tell that to the parents of the dead children. You also mention wacko Muslim extremists, how about looking at the Christian wacko extremists, like Timothy Mcveigh and many others. You are great at pointing fingers on the ones who don’t look like you. I am on the right side of history defending children, you are on the wrong side defending Mossberg.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 15, 2013  10:20am

Garrett and Co - you may think that you’re on the side of children - which is to infer that people who are pro-gun are ‘not’ for the children.  A cynical view at best.  No, the current law would not have stopped Newtown, unless you are advocating for a complete ban, and confiscation - only then would Nancy Lanza not had that weapon.  The AR-15 is not the only weapon used however, in the VA Tech shooting the shooter used pistols - and still had devistating effects.  One person on the campus with a concealed carry could have ended that tragedy.  I don’t presume to know what would have stopped a mad man from committing horrific acts in Newtown.  You seem to believe that there is only ONE solution, and only your ideas are right.  Worse, you want to force that decision on the rest of CT - as if you can make the best choice for the 3.5 million connecticut residents.

posted by: JH_1 | July 15, 2013  11:19am

Garretts - The sad reality is that the AR-15 is just one type of weapon or tool to commit a crime.  Ban that and a deterimined maniac will only find another tool.  So there is absolutely no guarantee that these new laws would prevent another tragedy.

You mentioned McVeigh in your last post.  He didn’t use any guns, did he?

There are multiple ways to try to prevent horrible tragedies from happeining in the future, address mental illness, stiffer penalties on criminals, better school security, etc. 

The problem is that the politicans went after guns only for purely political reasons.  You can’t tell me that the push from the federal level didn’t have something to do with this state passing the laws it did.

That is what got so many gun owners angered.  It has nothing to do with siding with Mossberg or any other manufacturer like you continue to accuse.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 15, 2013  11:34am

gutbomb86

There’s absolutely no demonstrable connection between a decrease in the presence of firearms and an increase in violent crime. If there has been an increase in violent crime - key word is IF because you’ve seen my statistical conclusion on so-called crime statistics, which are bunk - it’s going to be more likely related to economics than a dearth of loose firearms.

You have no case to support your thesis. There are no studies to support the idea that criminals think they can get away with a given crime more easily.

You are leaning on NRA talking points that are written & designed to market firearms and elevate the 2A into something it isn’t.

posted by: JH_1 | July 15, 2013  11:55am

Gut - Perhaps you didn’t read my comment completey.  I specifically stated that I don’t need studies or crime statistics to develop my opinion. 

I believe criminals, like water, will always take the path of least resistance. 

Taking weapons out of the equation, who is a criminal more likely to assault, a 6’4” 265 lb man or a 5’2” 125 lb women?  What about a person walking down the street with a german shepard vs. a person walking alone?

The point is that physical stature, dogs, police presence, etc are all deterrents. 

Likewise, the threat of someone carrying concealed or having guns in the home is a deterrent.  You may not agree or accept that, but how can that not be true?

Again, I don’t need statistics or anyone’s talking points to form that opinion.  It’s strictly based on what’s logical.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 15, 2013  12:35pm

Gutbomb - I guess the FBI crime statistics are ‘bunk’, the UCONN quarterly review (of connecticut) published JUL 13 is just ‘bunk’, the State department’s country assessments are ‘bunk’, maybe the CIA and the open source material they post on factbook is ‘bunk’ - or the assessment from those countries law enforcement community - yeah, probably just ‘bunk’... but hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your opinion, you’re clearly smarter than the rest of us.  I will sit and anxiously await the next decision you will make for me and my family - we were considering getting a new car - thoughts?

posted by: dano860 | July 15, 2013  1:18pm

Garrett Gang, one more time.
My children grew up with firearms, they started at 5&7 years old. My granddaughters are now 5&7 respectively, and are learning to handle and respect firearms. They get started with the air soft now but learn that they too can be dangerous. None of my children or grandchildren have any emotional or learning disorder. We still lock up the firearms, not the air soft though. Those under lock (in a firearm safe) include BB rifles and pistols too.
I am not defending any one company but I don’t believe that Mossberg manufactures a .223, I have check on that but I think I’m correct.
To think that this lousy legislation would have prevented the event is like putting a veil over a pile of manure, it still stinks.
Adam had social issues but he was smart, the method would have been different but the results would have been the same or worse.
The radical wackos of the world come in all flavors, the Moo’s just happened to be the ones committing that atrocity. I don’t care who or what they call themselves they are he’ll bent on destroying some bodies way of life, sort of like you and this lousy legislation.

posted by: gutbomb86 | July 15, 2013  2:46pm

gutbomb86

JH - I had been responding to Astanvet but I appreciate your sentiment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you have an idea of what motivates a criminal in his/her selection of targets. I don’t know that there’s any science behind that but it’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. I would not base public policy on that kind of opinion, however, because it’s quite simply one person’s assessment.

But at the end of the day, the firearms discussion brought us to the Australia use case and the experience there since the removal of many many firearms from circulation. The NRA is attempting to undercut the value of that policy change. What I am saying here is, regardless of anyone’s opinion, the NRA’s effort to undermine the success of that change is not based in fact. There is no statistical connection between any perceived rise in violent crime and the removal of hundreds of thousands of firearms from circulation. There IS a statistical correlation, however, between the removal of those firearms and the decrease in deaths related to firearms and the decrease in reported crimes involving firearms. That’s fact.

posted by: ASTANVET | July 15, 2013  2:59pm

GUT- you keep saying it results in the reduction of firearms related deaths… without acknowledging the rise in violent crime during the same period - violent crime, robbery, murder, rape, assault… all this while the trend for violent crime in the US has been trending downward since 1990.  Huh… odd… more concealed carry states, gun ownership rising thoughout those years.  Well, i can only lead a horse to water so many times.  You clearly don’t want facts that do not support your assumptions

posted by: JH_1 | July 15, 2013  3:28pm

Gut -

It’s obvious that there would be a correlation to reducing firearms and lower crimes committed by firearms.  This is logical and I believe logic must always prevail.

Where we differ is whether reducing firearms may increase other violent crime. 

I guess we will always agree to disagree on a lot of gun related opinions, which is fine as I always welcome listening to the other side.

Good debate.  Thanks.