Wednesday, April 03, 2013

An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention And Children's Safety

So, I'm pleased to say this is a good thing.

Full disclosure: I'm a licensed handgun owner. I possess a valid Connecticut State permit to carry handguns (although I never do, unless I'm going to a shooting range or a gun shop) and I enjoy the protections that the Second Amendment provides for me. I enjoy going to a range occasionally and putting holes in a paper target. This is one way that I have fun.

I don't see this new law changing that right in any way.

The State Senate today voted on and approved a bill that will ban certain types of guns and magazines, and control ammunition purchasing.

From the Hartford Courant:

Approval of the bill came at 6:38 p.m. by a 26-10 vote – with two of 22 Democrats and eight of 14 Republicans opposed. The measure was sent to the House, where approval was expected early Thursday. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy says he will sign the bipartisan bill once both legislative chambers approve it.

"This is a new and historic model for the country on an issue that has typically been the most controversial and divisive. We in Connecticut are breaking new ground today," Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said near the end of the six-hour debate.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, whose district includes Newtown, said that since the mass killings, "I've been working, as have others … to see what we can do to heal that community — if we can do anything. What we can do to make Connecticut safer? … I'm proud that we've done that."

To hear these words out loud reflects what most of the state's citizens think is a move forward. Our leaders are breaking new ground in the effort to bring some sense to what our forefathers intended when they created our nation.

The State House will likely vote on this bill tomorrow (Thursday) and Governor Malloy has promised to sign it.

When this happens, our state will lead the nation in finally bringing some sanity to the debate about which kind of weapons are allowed to be owned legally. Keeping in mind that the 2nd Amendment was created during a time when there were absolutely NO repeating weapons, and a school massacre by a lone gunman would have necessitated a period of 30 to 60 seconds between each shot when the shooter had to pause to reload his black powder gun.

I wonder how many of those children would be alive today had the Newtown killer not had automatic weapons and 30-shot clips available during his rampage.


Daniel Jones said...

i'm also a pistol owner with a valid state permit to do so and a Ct resident, origionally born and raised in Newington, now residing in Manchester. I do not own, nor have i ever owned, a rifle of any kind or a shotgun of any kind.

I think thats great that this law will not infringe on your rights to go shoot at paper, but what of the rights of other to do the same? take away their right to shoot at paper bbecause of the look of their gun or the size of the magazine?

if youre shooting at a piece of paper with a pistol and a 10rd magazine, and the guy next to you is shooting at paper with a bushmaster and a 30rd magazine what is the crime? The actions of both individuals are the same and there is no victim of either of those actions, yet the individual next to you is looking at jailtime, not because of an action he commited being dangerous or invasive to another individual.

this is where the law becomes authoritarian. Murder, assault, robbery, manslaughter, even threatening, are all already crimes.

Now shooting at a piece of paper is a crime, heck, not even commiting an action, just owning something makes you criminal.

This is a step backwards, not forward.

CT Bob said...

I agree with you for the most part. Sadly, the massive availability of assault weapons has gotten so far out of control in our nation that it is far too easy for a nutcase to obtain the necessary firepower to destroy dozens of lives in an instant.

It really boils down to a matter of degree. Just as it's perfectly legal to own and operate a motor vehicle, I can't take a Nascar race car for a jaunt to the market at 180 mph. That would be unsafe for the public at large.

The same thing applies to advanced weaponry. If the 2nd Amendment was all encompassing of every conceivable weapon, then we'd all have the right to own RPGs, 50-cal machine guns, and tactical nuclear weapons. We need to draw the line somewhere, and I simply don't agree with the need for a 30-round clip for home protection.

Maybe if some of these people spent more time at the range, they wouldn't NEED 30 shots to hit what they're aiming at!