jackdogstar
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15
I need to vent.
I live in CT. They are about to pass what is being called the strictest gun control law in the country, this in response to the Newtown shooting.
First, let me be clear. I have no problem with reasonable laws pertaining to weapons ownership. I am not so naive as to think that we're ever going to see a country with virtually no restrictions on weapons ownership. So I am okay with saying that persons convicted of violent felonies should not be allowed to own guns. (However, I do not agree that persons convicted of non-violent felonies should be barred from gun ownership.)
But the new CT laws go way too far. They are not about protecting anyone. They are about punishing all gun owners for the actions of a lone, deranged individual. If you have not yet read about the new laws, you should. They are a doozy.
And here's the thing: The new CT laws don't even address one of the key central characteristics of the Newtown shooting; that is, that the guns used in Newtown were for all practical purposes stolen. It is my understanding that they belong to the mother, and that the shooter took them from the gun safe. So why didn't the CT legislature respond by increasing penalties for anyone who steals another person's gun?
Instead, the laws require permits to buy ammunition. (You heard me right.) The laws impose such draconian restrictions on the ownership of large capacity magazines that they have effectively banned them. You cannot buy new LCMs (over ten rounds capacity), and if you currently own them, you have to register them with the state police and can only have them loaded in your home or at a shooting range. And the new laws mean that being in possession of a non-registered LCM will actually result in stiffer penalties under CT law than being in possession of a Thermo-nuclear device. This despite the fact that the Newtown shooter dropped and swapped magazines so frequently that for all practical purposes he was employing non-LCMs.
And the CT law bans some 100 or more of what it calls Assault Weapons.
I celebrated news of the impending passage of this law by buying myself a brand new Tikka T3 Lite 7mm. Even before the new laws come into effect, buying this weapon has been an onerous process. The statement made by anti-Second Amnedment people that anyone can just walk into a gun shop and buy a weapon is absolutely false, at least here in CT.
BTW, this new law is being touted by both Democrats and Republicans here in CT. There is no opposition party anymore.
How would I have drafted a reasonable gun law? First, serious prison time for anyone who steals another person's gun, even if the gun owner is a relative. Second, how about tax credits for gun owners to purchase gun safes. Third, don't rush off imposing new state regulations before you see what the federal requirements are going to be. Fourth, if a person has a federal security clearance, (as I do), then that should be enough to satisfy any federal or state requirements for gun ownership.
Since I actually work in Northern Massachusetts, I am thinking about moving to Southern Vermont, where the laws are more reasonable.
So CT, here's the thing. I'm a successful, hard working, tax paying husband and father who really doesn't think your state is worth living in anymore. When people like me leave, who's going to be left?
I live in CT. They are about to pass what is being called the strictest gun control law in the country, this in response to the Newtown shooting.
First, let me be clear. I have no problem with reasonable laws pertaining to weapons ownership. I am not so naive as to think that we're ever going to see a country with virtually no restrictions on weapons ownership. So I am okay with saying that persons convicted of violent felonies should not be allowed to own guns. (However, I do not agree that persons convicted of non-violent felonies should be barred from gun ownership.)
But the new CT laws go way too far. They are not about protecting anyone. They are about punishing all gun owners for the actions of a lone, deranged individual. If you have not yet read about the new laws, you should. They are a doozy.
And here's the thing: The new CT laws don't even address one of the key central characteristics of the Newtown shooting; that is, that the guns used in Newtown were for all practical purposes stolen. It is my understanding that they belong to the mother, and that the shooter took them from the gun safe. So why didn't the CT legislature respond by increasing penalties for anyone who steals another person's gun?
Instead, the laws require permits to buy ammunition. (You heard me right.) The laws impose such draconian restrictions on the ownership of large capacity magazines that they have effectively banned them. You cannot buy new LCMs (over ten rounds capacity), and if you currently own them, you have to register them with the state police and can only have them loaded in your home or at a shooting range. And the new laws mean that being in possession of a non-registered LCM will actually result in stiffer penalties under CT law than being in possession of a Thermo-nuclear device. This despite the fact that the Newtown shooter dropped and swapped magazines so frequently that for all practical purposes he was employing non-LCMs.
And the CT law bans some 100 or more of what it calls Assault Weapons.
I celebrated news of the impending passage of this law by buying myself a brand new Tikka T3 Lite 7mm. Even before the new laws come into effect, buying this weapon has been an onerous process. The statement made by anti-Second Amnedment people that anyone can just walk into a gun shop and buy a weapon is absolutely false, at least here in CT.
BTW, this new law is being touted by both Democrats and Republicans here in CT. There is no opposition party anymore.
How would I have drafted a reasonable gun law? First, serious prison time for anyone who steals another person's gun, even if the gun owner is a relative. Second, how about tax credits for gun owners to purchase gun safes. Third, don't rush off imposing new state regulations before you see what the federal requirements are going to be. Fourth, if a person has a federal security clearance, (as I do), then that should be enough to satisfy any federal or state requirements for gun ownership.
Since I actually work in Northern Massachusetts, I am thinking about moving to Southern Vermont, where the laws are more reasonable.
So CT, here's the thing. I'm a successful, hard working, tax paying husband and father who really doesn't think your state is worth living in anymore. When people like me leave, who's going to be left?