Armed Polite Society

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

R.I.P. Scout26

Author Topic: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!  (Read 4843 times)

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« on: March 22, 2011, 06:55:38 AM »

From a friend who has taken the lead:

Folks,

I cannot stress enough the need to make your voices heard on this issue.

 The hardest part is getting started on a letter to write is picking a topic so here are some thoughts to get the process flowing… these topics where generously donated by a very motivated and patriotic member of MSI and is for you to use with your own words to craft emails to the committee.  The email addresses of the committee members are below in a link…

State Bill 1094          High-capacity Magazine Ban                              March 2011

 1)  Step in wrong direction:  LImiting the effectivness, by restricting the magazine capacity, of a defensive tool is the first step in removing the tool altogether.  Which is the first step in unarming the citizenry.  Which is the first step in enslaving the people. 

 2) Lack of trust: A ban on so-called “high capacity” magazines is not about crime prevention or about criminals at all, because it won't affect them.  It's about trust.  It's about trusting the citizens who are gun owners.

          It's about one group, largely a subset of non-gun-owners (the anti-gun groups) saying to gun owners "we don't trust you".  That "our fear is more important than your knowlege and skills".  So the anti-gun groups have mounted a sneak attack against law-abiding citizens who have met the requirements for an eligibility certificate, or a 'permit to carry', but now their "suitability" is being called into question, again.  It implys that gun owners can't be trusted with that much potentency.  What?  It might go to their heads and corrupt them into becoming criminals?  Puuleeeease.  Stop already.  What's next, claims that gun owners are daft because they have fallen under the influence of guns, and 'gun owner' is synonymous with 'gun nut'?  It would not be right to force anti-gun people to go through the training and certification process to become gun owners.  Personally I'm in favor of it, but that doesn't make it right.  It's also not right for anti-gun people to try to force their views on gun owners.  We just need to respect each other's differences, and get along here. 

3) Societal weakness: How many rounds in a magazine is O.K., 10, 15, 20?  How many criminals in a city is O.K., 10, 15, 20, or more?  If this bill where to propose to restrict the number of criminals per unit area, would you even have one, single, law-abiding citizen objecting to it?  I think not.  So is this bill an admission that we have given up on effectively controlling crime, and now are reduced to proposing ways to LOOK like we are controlling crime? 

 4)  Lack of logical connection:  When the media sensationalizes 'gun crime' instead of just 'crime', it is easy, but wrong, to think that we can eliminate this (or these) particular form(s) of crime by eliminating guns (or even less so by restricting magazine capacity).  There are no brackets around a segment of crime by which we can starve out the crime by depriving criminals of a certain tool, and that is even assuming the ability to legislate the tool out of this state.

5)A comparison of need: Average (typical) citizens need high-capacity magazines more than law-enforcement officers do.  I'm not saying that they shouldn't have them also, just making a comparison.  When anyone, peace officer or citizen, finds themselves in harm's way, certain physiological changes occur-

 
·                   breathing increases, heart starts pounding.

·                     adrenaline shoots up.

·                     vision narrows and becomes more acute.

·                     large muscle groups prepare for 'fight or flight'.

·                     instinctive reactions predominate, and cognitive processes (decision making) is difficult.

 fine motor skills go right down the drain.

 Let me say that again, fine motor skills are severely challenged!  Changing from one magazine to another requires fine motor skills (fingers, not whole limbs).  Smart citizens, like peace officers, should practice with their gun.  That way if they ever need to use it they won't get snarled up in thinking about how to operate the tool when their decision-making ability needs to be focused on what is going on around them.  There is a difference in the training available to the citizen vs the peace officer.  Many public shooting ranges prohibit practicing drawing from holsters and magazine changes, but all peace officer ranges allow it, and many require it.

Additionally, a person who is repeatedly exposed to the kind of stress that causes those physiological changes (peace officer) gradually acquires the ability to function better under those conditions.  A citizen doesn't usually (excepting military and a few others) get that repetitious training, and is likely to be highly affected by the situation.  If this bill passes, people (huge numbers of people) who had previously felt confident in having ONE high-capacity magazine for their home-protection tool will be worried about fumbling a magazine change in their once-in-a-lifetime (hopefully never) moment of need.  And for what?  What is the upside to this? 

6)  Erosion of essential services: Present-day budget crunches at every level, Federal, State and local, have been, and are having negative effects on essential services.  Legislation, Judicial processes, and on-the-street law enforcement have been strained, and limited.  People become reliant on (and dependent to) organized protective services, which makes sense in good times, both for economic efficiencies and the benefits of specialization.  In not-good times, the common person feels more responsibility to be prepared to defend and protect themselves.  We read the papers, we know that services are eroding, and we suspect we aren't being told the whole story.  What police department is going to advertise that they can no longer staff to the level they previously estimated that we need, or afford the ammunition to train as frequently as they did?  Who has the time to watch all of the legislation to see that as quickly as a pen stroke, another leg of the stabilizing factors in our society hasn't been kicked out from under us so that the government can pay the interest on its debt (our debt).  Do we draw a line and say,,,, If THIS happens, then I'll go out and buy that 9mm handgun with a hi-capacity magazine, and then IT does happen, and WHOA I'm not even allowed to own that gun/magazine because someone has already kicked that leg out from under the table.  That's just not right.  What is there to fear?  Fiscal erosion combined with irresponsible monetary policy, plus a big dose of entitlement-program spending, and a prison system that just can't keep up.  Let's not make it worse with egregious, knee-jerk (feels-good to do something, or do anything) legislation. 

 7)  Doesn't affect criminals, but galls everyone else:  Who is this legislation supposed to affect, and how?  Let's assume this bill is NOT a blatant first step by the anti-gun groups to disarm our citizens.  We'll assume this is intended to prevent some segment of violent crime.  Let's draw a word-picture of this archetypal criminal.  Most crimes in which a gun is misused are committed by repeat offenders.  They already have a 'rap sheet'.  They are not likely to be approved for an eligibility certificate (to own a gun kept in one's home).  Even less likely to be found 'suitable' for a pistol permit (to carry).  So if they have a gun it is likely that the gun itself is an illegal gun (hot, stolen, black market).  Their possessing of it is breaking another law.  If they take it into public (rather necessary for most crimes) a third law is broken.  Then they commit the crime itself, and are breaking one or more OTHER laws.  Do we really think that stacking one more law on top of all those others is going to make a difference?  In the criminal mind, will this have even one shred of deterrence?  Not probable. 

            So, since this legislation (if passed) isn't likely to affect the criminals (a small fraction of society), let's look at who it would affect.

 A)  It would directly affect those who currently own guns and those who decide to become gun owners (a much larger fraction of society). Most high-capacity mags are owned by law-abiding citizens.  Would law enforcement officers be allowed to have High-Capacity magazines in their own (private) guns, or just in their duty guns?  Would this apply to the 22 caliber 'plinking' rifle that fathers hand down to their sons?  Would it apply to ownership across-the-board even for people who shoot only on their own property?  Would it apply to home defense tools, or just to carry guns?  I think we can safely predict that many law abiding gun owners will be angered by it.  They would either turn in their magazines and have a lasting resentment toward the government that imposed this draconian and senseless measure, or they would not turn them in, and risk being found with them.  This is the worst possible scenario, because it would force them to become criminals (ethically) to do what they think is right (morally) in a small but important way.  The bar would be lowered, psychologically, that separates the law-abiding (socially stabilizing) citizen, from the criminal (de-stabilizing).  If you treat your law-abiding citizens like criminals, more of them will act the part. 

B)  It would indirectly affect everyone in this society (the whole 'fraction' = 1/1), yes everyone.  It decreases the deterrent effect of private gun ownership, and it weakens social stability. 

8)   "If guns cause crimes, all of mine are defective."        --- Ted Nugent ---

 If gun magazines which hold more than ten rounds cause crime, then forks and knives cause obesity.  Add in those culprits, large spoons, ooooh they're really bad. 

Guns don't cause crime, people do.  People also prevent and resist crime.  Guns empower the criminal, but they also empower people to prevent and resist crime.  High-capacity magazines raise the empowerment on both sides, unless and until, something unbalances that.  Something like a law that takes high-capacity mags away from one group but not the other. 

Laws don't "make it so", adherence to laws does.  If one group adheres to the law and the other does not, a 'tipping factor' is unbalanced.  Once tipped, the result is hard to predict, but the "law of unintended consequences" is wide open and never rests.  Has this bill been thought through?

9)  Anti-nut, not anti-gun -magazine:  In any population, there are a handful of 'disturbed' individuals who are bound-and-determined to inflict themselves on society.  Could it even Emil orate the tragedy, or lessen the number of events? Or would the inventive, and frustrated, criminal mind simply choose another vehicle for self expression?  Abductions, bombs, and many other weapons are available, as we see, looking around the world. 

10)    Every right comes with a responsibility:  S.B. 1094 in not so much about gun magazine capacity, as it is about the preservation of the freedom of choice.  The forefathers of this country risked (and some gave) their lives, to the cause of liberty, by which they secured freedom for this country. Do you think that they would have taken perfectly good muskets and bent the barrels, or carried less powder and shot into the battle? Do you think that we should take perfectly good guns and bend the barrels or equip them fewer rounds than the guns were intended to hold? . 

 11)  "Freedom is two wolves and one lamb, voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."    --- Ben Franklin --- 

 It is every citizen's duty to uphold Freedom in this country, which occasionally requires some few citizens to exercise their Liberty by defending themselves.  If the wolves come to my door, my definition of well-armed may include a magazine capacity greater than ten rounds.  And I don't think anyone else should be re-defining 'well-armed' for me either. 

 " Those who would give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little Temporary Security, deserve neither liberty nor security."            ---  Ben Franklin  --- 

 12) On legal grounds:  This bill clearly infringes on the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.  To even be considered it should spell-out which "compelling state interest(s)" are at stake, and how this act would unquestionably secure those interests.  Shouldn't that be written in the space provided labeled 'PURPOSE'?  The proposal should also list the options and alternatives to this act to similarly secure those "compelling state interests".  Instead, by leaving that out, it implies there are no other ways to accomplish the objective.  Is this the best that our elected legislators can do?  Is it even acceptable?  Does this proposal even merit the safety committee's time and attention?  I would send it back directly, and if the 'introducer' can't (or won't) present something more detailed and compelling; just don't give it the time of day. 

 13)  Not good legislation:  With every right comes a responsibility.  Legislation should not be meddling with and micro-managing how people choose to exercise their rights.  Legislation should be promoting and incentivizing people who are acting responsibly, also restricting and punishing those who aren't.  This bill proposes to do the opposite.  Instead of stiffening the penalties for criminals who misuse guns, and strengthening the enforcement of those laws, it restricts the law-abiding citizens and threatens them will 'felony by edict'.  To think that a tool which a thoughtful and deliberate individual either has already purchased or would have purchased eventually, is suddenly illegal and carries a penalty of felony, is severely restrictive and punitive.  Way over-reaching. 

 14)  The criminal's whipping-boy:  This bill, S.B.1094 proposes to 'take something away', from someone, actually a large group of someone’s.  The way it is written differs from how it would work.  The intent may be to deprive criminals and 'nuts' from having high-capacity magazines.  The wording is that it takes them away from (almost) everyone.  The application of the act would only be effective on law-abiding citizens. This is not fair, not smart, not just and not right... and this is serious legislation?  The stable, law-abiding, citizen who either is, or will become a gun owner is to be the legislative 'whipping boy' for the criminals?  Is there a gun owner, anyone out there at all, who would submit to this?  Is there a court anywhere that would enforce this? 

 15)  "gun-crime" is an oxymoron.  Is this bill leveled at reducing gun-crime? 

 16)  "An armed society is a polite society."    --- Robert A. Heinlein

 The intended purpose of firearms and their value to society is that they make each person equal to every other person.  They level the 'playing field' of human rights.  They make the rights of a physically smaller, weaker person equal to those of a larger, stronger person. Firearms are the fulcrum of an egalitarian society.  Magazine capacity strengthens the good purposes of gun ownership Because bullies (thugs, home invaders, gangsters) often present themselves collectively against individuals, to assure they are successful in over-powering their intended victim, firearms need to be able to deliver sufficient firepower to repel and deter more than a single attacker.

 The txt of the bill:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-01094-R00-SB.htm
 
 The list of the committee members:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=JUD

 To have CCDL submit copies to the committee email a copy to:

admin@ccdl.us

 IF YOU ARE NOT A FREE MEMBER TO CCDL BY NOW THEN SIGN_UP HERE (IT”S FREE)—

 http://www.ccdl.us/membership
 

Avoid cliches like the plague!

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2011, 11:21:14 AM »

Ok, DON'T FALL OVER!! but this came to me from edith prague in regards to the high cap mag ban bill:

Mr. 280,
 
Thanks for your email. Just this week I was speaking to a state police officer, who was explaining all the reasons to oppose this bill.
After my conversation, I can say for a fact that I will most certainly oppose this piece of legislation.
 
Edith

Avoid cliches like the plague!

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,721
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2011, 11:32:40 AM »

Yeah. Right.

The very same state police who publicly say they "just want to enforce the law," but privately submit legislation to "clarify" that open carry is illegal because right now it is NOT illegal -- and they don't like it.

I'm sure a state cop explained why this law isn't any good. (Psst, hey Buddy -- wanna buy a bridge?)

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,870
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2011, 11:45:48 AM »

I take issue with this:

Quote
5)A comparison of need: Average (typical) citizens need high-capacity magazines more than law-enforcement officers do.  I'm not saying that they shouldn't have them also, just making a comparison.  When anyone, peace officer or citizen, finds themselves in harm's way, certain physiological changes occur-

 
·                   breathing increases, heart starts pounding.

·                     adrenaline shoots up.

·                     vision narrows and becomes more acute.

·                     large muscle groups prepare for 'fight or flight'.

·                     instinctive reactions predominate, and cognitive processes (decision making) is difficult.

 fine motor skills go right down the drain.

Police defensive shooting hit rates are around 15-20% for NYPD (one of the worst-trained departments out there when it comes to skill at arms) and around 60-65% in Baltimore (for daylight shootings... could not find stats for combined daylight/nighttime encounters).

Civilian defensive shooting hit rates are MUCH higher than the much-touted, worshiped and vaunted NYPD.  Many estimate the civilian hit ratio to be around 50%. 

Civies who actually care enough to keep a gun handy for self defense are, as a rule, better shots than the average police officer.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2011, 11:52:48 AM »

Good point. I don't necessarily like the reference that LE are somehow better shots to begin with. Seems rather counterproductive to me. Charlie isn't perfect but he works hard at this. His wife too..

All I care about is Edith voting against the damn bill. If she's going to vote against it I can't see who will vote for it. NRA gives her a "D".
Avoid cliches like the plague!

TMM

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2011, 05:42:31 PM »

do i have to be a member of ccdl to email them a copy of the letter? is the letter you posted a generic letter than can be used?

tmm

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2011, 10:09:44 PM »

It's supposed to be guidelines or suggestions for any letter you might compose yourself. You do not need to belong to CCDL but they would like it if you would join. FTR I haved not joined yet myself but should.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,721
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2011, 10:17:42 PM »

The public hearing was today. Is there any feedback from any Connecticut residents who attended or testified?

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2011, 09:08:58 PM »

Not that I have heard. I'll probably get an ear full next week at the match.
Avoid cliches like the plague!

209

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2011, 01:11:40 AM »


Yeah. Right.

The very same state police who publicly say they "just want to enforce the law," but privately submit legislation to "clarify" that open carry is illegal because right now it is NOT illegal -- and they don't like it.

I'm sure a state cop explained why this law isn't any good. (Psst, hey Buddy -- wanna buy a bridge?)


Don't confuse the institutional mindset with the officer's mindset.  The DPS is institutionally pretty much antigun.  The troopers- not so much.  Same as it is in most PDs.

The law sucks and it's based on an faulty premise.  It will do nothing to limit crime and just negatively impact law-abiding folk.

Battle Monkey of Zardoz

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,911
  • A more Elegant Monkey for a more civilized Forum.
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2011, 01:19:06 AM »

Quote
Don't confuse the institutional mindset with the officer's mindset. 

Both are the same. I once thought differently, but after watching gun bills fail with the support of LE, my opinion changed   
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Abraham Lincoln


With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

Perd Hapley

  • Radicalized since 1776 - beep/bop/boop
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56,822
  • I just realized I am not holding my microphone
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2011, 01:28:23 AM »

Quote
CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!

Good for them! It's fundamental.
This member used to have another name, and the name that this member used to have was fistful.

209

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2011, 01:45:29 AM »

Both are the same. I once thought differently, but after watching gun bills fail with the support of LE, my opinion changed  

Well, based on my experience (16+ years on the job), I'd say most individual officers are in the middle of the road on the subject.  My dept has 18 sworn members.  Four of us are gun enthusiasts; we have three or four who are pretty anti-gun.  The rest don't care about the subject one way or the other.  

My boss who is a lifetime NRA member is one of the antigun ones.  Go figure.  But then again, he's involved in the politics that come with the position and that requires a rather liberal stance.  Since most chiefs of police are basically political appointments, they follow the wishes of their boss who is a politician.  If it's a liberal town or state, I'd wager the chief is going to wave the liberal flag.

209

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
Re: CONNECTICUT PEOPLE READ!!
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2011, 02:28:49 AM »

Good news for now.

The bill, arguably the most controversial to be raised this legislative session, brought hundreds of gun owners to the Capitol last month.

"Over 200 people from all walks of life came and testified against it and I think they made their case,'' state Sen. John Kissel, the ranking Republican on the panel, said this morning.

At this point, he said, the bill is "basically dead,'' although, like any proposal, it could be raised as an amendment before the House or Senate.


http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2011/04/bill-banning-largecapacity-amm.html