CT Sandy Hook Advisory Commission: Register All Firearms, Ban Any Gun That Holds More Than 10-Rounds, Etc.

 Sandy Hook Elementary School (courtesy ramblingbeachcat.com)

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy’s Sandy Hook Advisory Commission has released its interim report. [Click here to read.] The document calls for a firearms registry for all guns in the Constitution State and a ban on any and all firearms that can hold more than 10 rounds without reloading. The panel also recommends restricting ammo purchases “for registered firearms only,” banning all “armor-piercing and incendiary bullets,” a mandatory renewal (with test) for all permit holders and requiring that firearms be stored in a locked container within residents’ homes. And with that, Hamden Mayor and commission chairman Scott Jackson said his group will spend the coming months focusing on mental health services. Meanwhile, check out how the legal scholars in the Commission skirted around the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution . . .

The Commission takes seriously the rights afforded under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, but balances those rights against the language of the Preamble to the Constitution, which includes assurances of “domestic tranquility” and the obligation to“promote the general welfare”.

Governor Malloy’s office has not responded to the Commission’s findings, which include recommendations on school security.

comments

  1. avatar Joseph says:

    God Bless Texas

  2. avatar Random says:

    I wonder how the gov’t that can’t seem to find millions of illegal immigrants and deport them, thinks that it will find and confiscate millions of guns…

    1. avatar pcrh says:

      Because it isn’t about finding all the guns (most of which are not used in crimes anyway). It is about making people criminals. Government can’t control a free man. But it can do anything it wants to a criminal.

      1. avatar Leo338 says:

        That’s correct. Once you are a criminal and in jail, prison, parole, or probation you are considered property of the state. If you get a tattoo under these conditions they can charge you with more crimes since you are destroying property of the state. I had family that were in prison that experienced this. They said the jail keeps records of all inmates tattoos and if they notice any new ones then you are charged accordingly.

    2. avatar DJ says:

      They’re not trying with the illegals. Anyone who thinks you can’t seal borders needs to talk to a former citizen of East Germany.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        East Germany? A flyspeck vis-a-vis the US. With an area of roughly 42K square miles, securing EG would be like securing the border of Tennessee. With half of it missing because you didn’t want to go that way.

        TX alone has a 2K mile border with MX. The former East German border with the rest-of-world was less than 900 miles.

  3. avatar Daniel says:

    Someone should send them a PDF of Heller.

  4. avatar Ray says:

    These fools care not for the rule of law unless they can use it to criminalize lawful behavior they do not like. This is so blatantly unconstitutional per Heller v DC. Bring it on tyrants.

  5. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: Sandy Hook Advisory Commissars
    RE: Heh

    None of what you propose would have stopped Lanza.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out…..liberals are ‘stupid’ or ‘evil’. And frequently BOTH!]

    1. avatar Joel Farris says:

      Came here to say this.

      One more thing, “The Commission takes seriously the rights afforded under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, but balances those rights against the language of the Preamble to the Constitution, which includes assurances of ‘domestic tranquility’ and the obligation to ‘promote the general welfare'”. They omitted the ones in the middle about ‘providing for the common defense’ and ‘securing the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES. 😉

  6. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Come on, you kinda have to admire the balls of that “Preamble” statement. It’s one of those things you wouldn’t believe someone said if you didn’t see it yourself.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Willful ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth don’t equate to courage with me.

  7. avatar Gyufygy says:

    Sooooo, SSDD. La-dee-freaking-dah.

  8. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: ‘Domestic Tranquility’??!?!?

    The Commission takes seriously the rights afforded under the Second Amendmentof the United States Constitution, but balances those rights against the language of the Preambleto the Constitution, which includes assurances of “domestic tranquility” and the obligation to“promote the general welfare”.

    Do these people REALLY think that laying the groundwork for a Second American Revolution/Civil War is going to bring about ‘domestic tranquility’?!??!?

    Obviously they are no students of history.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Weapons registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation. Followed shortly by mass murder.]

  9. avatar Flubnut says:

    Funny that they left out this little nugget from the preamble: “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

    Which put plainly means “ensure liberty for us, as well as our children”. Just sayin’

    1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

      Let alone “secure for the common defense”…..

  10. avatar Lucubration says:

    The Unconstitutional State.

    In no way is any evidence provided that these recommendations will assure “domestic tranquility” or “promote the general welfare” while completely criminalizing all gun ownership and use.

    I especially love the excuse about creating a state-wide gun registry: they find it “inconsistent” that only 1.4 million out of an estimated 3.4 million guns are unregistered in the state… so they should require registration for the other 2 million, obviously!

    There’s a particular brand of insanity up around New England.

  11. avatar Jeremy says:

    Not even shocked at this point. Though the ban on any firearm that CAN hold more than ten rounds is a bit bold, but again, not that surprising. I am still kind of new to this, but wouldn’t that pretty much eliminate most semi auto pistols?

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Yes. Yes it would.

      1. avatar Anon in Ct says:

        So that’s why Ol’ Joe told us to get a double-barralled shotty. It’s all we’ll be allowed.

    2. avatar Ron says:

      It also applies to the Henry rifle reviewed earlier.

    3. avatar Ing says:

      It would eliminate about half of all rifles in existence, too. The only gun I now own that wouldn’t be illegal under that law is my lever-action 30-30, which has a 6-round magazine.

      Although if they saw how fast I can fire that thing (not to mention topping off the magazine on the fly), they’d probably brown-streak their shorts and try to ban it too.

  12. avatar Greg Camp says:

    So the general language of the preamble trumps the specific language of an amendment? To me, promoting the general welfare would be better served by giving every citizen a Barrett .50 and a thousand rounds of ammo. It couldn’t cost too much more than registration and confiscation schemes, and sure ‘twould improve my mood.

    1. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

      Typical ‘liberal’ twistings of language into what they want it to mean….

  13. avatar Flubnut says:

    Well, if we’re using the Preamble to further our own agendas, here’s my 2 cents:

    domestic tranquility = lock down the borders, keep the criminals in jail, limit national elections to 2 months of campaigning, etc.
    promote the general welfare = balance the damn budget and lock down the f&%$#@* debt.

    See how easy that is? I should be on an Advisory Commission!

  14. avatar Seth says:

    “26.Encouraging the deployment of enhanced WiFi in schools and the usage of IP enabled cameras (to support response capacity). Special attention should be given to perimeter surveillance and areas of assembly.”

    How the hell is a school WiFi network going to stop a gunman?

    1. avatar Lucubration says:

      More WiFi bandwidth would let you set up a network of wireless IP cameras to cover most hallways and access points. You could then view them online or at least on the local network.

      This would presumably give first responders a better idea of what’s going on inside, where the gunman, victims, and potential hostages are, etc.

      1. avatar Rob says:

        Or give them, and anyone else who wanted access to that network a front stage view of another mass slaughter…

        Not saying it’s necessarily a bad idea, just when it’s compared next to armed teachers in the classroom, it doesn’t do much.

        1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

          This might be more useful than cameras.
          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster-Miller_TALON#section_2
          It fits our robot masters post from yesterday.

  15. avatar Bill says:

    Is it okay that I’m starting to agree with James Yeager, in terms in how fed up I’m getting?

  16. avatar New Chris says:

    What they really need to do is ban shooting children. That’ll work for sure.

    1. I’ve said for years criminalizing any/all forms of premeditated murder should be our #1 priority.

  17. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Shows the desperation to find ways around the 2nd A and the latest rulings.
    What impresses me is the similarity of all the latest proposals both on the National and Local levels, obviously planned and ready to go.
    Where did they come from? Anybody know?

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      They’ve been pushing bills similar to these forever. It’s just now that people are taking it seriously, and are pushing hard enough to actually get it done in some states.

    2. avatar Shenandoah says:

      Bloomberg.

  18. avatar DaveL says:

    Is anybody surprised that their list of recommendations reads pretty much word-for-word as a wish list for hoplophobes, and has virtually nothing to do with what actually happened at Sandy Hook*?

    *Not to mention even less to do with gun violence in general, of which Sandy Hook was an extreme outlier.

  19. avatar GZee says:

    How many times do you have to pretext nonsense with “common sense” or “reasonable” before it becomes so?

    1. avatar Chip says:

      They might have better results clicking their heels together three times and saying ‘there are no more guns’

  20. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: The Report as Linked To

    Have to be on Facebook to download it.

    I don’t do [don’t be evil, evil] Google or any of it’s derivatives.

    Anyone got a link to some other source?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Ipsa scientia potestas est. — Bacon]

  21. avatar Jim says:

    Apparently some perverts are really sad they can’t watch what happened at Sandy Hook. And they say gun owners are crazy……….What would cameras in Sandy Hook have changed besides nothing?

  22. avatar Highwayman says:

    The chairman of this commission, the mayor of Hamden, CT. is a member of MAIG. He is a stooge for Bloomberg and has followed his script. The govener of the state was a member of MAIG when he was mayor in Stamford, CT.

  23. avatar ThomasR says:

    Let us see, all the recommendations that would have absolutely NO effect on any mass shooting including Sandy Hook and absolutely NO recommendations that WOULD have stopped the mass murderer, like eliminate gun free zones and arm the teachers.

    Liberal/ progressive/ socialist; is it a mental disease? A tumor in the brain perhaps caused by studying obvious lies and distortions and calling it truth? A virus or bacteria contracted from mouldy books in some dank dark corner of some library stacks? Perhaps some parasitic life form from outerspace that has infested and taken over the higher mental functions of supposedly intelligent human beings?

    I truly can not imagine any situation that is too bizarre or an outlandish twilight zone scenario that would explain the mental malfunction expressed by the so called thought processes of an anti-gun individual.

  24. Welcome to my CT battle against these people. This is why I started WR2A. It’s good to see TTAG covering this. Thank you, again, Mr. Farago.

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    If you blinked, you missed it. The bogus “Commission” cited to provisions of the FEDERAL Constitution, which give no power to the states. Plus, the Second Amendment restricts Federal power, even if it’s used to promote domestic tranquility and public welfare.

    What a load of crapola.

  26. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. — Samuel Adams

    1. avatar Shenandoah says:

      Epic. If only our leaders still had the sack to speak in such black and white terms.

  27. Oh, and tomorrow evening, at Newtown High School, Chris Kocher from Bloomberg’s atrocious Mayors Against Illegal Guns will be showing up to side with the Newtown Action Alliance to spread his propaganda to the willing masses. I will be attending to present the other side of this issue. It should be…interesting, to say the least.
    http://newtownaction.org/come-hear-chris-kocher-plus-learn-of-opportunities-to-help/

  28. avatar You asked for it says:

    That is just freaking criminal. Do not give into these scumbags. If the Northern states keep assaulting their citizens rights, all the earners are going to leave those states to the broke unarmed people that they can easily control through food stamps, and government intimidation. Just sayin’.

  29. avatar Dave says:

    I thought the preamble had no legal status.

    1. avatar Bill says:

      It states the purpose of creating The Bill of Rights, it is most certainly not a document within itself or an amendment. It’s complete hogwash to water down the 2nd to “balance” it with the preamble!

    2. avatar Second Amendment says:

      Apparently no one on that silly commission knows what the term “domestic tranquility” was referring to. It had nothing to do with what they’re suggesting it does. It mostly dealt with the issue of state versus state conflicts (wars), oversight of interstate commerce, and that sort of thing. Stupid libs up there in CT.

  30. avatar Chuck Pelto says:

    TO: Anyone
    RE: Contact Info

    How do we contact these characters directly?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out….you have to take the ‘fight’ TO the ‘enemy’…..]

  31. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Thanks Ben. Yeah, sure but they’re sooo simular – like a checklist.
    Orders from the Brady Bunch, DNC, the Plant Zorcon?

  32. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Strictly speaking, it doesn’t but it’s been used as a guide to “Original Intent” in many pleadings and opinions, especially the “general welfare” clause.
    Nothing to base a law on.
    Shows the relentlessness of these critters – they never sleep.

  33. avatar David says:

    If I am not mistaken, the Bill of Rights, namely the Second Amendment was created and ratified after the United States Constitution, December 15, 1791 for the Second Amendment while the Preamble they are so fond of was ratified on June 21, 1788. Hence, the Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment modified and superseded the Preamble rending the impact on the right to bear arms nonexistent; therefore, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission’s ideas are irreverent.

  34. avatar pcrh says:

    I’ve read (in Jeff Cooper’s book, I think) that about 100 people a year escaped the eastern block. Mostly guards! Of course, they had mine fields and dogs and riflemen on towers. I don’t want that. The way things are going, I might one day want to escape.

  35. avatar Iron-B says:

    This is just what they want! Put a commission together that proposes nonsense that even a liberal democrat won’t endorse then he’ll swoop in and say that’s going too far, and when nobody is looking they’ll stick in the AWB, and the magazine ban, maybe the background checks too! See that wasn’t so bad, I’m the good guy that protected Ct gun owners 2a rights, this is just common sense, right? Hogwash, ever hear of Hegelian dialectic. Look it up we’re being played! I wish the people of Ct would wake up

  36. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Bloomberg! Is that right? Part of the Mayors Against Legal Guns thing? Right under my nose too. I try to pay no attention to what he’s up to with all too much success I see. Thanks.

    1. avatar Shenandoah says:

      Keep an eye on him up there in the Northeast too. Bloomberg resents VT, NH and ME for having a healthy respect for the 2A and being so close to his kingdom. Any efforts to restrict gun rights up there in these otherwise peaceful states will be driven by Uncle Mikey, whether his name is attached to the proposals or just his money.

      He tried similar actions against Virginia several years ago, but he was greeted with a resounding by FOAD by most.

      I fear VT being closer in proximity to his influence and more liberal-leaning will be susceptible to his machinations. Keep on fighting the good fight, I hope the true Yanks up there in the North woods can continue to keep outside influence at bay.

  37. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Yeah, the People’s Republic of Burlington is getting bigger every day. Thanks for your good wishes and info. Til next time.

  38. avatar Ropingdown says:

    We are fortunate that Amendment II does not include a provision empowering periodic review by commissions of over-wrought citizens in one locality or another.

  39. avatar BDub says:

    Not sure, but I am fairly certain inalienable right trumps assurances.

  40. avatar Pat says:

    Dont vote democrat AGAIN. Stupid libtards.
    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  41. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “… balances those rights against the language of the Preamble to the Constitution, which includes assurances of ‘domestic tranquility’ and the obligation to ‘promote the general welfare’.”

    I am stunned every time someone takes a tiny, vague comment and blows it up to trump anything and everything. More to the point, those statements are in the Preamble to the Constitution and express the purpose of federal government, not its powers.

    I suppose this should not be a surprise since the same people think the preamble to the Second Amendment somehow grants power to the federal government to interfere with citizens’ ability to keep and bear arms.

  42. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This is supposed to be a reply to Lucubration’s comment above but it appears at the bottom of comments for reasons I don’t understand because I was clearly typing a reply to Lucubration’s comment above.

    “In no way is any evidence provided that these recommendations will assure ‘domestic tranquility’ or ‘promote the general welfare’ while completely criminalizing all gun ownership and use.”

    Evidence either way is irrelevant because that does not justify infringing on citizens’ rights. No one would doubt for an instant that there would be greater domestic tranquility if any law enforcement officer could search and/or inspect any thing at any time at any place for any or no reason … including homes and even strip searches. But such activity demeans people and is never acceptable behavior. Neither is infringing on any other right.

  43. avatar Alex Ignatiev says:

    The preamble is the statement of purpose, but the entire point of the Amendments is that they supersede the earlier texts of the Constitution. The only exception to this principle is apparently the 14th Amendment, which trumps any subsequent Amendment (or at least the 21st Amendment, according to Granholm v. Heald), except the one that would presumably repeal the 14th Amendment.

    Contrariwise, it is difficult to take DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago to guarantee an absolute 2d Amendment right against the states, although certainly it appears to do so against the feds, with certain important restrictions. Regardless, it is clear that this list of recommendations is not compatible with DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and if Connecticut adopts them, they are buying the taxpayers a very expensive lawsuit they are sure to lose.

    Generic, throw-away cop-out: Glad I live in Mississippi, where this nonsense will never happen. Sad that people continue to make policy based on emotion, and not reason.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email