Commission Recommends Banning Guns That Carry More Than 10 Bullets
by Hugh McQuaid | Mar 15, 2013 1:35pm
(55) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Town News, Newtown, Law Enforcement, Public Safety
(Updated 3:12 p.m.)Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s Sandy Hook Advisory Commission took a hard line on gun regulations Friday when it recommended prohibiting both the sale and ownership of any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds in a row.
The commission was convened by the governor as a response to the Dec. 14 murders in Newtown when a gunman entered an elementary school and killed 20 first graders and six adults.
The draft recommendations the group approved Friday go further than the proposals being discussed so far in the gun control debate. Over the objections of some on panel, the commission opted not to differentiate between assault weapons, rifles, or handguns. Instead they focused on what they called the “lethality” of weapons.
Bernard Sullivan, a former state Public Safety Commissioner and Hartford Police chief, said he thought the “gun culture” of American society needed to be changed.
“Personally, I think we should take a hard stand on firearms in this country,” he said.
Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, the commission’s chairman, and University of Connecticut Police Chief Barbara O’Connor called the recommendation too broad and over-reaching.
O’Connor said she personally owned a Glock .40 that is capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. She asked if her weapon would become illegal.
“I think this is just too far reaching . . . What am I to do with my Glock if this were to become law? I can’t leave my home with it, is what you’re saying?” she asked.
Sullivan said she would not be able to keep it in her home. He said there would likely be a grace period during which she could sell it outside the state. He said the commission heard from expert witnesses who testified that it was dangerous to keep guns in homes.
“We know that even less capacity guns are dangerous, that having a gun in the home is worse than not having a gun, by all the research they’ve done. My feeling is this: if you don’t need that, then what’s the problem with it becoming illegal?” he said.
Jackson said he personally felt the recommendation was too broad.
“What this statement says is, despite the fact that you have managed your firearm in a safe and reasonable fashion, it is no longer legal,” he said. “. . . For me, it’s a little bit too far.”
Former Newtown Rep. Chris Lyddy remained quiet for much of the gun debate. He said he understood the opposition from gun owners to stricter firearm regulations. He said he felt bad for law-abiding gun owners, but said he was “on the side of ‘Let’s take a stand. Let’s give a damn.’”
“I’m going to err on the side of the safety of those children . . . I know it’s broad, but my heart would say ‘Let’s get rid of everything, let’s just get rid of them all.’ But that’s not logical,” he said.
Jackson asked the group for a vote on recommending banning the possession of weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds. More than half the panelists raised their hands.
“That appears to be consensus,” he said.
At an unrelated event Friday Malloy declined comment on a proposal to ban all guns with more than 10 bullets.
“I’m not ducking you. I haven’t seen the thing,” Malloy said.
He said it’s hard for him to comment on something he hasn’t seen. But as far as the issue of confiscation goes he said his proposal does not call for guns to be confiscated.
“Our package would recognize the right of those guns that have currently been sold,” Malloy said.
“I made a series of recommendations, I’ll look at their recommendations,” he added.
In a statement issued later in the day, Malloy said he appreciated the work of the commission, but said he was not looking to confiscate weapons.
“I want to be very clear on one point — I do not support, and will not advocate for, the confiscation of firearms owned by law abiding citizen,” he said.
Christine Stuart contributed to this report.
Tags: Sandy Hook, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Scott Jackson, guns, Bernie Sullivan, Barbara O'Connor, dh
(55) Comments
posted by: cnj-david | March 15, 2013 1:53pm
Any gun that can fire more than 10 rounds in a row? That’s EVERY single semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine manufactured.
This is obviously a proposal by people who know little or nothing about firearms.
All of my semi-automatic handguns and my semi-automatic rifles have detachable magazines. Most of these magazines hold 10 or fewer bullets, but the capacity is determined ONLY by the magazine, not by the firearm, and by this legislation they’ll be illegal.
As for Sullivan’s comment that O’Connor won’t be able to keep her Glock 40 in her home, that she’ll have to get rid of it; that’ll apply to me also.
This is a total and utter disregard of my second amendment rights, and a total disregard of the fact that I’ve done nothing that gives my government the right to force me to give up my lawfully acquired personal property.
The proposed legislation does absolutely nothing to enhance the safety of our society, and does nothing to address criminal possession/use of firearms; what it does is give people who think guns are evil the chance to take them away from law abiding citizens.
I’m sending another donation to the NRA, and I’ll remember this when I go to the polls.
posted by: JH_1 | March 15, 2013 2:13pm
These recommendations are getting more and more ridiculous every week. You hear about what other liberal states have passed or are proposing and then you hear about all the various proposals by groups here in this state and you have to wonder… is everyone trying to “out do” the previous set of proposals?
How many different commissions or advisory groups are needed anyway?
By the end of the month, or at some point, another group here in CT will propose a complete ban on all firearms. Just wait…
posted by: tmzphoto | March 15, 2013 2:14pm
ANY firearm that accepts a removable magazine is “capable of firing more than ten rounds in a row.” This doesn’t even distinguish between semi automatic firearms and manually operated ones. How utterly moronic.
sigh
Texas here I come.
posted by: sparkplug | March 15, 2013 2:51pm
“We know that even less capacity guns are dangerous, that having a gun in the home is worse than not having a gun, by all the research they’ve done. My feeling is this: if you don’t need that, then what’s the problem with it becoming illegal?”
In other words, “We’re coming for them all eventually.” [EVIL LAUGH]
I really hope these people reap the chaos they are about to sow. Armed criminals are allowed to run wild in our state while the rest of our are left protecting our families with baseball bats. These people are not only stupid but incredibly evil as well.
posted by: Quiet eye | March 15, 2013 3:20pm
Here we go with self proclaimed Social Engineers thinking they are the only one who know what we should do with our lives. Who cares about Sate Constitutions or 2nd Ammendments.
posted by: Greg | March 15, 2013 3:23pm
Maybe I’ll take my high income to another state more hospitable to my libertarian political beliefs and get a 10-20% reduction in cost of living as a bonus.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 15, 2013 3:47pm
Ignore this. If this is not a ban on magazines over a certain size, but a ban on hundred of millions of dollars worth of legally purchased guns in this state that are capable of using magazines 10 and smaller, the 2nd American Revolution will be starting should this ever be signed.
I want to thank the UConn Chief of Police for her comments as this now proves to people that when gun owners say that there is something more here that should scare all Americans, it was just proven.
For the leftists here allow me to explain what was recommended by the commission.
I own a 22 rifle which boy scouts shoot. Tiny little bullets. I own a 25 round magazine. They are saying that even if I say “here is my 25 round magazine State of CT” and I take a 5 round magazine to use, that the entire gun costing me 600 dollars is now illegal.
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS
posted by: sanecitizen | March 15, 2013 3:53pm
The level of ignorance on the panel is stunning. The comment about guns being more dangerous in the home is because the statistics are inflated with suicide numbers.
It does not take a PhD to realize that if you magically removed guns people are not going to stop killing themselves they’re only going to seek out other avenues.
Also at the risk of sounding obvious, we know guns are dangerous. That’s why we choose to use them for self defense as opposed to, say, banana cream pies.
posted by: Durham68 | March 15, 2013 4:10pm
What a waste of time. Their recommendations are the equivalent to a gun-control advocates Christmas wish list. Might as well have the NRA come out and argue that we should go back to the days when you could mail-order a machine gun and have it delivered to your house. Some gun owners would love it, but they’d never say it out loud in a serious setting.
This commission still has 5 full days of meetings before they issue recommendations regarding mental health. Too bad they didn’t have enough sense today to recommend something that would cause CT residents to take anything else they do seriously.
posted by: Nutmeg87 | March 15, 2013 4:28pm
So basically, Former Newtown Rep. Chris Lyddy remained quiet for much of the gun debate. Nothing to contribute but ... ‘Let’s take a stand. Let’s give a damn.’”
Really…. Maybe Newtown should pass this for their town ... Leave the rest of the state alone…. I’m getting sick of the demagoguery…. Don’t tell the rest of us why to do… Except the liberal media and a 3rd rate school polling a statistically erroneous 1,300 sample cold-calls nobody thinks the extreme confiscation is a pod idea…. The US House of Representatives (largest representative body in the US will NOT pass any such ban violating our US Constitutional Rights… These guys actually think this confiscation will pass legal action?
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 15, 2013 5:03pm
The Courant is reporting 10 round magazine limits and not banning guns. They’re pathetic and cant even get the story right, or maybe they dont want to get the story right.
Three cheers for Hugh and CT News Junkie. I dont always agree with what you say but I have never had to question your reporting accuracy
posted by: dano860 | March 15, 2013 5:51pm
From what is reported here they are preparing to confiscate firearms that meet their criteria.
Bernie Sullivan is a wind bag that never did anything for the crime rate in Hartford so now he’s empowered to make criminals out of law abiding citizens of Connecticut.
All you childhood 22 caliber rifles, many CO2 pellet rifles fall into this ‘net’ type of law they are proposing.
I have said, here, many times go slow and think it through. New York didn’t and they made criminals out of the police by virtue of magazine capacity alone.
Lyddy’s statement and thinking alone are scary, real scary!
posted by: Bobcat | March 15, 2013 6:40pm
I was shocked at how little this commission knows about firearms. Letting them make recommendations on firearms is certainly an instance of the blind leading the blind. Watch the video of their March 8 meeting it would be hysterical if it wasn’t so scary. UConn Police Chief Barbara O’Connor is the voice of reason in the group albeit wonderfully polite to the woefully under informed working group. These are mental health experts - they should focus on that!
posted by: Hebee | March 15, 2013 6:45pm
It should be shocking to learn that the “Experts” assigned to the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission are actually incredibly ignorant on their assigned subject matter. Why is no one surprised these boobs (sorry Channel 61) have no understanding of even the basics of the subject matter? Was all of this just for show? The results were obviously predetermined and all of those hearing were merely a staged CT Reality TV Show. What a con job on the Connecticut taxpayers.
posted by: CTResidentForLife | March 15, 2013 8:04pm
This proposal by Sullivan is absurd. All guns are dangerous. So are cars in the wrong hands. This whole issue has gone beyond ridiculous with the anti-gun nuts.
Why aren’t the politicians working on fixing the economy and bring jobs and people to the state?
Garbage like this is silly. It’s going way too far. Ridiculous.
posted by: Jesterr72 | March 16, 2013 2:02am
The level of stupidity by these moronic politicians is in the stratosphere. ‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty has been eroded. Malloy and his minions are using the Newton tragedy as the pretext to jam the Left’s long-held agenda to shred the 2A. This is huge - and I don’t think they understand what they may unleash with these proposals which will make every - EVERY - CT family LESS safe. Just look at Chicago. A Revolution against their stupidity would not surprise me - people are not going to let criminals run rampant while the pols who came up with this idiocy have police protection.
posted by: bgmg | March 16, 2013 7:53am
Don’t you see whats going on here? Dose this all not sound familiar to anybody. First lets pass a law that turns law abiding tax paying people into criminals overnight. Then lets put Malloys rat clause into effect. Get your friends to tell the police that you may have one of those evil baby killing guns or worse yet a mag that holds more than ten rounds in your house. Now they can come search your home and confiscate your weapons and if you put up a fight they get to kill you and call it justice. Dose any of this sound familiar? Check your history folks. mid 1930’s. The Nazi’s did the same thing tell the people that if they took there guns that it would be a safer society. How did that work out?
These idiots want nothing more than to control every thing you do. None of this crap is going to save one single life much less make your children any safer. Malloy and his commie administration need to go.
posted by: Chien DeBerger | March 16, 2013 8:12am
The governor has released a press release on the recommendations, enjoy:
“Today’s deliberations by the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission mirror the conversations taking place in living rooms and towns halls across Connecticut on how best to make Connecticut safer. While I appreciate their hard work, I want to be very clear on one point – I do not support, and will not advocate for, the confiscation of firearms owned by law abiding citizens. Again, I appreciate the hard work of the commission in reaching these interim recommendations, and look forward to receiving their final report.”
(http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?Q=520810&A=4010)
So if he does not support confiscation, does that mean he is reversing his stand on further restrictions on the assault weapons definition? Sure love watching liberals machinations to make logic. I wonder if he is starting to realize that he is not only burying his own political career, but he is taking the democrat party down too.
posted by: tmzphoto | March 16, 2013 11:55am
They’re splitting hairs and saying it isn’t confiscation, since “nobody is coming into your home to take your guns.” But it amounts to the same thing if they, ever so generously, allow us to get rid of them out of state, before we become felons. Clearly, Connecticut has gone off the deep end, and our business, industry, and taxes aren’t wanted here any more.
posted by: Barry bin Inhalin | March 16, 2013 12:36pm
What a bunch of nutcuppers. First question: what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is misunderstood? Second, how would they enforce such a law? (Why is it that Leftists are so willing to make common criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens?) Third, how much of the State’s $ are they willing to spend in court (as this would be challenged in a NY minute)? And lastly, Danny-boy, next time you appoint an All-star panel, please try and pick some Lefties that at least have the proper firearms nomenclature down. They - and you by association - sound foolish if not ignorant on the subject.
posted by: Barry bin Inhalin | March 16, 2013 12:38pm
Impeachment proceedings for Malloy are in order. This is more than rediculous.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 16, 2013 1:36pm
BGMG, stop with the history lessons. Leftists dont care. Its all about whether or not they feel uncomfortable and I say that we start to give that to them in a law abiding way. Its time to pick a leftists house and then peacefully and without guns, go their homes and protest. I hated that when people did that to executives and AIG bankers and scared their families but this discussion is about people like you and I that know history, have reasonable fears, and its time to make them feel the same way so they go run out and buy guns and feel that emotion that takes them out of fantasy island.
Seriously keep the history lessons coming.
posted by: janetsterno | March 16, 2013 4:42pm
It must be understood these people want chaos (ie early release programs etc..) Remember the old saying, “ORDER OUT OF CHAOS, DEPRESSION INFLATION, CREATE A PANIC THEN RAPE THE NATION!!!” these Maoist’s waited with baited breath for this tragedy like vultures to implement their crown jewel of treason and tyranny!!! Welcome to The USSA. Comrade!!!
posted by: jenand | March 16, 2013 5:00pm
Does anyone else hear the wispy tone of the word “Mispoke”, floating on the airwaves on the Sunday shows? I’ll be watching tomorrow.
posted by: Bulldog | March 16, 2013 10:57pm
This is clearly a 2nd Ammendment violation. It is obviously authored by people who grossly lack any knowledge of firearms in addition to penalizing the hunters and sportsman and our American Culture and Traditions. It is an ignorant, poorly and hastily thought out “knee jerk” reaction. I have not been happy with the NRA’s lack of cooperation in this matter and deeply saddened by the tragic massacre of children and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown; however all that being said, it’s this type of stupidity and gross lack of intelligent thoughtful consideration that will force me to donate to the NRA and to also become a member. The lack of “Balance” and knowledge in this situation is not only disappointing, it’s shocking and unbelievable! I have not read any proposed policy or legislation regarding Mental Illness which is clearly an issue in most if not all these tragic situations!
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 17, 2013 8:04am
Janetsterno, why is it that some people dont see what you see? Its all right in front of us. Not just early release, but so many other topics impacting our safety and freedom.
I watched Atlas Shrugged 2 last night. The parallels to what is happening now are unreal. Most leftist or their human drones wouldnt even know what what was in that book many years ago or the fairly new movie. What are these people doing with their lives? What is it? meds, dope, stupidity, uneducated, falling for the bread and circus trap, desire to be part of the group?
posted by: BrianO | March 17, 2013 8:59am
Great feeling of comfort these posts generate. . .pro gun people really angry.
All of our Bill of Rights have limitations tied to public safety(free speech, reasonable searches, punishments), why not gun ownership?
This conversation has tapped sentiments that are frightening.
posted by: tmzphoto | March 17, 2013 11:56am
It is time to explore the impeachment of Gov. Malloy.
The following is quoted from “FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 702”, June 28, 2004:
“Historically, impeachable offenses have required proof of substantial misconduct resulting in injury to the state. As the staff of the Watergate
Committee wrote in its report in that matter, “undermining the integrity of office,
disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process [and] adverse impact on the system of government”
have been the focus of prior impeachment proceedings. Connecticut’s Supreme Court has made clear that the state’s Constitution must be understood in light of federal standards for impeachment, and that a
core concern of the state’s drafters was to prevent public officials from abusing their authority.”
I believe it is clear that Gov. Malloy has amply met the criteria for impeachment under these standards.
posted by: janetsterno | March 17, 2013 9:31pm
We believe Joe Markley would make an excellent governor. We also agree with the impeachment comment 100%!!!
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 17, 2013 9:49pm
Brian, really? Give some examples please. I think all gun owners are for reasonable restrictions, but what antigun people want are not based in fact but feelings, and they do so in a way that would truly hurt the ability to defend against tyrannical government.
You know I am actually OK with a 10 round magazine limit. But I am ONLY OK with it, if we lock up mentally ill people that are violent or potentially violent. if we dont do that then you are demonizing and restricting gun owners that are probably the most law abiding group around and not solving the problem.
By the way, keep an eye on Colorado. They’re about to pass laws that will devastate their economy because hunters will not go there. I thought we didnt want to interfere with hunting? Some of their laws seriously infringe on that. Its OK to smoke dope in Colorado though because that doesnt hurt anyone except the family that gets killed because of the driver thats high as a kite.
Dont believe that Colorado is changing because of Aurora. Its because there are more Californians there that wrecked their state and now have to come to Colorado like locusts.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 17, 2013 9:52pm
You wont be alone. I was at a bookstore Saturday (yes I can read and do alot of it)and a couple walked by me and the man asked the women when she wanted him to schedule their NRA class. Lots of people who were horrified by Newtown, shed alot of tears, but now see that the government is not trying to solve the problem but has an agenda. I’ve said it before that if they went heavy after mental illness and school security, and do away with Gun Free Zones, they could pass very restrictive gun laws, but now people see them for what they are really trying to do.
posted by: MasterChief | March 18, 2013 7:34am
Why is anyone surprised by this? Obama had, during his run for office, been quoted as stating he is against private gun ownership. Malloy is a trying to inch his way up the political ladder. Everything he has done so far as governor of the state of CT shows this. He cares only for his own political agenda and not for the people of CT.
On June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court’s dominant conservatives, said: “It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”
Maybe Sullivan, Malloy, et al, need a civics lesson.
posted by: ad_ebay | March 18, 2013 7:45am
The INCLUDES off duty police as well. EVERYONE will have to give up firearms. State Police will use the excuse, “We’re on duty ALL the time”. CRAP! Try to stop one of them when they use the STATE VEHICLE (mandated by a sweet contract) for PERSONAL use! “OH dear, I have my child in the car”. Are you on duty all the time or not?
This recommendation is the product of a small, liberal mind that cannot process the God given freedoms guaranteed by the two documents (constitutions) that all military, veterans (like me), and, yes, POLITICIANS have SWORN to uphold.
I wonder if they cashed the checks from George Soros?
posted by: GuilfordResident | March 18, 2013 9:17am
The NY Daily News is reporting that Adam Lanza planned a “glory killing” for years and chose Sandy Hook Elementary b/c it was an “easy target.” I’ve said all along that at least one person must have known or suspected what he was planning. I cannot fathom that he could have kept this to himself. Maybe he confided in an online gamer.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408
posted by: KatS | March 18, 2013 10:06am
I do not believe the founding fathers, with their single-bullet guns, had any idea what future capabilities would be in regards to firearms. No one is suggesting taking away anyone second amendment rights, but trying to make some reasonable limitations that may at least mitigate loss of life in another tragic situation like the one in Newtown.
Your second amendment rights do not outweigh others’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Other rights, such as free speech, have limitations (such as it being illegal to yell “fire” in a public space where there is none). And chances are, once these proposals start making their way through the legislature in the way of bills, they will be watered down and all you proud gun owners will probably be grandfathered to keep your precious weapons.
Many are saying they need these larger-capacity magazines to protect their home. I hate to tell that faction that if you have not taken down an intruder in 6 bullets or less, in all likelihood you have run out of time and lost that battle.
I am hearing a lot of “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” which is an extremist mentality at best, but I am not hearing any alternative suggestions as to what may prevent another 26 families from finding out their children and loved ones will not be coming home to them in the future. And THAT is the purpose that was set before this task force.
posted by: BrianO | March 18, 2013 10:21am
Joe
Freedom of speech is limited by the caveat that speech cannot pose a threat to public safety. Hence, you cannot scream “fire!” in a crowded theater for pleasure. The First Amendment would not protect that speech. Freedom of Assembly is also limited by congregations that threaten public order and the First Amendment does not protect a violent mob. These limitations are present in each of our Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments). In the Fourth Amendment, we have a right to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” however, searches and seizures are of course permitted.
Each amendment has limitations.
People in our country will always have the right to own guns. The debate is nothing more than over the type of guns people can own.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 18, 2013 10:55am
Guilford, lets assume this info is true which I dont doubt.
1) based on this thought process would we then do away with gun free zones so anyone with glory killing ideas will not be able to know that their target is easy? Of course not.
2) If its also true that he planned this I go back to the comments of a mother of a girl who was at Newtown High and was Lanzas lab partner in Chem. She said that they were told years ago that Lanza was socially paranoid. If true then there is direct blame on the Newtown school system assuming that they didnt try to get him out of the school. Let me describe what social paranoia would be in a high school for someone with this. Imagine all the kids around, loud noises, fear most of the time, and through your eyes this fear is like being in a horror movie. I am in no way defending Lanza of course because in the end he did this act, but school for him was terror when things got noisy and crazy. No wonder he would pick a school to lash back at.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 18, 2013 11:03am
Ad Bay thats why the UConn Police Chief is saying this is overbearing. She is a Chief of Police and would have to give up her 1000 dollar Glock because it can take a magazine over 10. It wouldnt matter if Glock made a magazine that was 10 for it, and she used that, as the gun could take a larger magazine. These people have an agenda thats sick. I really wonder under what scenario they see residents of the State of CT turning in many millions of dollars worth of guns?
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 18, 2013 11:22am
This is from the Lupica article and makes me sooooooo mad. Why do we need private donations to pay for these people? Why cant the state pay for it. I would even pay more in taxes if it went to a fund that couldnt be used for anything but these people.
Those in the room were told of first responders in Newtown who have since quit their jobs, so shattered were they by what they found when they got to the school that morning, when they saw dead teachers with their arms wrapped around the children they had tried in vain to save.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408#ixzz2NuB0Vjb5
posted by: Durham68 | March 18, 2013 6:09pm
@ BrianO – This argument is non-sense. Shouting “fire” in a theater is the equivalent to shooting up the theater, hence all the existing laws against shooting people. A violent mob is illegal because it is violent. Reasonable searches and seizures require probable cause that something illegal is taking place.
To equate these examples to lawful ownership of firearms in common use relies on the assumption that they cannot be possessed without causing harm. That somehow their mere existence is a threat to us all, regardless of how they are handled and/or stored.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 18, 2013 6:14pm
Good try Brian. A for effort but D for content.
Sure there are restrictions on what you can say but there is a presumption of innocence. It’s only in reaction to an act or an abuse of your free speech that those restrictions kick in.
The second amendment is no different. You have the right to exercise your rights until you do something that is against other people. You are making law abiding gun owners guilty first when they have committed no crime against the public.
In this case one nut planned this for years and in this state hundred of thousands of people could lose their rights. I said that with social paranoia Adam Lanza should not have been mainstreamed. If I can get a dozen experts to confirm that should the teachers and adminstrators at newtown high be imprisoned or lose their jobs? They may have messed up badly. If so I bet you would argue no but there messup would be closer to the situation than me owning my guns in a town not Newtown.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 18, 2013 6:41pm
Kat, I cried when we learned what happened in that school. However taking nothing away from the grief these parents suffer unless you are an expert in home invasion and firearm accuracy under stress you really should not make blanket comments about the number of bullets.
Since December 14 more lives have been saved by people including children using weapons that dems want to ban than lost their lives at Newtown. Do those saved lives not count?
Depending on how you count it, in this century , since the history of our countries founding is too ancient for you, almost 100 million people have been killed by their governments. I know of at least 50 million of those occurring after their government didnt forcibly disarm people but made laws for the common good and the promise of protection by the government.
Your first reaction may be but that’s not America. It’s not but as we see people executed by their governments why do we send these countries arms? We stand up holier than thou saying to treat your citizens right and then do military business with these people. Sorry but I’m not so trusting.
Another example is the UN Arms Treaty. Why isn’t Obama telling the UN that we have a second amendment that has it’s issues but as Americans we will deal with it? Do you think the UN that is made up of countries that mostly hate us is the best organization to tell us how to deal with firearms? Sorry but these people can have their own world government but I choose not to play?
In the last day or so Cypus just took a percentage of people’s savings. Look for that at some point in the US in some way. Its already been floated. Don’t worry though as most people have no savings so those people will have no issue with taking money from people that do.
posted by: sanecitizen | March 18, 2013 9:56pm
@katS
Poor and also misleading arguments. There is plenty of historic data, comments, quotes and writings that support the fact that the writers of the constitution intended the second amendment as a counter balance to an unchecked government. To this extent,the concept that the founding father’s meant us to only have single shot muskets is a laughable fallacy.
Additionally, while you claim to want to prevent another sandy hook, none of the proposed ideas would actually do so. Two fundamental places to focus efforts should be school safety and mental health. One has no funds for support and the commission for mental health basically threw their hands in the air and said it was too complicated.
Solutions require an understanding of complex issues. The ten round limit was essentially a marketing ploy by Bill Ruger in the late 80s and has zero factual support for effectiveness. Don’t blindly support the 10 round miracle cure because it’s anything but.
posted by: sanecitizen | March 18, 2013 10:12pm
@BrianO
The Supreme Court has already solved that question. “Unusual” weapons such as machine guns and short barrel shotguns are not considered firearms in commercial common use. The Heller case has set precedence that law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to possess weapons in common use.
With decades of sales, tens of millions of rifles, hundreds of millions of semiautomatic handguns and probably half a billion high cap magazines floating around I think anyone would be hard pressed proving the are not in common use.
This limitation already exists. More, pushing the matter could have adverse consequences. Would you be proud of backing a magazine ban that eventually got pushed to SCOTUS challenge which resulted in a repeal of the NFA act?
posted by: BrianO | March 19, 2013 8:42am
Heller dealt with handguns and is limited to the District of Columbia.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 19, 2013 10:05am
LOL Brian
The SCOTUS Heller case only dealt with the District of Columbia.
C’mon buddy. You arent serious are you?
Supreme Court cases cover the entire US of A
posted by: sanecitizen | March 19, 2013 10:50am
@BrianO
I think you might misunderstand the issue s bit. The case SCOTUS heard was Heller vs. DC.
In addition to striking down the DC handgun ban the court affirmed handguns are considered arms and protected by the second amendment, that legally owned firearms could not he forced to be stored unloaded and locked, reaffirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right and unrelated to the formation of a militia and established the legality of firearms in common use.
SCOTUS rulings are generally related to the constitution and by default can’t be applicable to one state only.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 19, 2013 11:38am
Bear with me on this one. I’m going to tie attempts to take guns away from law abiding citizens to Obamacare.
I just heard on the radio from someone on the Ridgefield Board of Ed that right now they pay 13 million a year for healthcare for the school system. In 2018 due to Obamacare and associated hidden taxes, that number will jump to 36 million a year….almost triple in the next 4 years.
Now some of you Leftists when I talk about my huge distrust of government call me crazy. These increased costs were predicted, but those of us against Obamacare were called fear mongers. Looks like we were more right than what we even thought.
Now related to guns, we are again fear mongers. Guess what? We’re right again, but the issue this time is that the second amendment is the only amendment that you can’t make a mistake on.
posted by: Durham68 | March 19, 2013 12:01pm
@BrianO - Heller was limited to D.C. but McDonald v. Chicago held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 19, 2013 1:46pm
Let me add to this common use description.
This means small arms. This doesnt mean bazookas, surface to air missles, or small nuclear weapons. It does not mean tanks, nor does it mean fully automatic weapons unless you go through additional background checks, and pay alot of money for a special federal stamp.
It has nothing to do with hunting and really only has to do with personal defense in a small way because our own history has shown that we like to create bad people and that the police cannot be there to prevent all violent crime but only a very small portion.
posted by: Joebigjoe | March 19, 2013 2:03pm
For you folks that think the government turning on citizens in the US isn’t possible, or an economic collapse, terrorist hacker attack etc:
Black Swan events are where mathematics meets philosophy. They call these events Black swans because for years everyone thought all swans were white, people couldnt imagine anything other than white swans and then BAM a black swan is found. Planes that took down buildings on 9-11 was a black swan event. For some the near total collapse of our economy was a black swan. After these things happen everyone has a reason and play Monday morning QB but only a few people percentage wise saw it before. Hindsight is 20-20 but foresight is blind.
In my opinion what you cant see can kill you. What you cant imagine can kill you, or even wreck your country.
People think that since we have been doing quite nicely for 200 years that it’ll keep going on forever like its some birthright we have. I, and millions of others dont think so.
Look at why we are having this discussion. Sandy Hook was a black swan event…or maybe not. How many people predicted school massacres ever since Columbine as long as we had these Gun Free Zones. Guaranteed that most of those people with the accurate predictions are gun owners. Yet now these people who were not listened to for 20 years since Columbine were right yet again, but are demonized by the people that are anti gun, that didnt listen.
There is a black swan coming folks. I dont know what it is, but there are too many mathematical possibilities.
For you anti gun people, IMO you also dont use logic. You like to say that these weapons should be banned or these magazines, because there are evil people out there that will use them. You are right about the evil people but why in the same breath are you not saying that we need to protect our schools, malls, houses of worship until you accomplish your banning goals? You cant on one hand be against these evil guns because of what evil people might do, and not connect the dots that Black swan events and predictable events have occurred and will occur again.
posted by: anuddaCTresident | March 19, 2013 7:08pm
@KatS…using the logic in your insinuated argument that the 2A doesn’t protect modern high capacity semiautomatic weapons because the Founding Fathers couldn’t envision them, it follows that free speech via telegraph, telephone, mobile phone, satellite phone, radio, satellite radio, television, cable, satellite TV, the Internet, computers, and mobile devices isn’t protected by the 1A because these media of mass information couldn’t be envisioned in the 18th Century, either. Sounds silly, right?