CT Memorandum of Lies Defends Disarmament. Help Us Pull it to Pieces!

Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy has filed a Memorandum of Law asking the U.S. District Court to dismiss legal action against Bill 1160: “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety.” The memo argues that “the challenged Act does not implicate or burden Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The opening paragraph is a thinly veiled tissue of lies . . .

Deaths and injuries caused by firearms in the United States each year are epidemic.

There are over 31,000 firearm-related deaths and 75,000 firearm-related injuries annually, and in many instances the victim is an innocent child. Military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines substantially contribute to these numbers, and have been a menace to public safety and law enforcement from the moment they became prevalent in the civilian gun market over thirty years ago. Since that time they have been disproportionately used in gun crime relative to their presence in the civilian gun market, and, in particular, in the most serious types of crime.

They also are exceedingly destructive and dangerous instruments that cause substantially more injuries, and more serious injuries, than other conventional kinds of weaponry. And they are not necessary, or arguably even suitable, for legitimate self defense.

How can anyone in good conscience write such patently false drivel? The rest of the memorandum isn’t quite as bald-faced as the opening salvo. In fact, the document is a fascinating look at how the antis ante-up when their civilian disarmament laws are subjected to Constitutional review. Fascinating and long. So long and so wrong, in fact, that I don’t have the Bruce Krafftian stamina to deconstruct all of its often clever obfuscations, lies and misdirections.

So I’m turning to you, our Armed Intelligentsia, to take this attack on our firearms freedom to pieces, piece by piece. Please click on the link above, find a section that you find particularly odious, paste the text into a comment and let loose the dogs of war. (Just one section.) Expose the Governor’s fallacies with logic, passion and relevant information.

This will be TTAG’s first “crowd-sourced critique.” If successful, it will represent the birth a semi-wikipedia-esque method with which this website and its readers can defend Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected (in theory) right to keep and bear arms. If not, it’s still worth a try. United we stand. Divided we blog and comment. Which seems to work just fine, as well. Thank you, in advance, for your help with this experiment.

comments

  1. avatar ST says:

    There is no reason to isolate a specific section.

    The entire document is a pack of lies, unworthy of intellectual consideration and a disgrace to these United States of America.

    If we had an Attorney General worthy of the office, Malloy and Cuomo would be indicted on treason charges.

    Yet, we stand at this disgraceful precipice because too many foolish voters elected people like Malloy, Cuomo, and Obama.That’s a history lesson we should remember,because we cannot afford to repeat it much longer.

    1. avatar Jay1987 says:

      I have never seen so much legalese, double talk, and intentionally hard to understand drivel in my entire life. The whole “bill” reads like a who’s who of gun control lies, half truths, and poorly worded statements so as to be vague enough to allow antis to use it as a ban yet confusing enough to get some of the less intelligent judges to go for it.
      In short it is a document made by a lawyer for other lawyers to use in order to infringe upon law abiding citizens’ freedom in order to line their pockets.

      1. avatar Andrew says:

        Seriously – WTF is this BS:

        “Military-style assault weapons…Since that time they have been disproportionately used in gun crime relative to their presence in the civilian gun market, and, in particular, in the most serious types of crime.”

        This is just a flat-out LIE.

        This is so not-true it has collapsed space-time and has formed a gravitational rift in the space-time continuum.

  2. avatar Mike says:

    “Since that time they have been disproportionately used in gun crime relative to their presence in the civilian gun market, and, in particular, in the most serious types of crime.”

    So what you’re trying to say is people don’t use assault weapons in the commission of crime, relative to their presence in the civilian gun market…

    From BJS Selected Findings “Firearms, crime, and criminal justice”
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

    “Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns.”
    “Surveys of inmates show that they prefer concealable, large caliber guns.”

    Edit: That took less than 5 minutes on Google to find a citation worthy resource… Took less than 5 minutes to find the truth.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      They don’t want truth…

    2. avatar Anon in CT says:

      “disproportionate” means out of proportion, yes?

      Since AR-type rifles are used in a tiny portion of crimes, compared to their prevalence in the universe of American guns, it is in fact disporportionate.

      Disproportionately small.

    3. avatar Andrew says:

      I posted pretty much the same comment above.

      I am waiting for the not-true-ness of this publicity statement to rip a hole in our dimension and open up the Key of Gozer.

  3. avatar Matt says:

    Well if you want to see the garbage the state is relying on, here is their exhibit list:

    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Shew-v.-Malloy_Defendants-Exhibit-List___83.pdf

    Mother Jones studies, Washington post studies, Brady center studies, MAIG studies etc……

  4. avatar Jay In Florida says:

    Unfortunately I cant put it into words. Im not that good of a liar.
    Just some more drivel from another guy who thinks he is the smartest in the room.
    To him the rest of us are beneath him.
    Same way with Oslama,,,,,,,,
    They both should be brought up on treason charges……..add Holder to the list too.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Reading pages 19 and 20, I was somewhat gratified to find that Gary Kleck had already reached precisely the same conclusions I had, from independent study, concerning patterns in mass shootings. Right down to the 30 RPM maximum rate-of-fire, and its feasibility using a revolver with speed loaders.

  5. avatar James1000 says:

    Good God these people have absolutely no personality. And it seems, (as Malloy has pointed out) that we have gone from 90% of Americans to 92% of Americans who support “sensible gun regulations.” Where the hell are these donkeys getting there data?!?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      From the same orifice that the 90% statistic emanated. And it smells just as bad.

  6. avatar Bob says:

    Every sentence and phrase is false. EVERY one!

    Governor Malloy is either extremely ignorant on this subject, or a bald-faced liar of the highest degree.

    If he is extremely ignorant, then he should be recalled or impeached, because he appears incapable of or unwilling to do his job. In this country, we elect people to represent us in the government, because we don’t have the time to become deeply knowledgeable on every issue. We expect our elected representatives to study the issues and make educated decisions. Governor Malloy is derelict in his duty as an elected representative.

    If he is lying, then he should also be recalled or impeached, for neglecting the trust the people have put in him.

    “An honest but mistaken person, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken, or ceases to be honest.”

  7. avatar DJ says:

    The right to armed self defense is a natural right derived and not a privilege granted by government.

    The same people who are advocating this position would tell you you can’t declaw your cat, because then the cat is defenseless.

    The right to defend one’s life does not come from government. End of debate.

    1. avatar Jay In Florida says:

      As both a multiple owner of both cats and guns.
      Declawing a cat is cruel and unusual punishment to a cat.
      Its against its natural nature to be left defenseless as you would be less your guns.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Yeah, it’s reprehensible and thoroughly indefensible.

      2. avatar DJ says:

        and missing the point entirely…

        Yes, Jay – it’s exactly like declawing your cat. That was my point…

        It highlights the hypocrisy of the left when you point out that on the one hand rendering an animal defenseless is inhumane, but, by their own argument, doing the same thing with a human is not.

  8. avatar ChuckN says:

    To continue on with ST’s point; it’s not so much finding errors as it
    is finding consequences. During most of the 19th century no
    politician would have dared openly speak such easily verifiable
    lies without the very real risk of tar and feathering. Now we have
    courts that openly protect lying even if there is benefit. (Stolen
    Valor Act US Vs. Alvarez 2012 anyone?) Other than the possibility
    of being voted out (not so easy for various reasons, gerrymandering,
    voter fraud etc…), what consequences are their for a politician
    willfully defying the constitution?

    That said, I believe there is some method to their madness. Instead of
    hoplophobia, those in the political and judicial classes may hold a
    genuine fear the 2nd Amendment because they realize exactly why it
    was written in the first place.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      You are absolutely correct. There are no consequences. They have loaded the courts and districts and they could take a crap and cleaned his ass and turned in the tissue paper for a brief and the judges would have just smelled it with pleasure. The document is utter BS, but who is going to call him out? When you have a majority of the population that is low information voters and the media supporting an emotional view over actual facts and law, what is to stop these people?

      This evening on the local NPR station the guys on the radio were ready to lick Malloy’s boots over affordable housing when in fact, the state ranks 50th!!! since 2003!! When you continue to hold these people up on a pedestal with zero criticism, what you get is crap leadership.

      The opening salvo was just as well have been a campaign speech because politicians these days do nothing but campaign and figured it was another opportunity to talk to the base. Once again, pure BS.

    2. avatar chuck (slave to nj) says:

      I’ve been saying it for years we need to round up the politicians and go back to tar and feathering along with public stoning. We can charge admission to throw a $5 rock. Between that and payper view we could put a big dent in our national debt.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Sadly, when tar and feathers were in vogue there were almost no lawyers (relatively speaking) and people settled their own disputes locally. Look where we’ve gone…

  9. avatar Accur81 says:

    In law enforcement, the AR is my number one self defense tool whenever I have notice that I am engaging a suspected felony or actual felony in progress. Law enforcement all over the nation use AR-15s for self defense, because it is one of the best firearms available for that purpose. When police officers voluntarily put bullet buttons and reduced capacity magazines in their firearms to be used in a duty capacity, then perhaps they could make the argument that such restrictions improve public safety.

  10. avatar Pat says:

    Well, many of you voted for these libtards (democrats). Don’t vote libtard (democrat) again. Problem solved.

    1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

      Trouble is the Republican governors ran the economy into the ground with idiotic levels of waste, government expansion, and exorbitant tax breaks to attract companies that left as soon as the breaks expired. When the rest of the country was gaining jobs, we were just treading water. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

      1. avatar DJ says:

        You’re in CT. That’s not exactly a conservative state. So, you guys elected some RINOs and then got upset because they did what RINOs do?

        There’s not much difference between a center-left Republican and a Democrat.

        If you want smaller government, vote for candidates who think big government is bad. It shouldn’t be a left/right issue … but …

        Name a Democrat who has advocated for a budget in the past 5 years (You know, that thing they are required to do by law – except when they ignore the law)?

        Name a Democrat who wants to reduce the size of government?

        That’s right, there are zero-zip-no fiscally responsible Democrats who will buck the political machine to reduce government waste. Not all Repubs will either, but at least there are a few.

      2. avatar Steve (CT) says:

        The Dems have controlled both the state house & senate since the early 90’s, making it pretty hard to keep spending under control. Rowland (R) made bad deals with the state employee unions that were back-loaded so they looked good when he was in office but now are a drag on spending.

        Agree with too many tax breaks so Govs can proclaim they are adding jobs rather than creating a competitive environment for businesses.

      3. avatar Jus Bill says:

        To hijack the discussion for a moment, there have been some interesting developments in the last few days in the Virginia Governor’s race. A local metropolitan paper has refused to endorse either major candidate, and Bloomberg launched a cash ball to the Democrat.

        Now back to the discussion in progress…

    2. avatar Pat says:

      Libtards (democrats) waste FAR more on their pet programs (Big Gov tax and spend socialistic utopias) and are FAR less business (capitalism) minded then the GOP. And lets not forget about gun issues.

  11. avatar Not So 1337 says:

    “Sadly, even with the enactment of the Act, gun crime has and will continue, and Defendants do not contend the Act resolved the multitude of social, cultural and economic factors that underlie the gun violence crisis in this state and others. But the Act will make a substantial difference in reducing the harms of gun violence when it does occur. Specifically, the evidence demonstrates that the Act’s strengthened prohibition on assault weapons and the newly enacted prohibition on LCMs will reduce the number of those dangerous weapons and magazines used in gun crime, and thereby substantially reduce the number and lethality of gunshot victimizations in this state.”

    First off, in this paragraph he admits that gun crime will continue. Second, lets pretend for a second that this Act works, and once in place all “military-style rifles” with “LCM’s” (the new, cool way to say large-capacity magazines) are gone, off the streets and out of the hands of criminals. Gun-control advocates love hypothetical scenarios, don’t you? Now, I’d wager a considerable sum that any criminal with access to and the will to use a “military-style rifle” in a crime will have access to any number of weapons that are not banned (remember, we are assuming in this scenario that criminals follow local weapons laws). Therefor, being that he turned in his rifle like any law-abiding criminal would, what will he use instead?

    Our hypothetical criminal, who was planning to rob and maybe kill some folks down at the pizza place will just have to use his trusty glock, or shotgun, or maybe even a revolver to carry out the deed. So all that the law has changed is that instead of getting shot by rifle rounds fed through a large-capacity magazine, they will instead be getting shot by shotguns, or handguns, or anything else a criminal might have. Therefor, gun violence will not go down at all. The same people will still end up dead or in the hospital, the only change will be the type of gunshot they receive.

    Of course, jumping back into the real world here, all of this is a moot point because criminals will still have these scary black rifles with their LCM’s (acronyms are scary too!). How will they have these things if they are so illegal you ask? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON”T FOLLOW THE F***ING LAW!

  12. avatar Not So 1337 says:

    “The AR-15 is virtually identical to the M-16, except for the fact that it can only fire on
    semiautomatic. (Delehanty Aff. at ¶¶20-21). That is not a meaningful distinction in practice; while it takes just under two seconds to empty a 30-round magazine on full automatic, it takes just five seconds to empty the same magazine on semiautomatic.”

    Really? Well if its not that big of a deal then why can’t we reinstate the manufacture and sale of machine guns to civilians? PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ?

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      My old Chevy Sprint was virtually indistinguishable from a Porsche in that both had miniscule back seats and could go 0-60 in under 20 second.

  13. avatar SC Jeff says:

    “Military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines substantially contribute to these numbers”

    2% is not a substantially high contribution.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      ANYTHING is true if they say so. Go on – ask them.

  14. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    I suppose since I sent it in I should get the ball rolling. I’m basically just taking some points of the table of contents.

    1) “Assault Weapons and LCMs Are Designed For Combat, and
    Have the Same Killing Capacity as Modern Military Weapons”

    They say that the only difference is semi-automatic vs automatic, going on to say that “But that is not a meaningful distinction for constitutional purposes”. Really? If it isn’t meaningful then why have automatic weapons been treated differently since 1934? More importantly, how is any weapon without the supposed combat features, but retaining the semi-automatic functionality any different? Somehow a pistol grip is the deciding factor in lethality? By their definition every semi-automatic firearm has the same capability as a modern military weapon.

    2) “The Act Must Be Upheld Because It Does Not “Substantially Burden” Any
    Second Amendment Rights, And Provides “Ample Alternative” Firearms For
    Self Defense”

    Well, let’s say you want a semi-automatic rifle with a magazine. Not an unreasonable thing for a variety of uses right? Without AR-15 variants, what does that leave you with? Not much, certainly very little within a reasonable price range. To my knowledge, aside from an M1A and an Mini-14, there’s practically nothing left in terms of compliant semi-automatic rifles that can be purchased in the state of Connecticut. Even those have to be modified to be compliant. So, just like the DC handgun ban, you are effectively banning an entire class of firearms. I’ll let RF address the self-defense aspect of this statement, but suffice it to say, nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say a firearm has to have a self-defense application.

    3) The Pistol Grip Language Is Not Vague
    “The language at issue obviously exists to prohibit any grip that results in any finger in addition to the trigger finger being directly below the action of the weapon when it is held in the normal firing position, which is horizontal. ” Orly? Well, what about a palm swell? That satisfies this condition. What about a bullpup design where the trigger is far forward of the action? If they design a rifle where the pistol grip is behind the action, is that ok? Also, what is “directly below”? If you draw a vertical line from the front and back of the action, is that good enough? Or is there a grey area that you want to exploit? Dollars to donuts it’s the latter.

    Anyone else want to take a crack at it? There’s plenty for everyone.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      2) “The Act Must Be Upheld Because It Does Not “Substantially Burden” Any
      Second Amendment Rights, And Provides “Ample Alternative” Firearms For
      Self Defense”

      At least until we get the rest of them.

    2. avatar Anon in CT says:

      It would have to be a mini-14 or M1A with pinned muzzle brake. I’ve seen the minis but have not found a CT-legal M1A.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      “By their definition every semi-automatic firearm has the same capability as a modern military weapon.”

      I think you have discovered the ultimate direction of this document. It was written to be challenged. Thus in negotiation to discover the ephemeral “middle ground,” a large segment of now-legal guns will become illegal.

  15. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Sam Colt would have shot this a..hole, Winchester would have given him 50 paces. This guy is a disgrace to the history of Conneticut ,and is obviously a clueless boob.Everything he says is total libaturd rubbish ,more stupid RANT from a “why do you need it” “common sense BS” ,”we respect the 2nd amendment” as we pee all over it lame brain crowd.
    I smell RECALL how about you?

  16. avatar Newt421 says:

    Ive got a few questions for Gov Malloy. So .0003% of the population is injured or killed with firearms it’s an epidemic? Less than 400 deaths attributed to long guns annually most of which are not “military style assault weapons” is disspraprotionately high use in crime? Gov. Malloy do you have a brother? Fuck him too.

  17. avatar Marc says:

    The tubular magazine section brings up an interesting premise with its discussion of “standard” round length, and the test being done with that. So if the test is based on a standard round for that caliber of firearm, doesn’t that make the “10 round .50 Beowulf” magazine (and labeled as such) a legitimate CT magazine?

  18. avatar J Mike says:

    “The [The Assault Weapons Ban] Act also contains an exemption that allows law enforcement officers to purchase assault weapons for official duties and to use them for such duties and while off-duty.”

    If one really believes an AR-15 is a “weapon of war” designed to “kill large numbers of people in a short period of time”, why would that same person want to explicitly allow our local police to carry these “excessively dangerous” weapons on duty or off-duty, on our streets near our children?

    Of course, this exemption demonstrates there is a legitimate use for modern semi-automatic rifles in our society. Our local police departments across the country arm their officers with AR-15s because they are an effective personal defense weapon to use, when confronted, against violent criminals, and we want to give our officers every advantage.

    If my family is ever confronted by one those same violent criminals, I would want every advantage, too.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Recall that last Summer a Government agency (I think DHS) published a solicitation for these exact “personal defense weapons,” thereby establishing a Federal identification of their use.

  19. avatar fiundagner says:

    Sec. 29. Section 53-202f of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

    (a) While transporting an assault weapon between any of the places [mentioned] set forth in subdivisions (1) to (6), inclusive, of subsection [(d)] (f) of section 53-202d, as amended by this act, no person shall carry a loaded assault weapon concealed from public view or knowingly have, in any motor vehicle owned, operated or occupied by [him] such person (1) a loaded assault weapon, or (2) an unloaded assault weapon unless such weapon is kept in the trunk of such vehicle or in a case or other container which is inaccessible to the operator of such vehicle or any passenger in such vehicle. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    Perhaps I’m just nitpicking, but Trunk has a very specific definition in that it is a separate compartment in a vehicle. Suppose you are transporting your weapon in your SUV. Does this (in a case or other container which is inaccessible to the operator of such vehicle or any passenger in such vehicle) mean you have to have someone else drive the key to your locked gun case to the range while you transport the weapon? Or you have the case in the back of your pickup truck. It’s a separate area, but not strictly speaking a trunk

  20. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Were attorneys involved in the drafting and submitting of this documentation to the court? If so, can they not be disbarred for lying to the court? Just wondering…

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “Military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines substantially contribute to these numbers …”

    First of all, criminals have used military-style assault weapons in almost zero crimes in the last 30 years. I will acknowledge that criminals have used military-style semi-automatic rifles to commit a few crimes in the last 30 years. As it stands the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports do not tell us whether a criminal used a shotgun, hunting rifle, or “military style semi-automatic rifle” in crimes. Those reports only differentiate between handguns and long guns. Year after year, when criminals use a firearm as a weapon in a violent crime, they use long guns a very small percentage of the time. In fact criminals only used long guns in about 3% of violent crimes. To put this in perspective, criminals use their fists and feet to kill about as many people in any given year as they do with all long guns combined. That means criminals likely used their fists and feet to kill more victims than criminals used military style semi-automatic rifles to kill victims.

  22. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “large capacity magazines substantially contribute to these numbers …”

    It is impossible to debate this assertion for two reasons:

    First, was the author claiming that the combination of “military style assault rifles” loaded with “large capacity magazines” substantially contribute to “these numbers”? Or was the author claiming that “military style assault rifles” in addition to any other firearm — including handguns — that used “large capacity magazines” substantially contribute to “these numbers”?

    Second, what exactly is a large capacity magazine? Several popular handguns are shipped from the factory with standard capacity 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and even 17 round magazines. Does the author consider these to be “large capacity”? There is no way to know and no way to analyze the author’s assertion for any semblance of accuracy.

  23. avatar Mediocrates says:

    How can anyone in good conscience write such patently false drivel?

    You are talking about a politician and their lawyers, right? You feel the need to even ask?

  24. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “There are over 31,000 firearm-related deaths … annually …”

    And of those 31,000 annual deaths, 22,000 of them were suicides. So let’s look at suicides.

    Laws and punishment will not dissuade a despondent person who is determined to end their life because those laws and punishment have no application to the person after they are dead.

    Further, removing firearms from society will not prevent suicides because a despondent person who is determined to end their life has several alternative methods to end their life that are just as guaranteed and equally effective as gunshots to the head. We see this in Japan — the gun-free utopia that gun grabbers dream about — whose suicide rate far exceeds the United States.

  25. avatar CT Resident says:

    Malloy is a skilled and inveterate liar. He has surrounded himself with people who have shown that they can cover for his bullying (or bully for him) and temper, most of the time. In Machiavellian fashion they appear to be well paid and “taken care of”. Including two of the “crew” having their weddings at the Gov’s mansion.

    He has a group that answers for him in public, that basically are “pushing” the administrations messaging.

    If there is public comment from Malloy’s Communications Director Andrew Doba (formerly of the New York City Council, and Bloomberg’s Re-election campaign, “Political Confidant” Roy Occhiogrosso, Mike Lawlor, Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning or Chief of Staff (known for early releasing felons, most notably one that went on to murder a store clerk, or Mark Ojakian, Chief of Staff, related to something Malloy has said, it is pretty sure to be covering for him and another “messaging opportunity”.

    Guns are not the only issue Malloy uses these same tactics on, actually it is a key element of his administration. He “promised” transparency in government and has been had a administration that is probably one of the most secretive administrations ever. Malloy’s says corporate taxes are lowest, yet doesn’t mention CT is one of the highest cost of doing business. He has worked to undermine Freedom of Information in CT and his administration actively stifles attempts at oversight. He signed passage of legalizing Keno gambling in CT, a step that was done in the last days of this years legislative session, was vastly unpopular, and did the preparation, behind the scenes, to avoid public view, and internal state government view to pass it.

    Mike Lawlor http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2013/02/connecticut-s-new-victims-advocate.html
    Andrew Doba http://www.ctmirror.org/sites/default/files/documents/Doba_0.pdf
    Roy Occhiogrosso http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/2013/09/23/occhiogrosso-ties-the-knot/
    “OJ” Mike Ojakian http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Legislative-lords-bridle-at-Malloy-s-reach-2368801.php

  26. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “There are over 31,000 firearm-related deaths … annually …”

    And of those 31,000 annual deaths, 9,000 of them were murders where the criminal used a firearm as their murder weapon. So let’s look at murders.

    Various sources report that criminals members of gangs and drug distribution networks are responsible for at least 80% of those 9,000 annual murders. Furthermore, those same sources report that almost all of their victims were engaged in an illegal activity when another criminal murdered them. In other words criminals who used a firearm for their murder weapon murdered other criminals in about 80% of the 9,000 annual murders in our country.

    Let that sink in for a moment. A criminal used a firearm to murder another criminal in about 7,200 of those 9,000 annual murders. All of those criminals committed murder, a much more serious crime than illegal possession of a firearm. A criminal who disregards murder laws will surely disregard firearm possession laws. Thus no one can sanely claim that any laws will dissuade a criminal from using a firearm to murder someone.

    Now let’s consider the remaining 1,800 annual murders that were not an element in a gang or drug distribution activity. Several sources tell us that something like 90% of criminals are repeat offenders. That means a criminal who commits a violent crime has almost certainly done it before. It also tells us that hardened criminals are responsible for a substantial percentage of those 1,800 annual murders. And once again, a hardened criminal who is willing to commit murder, a much more serious crime than illegal firearm possession, could care less about firearms regulations. Therefore no one can sanely claim that any laws will dissuade a hardened criminal recidivist from using a firearm to commit murder.

    We also know that domestic violence will contribute to a significant portion of those remaining 1,800 annual murders. Let’s assume the best case scenario … that none of the domestic violence attackers have any previous criminal record. Who in their right mind thinks a law about firearm possession will dissuade an enraged person who wants to kill a current or former spouse or boy/girlfriend … a person who they supposedly love or used to love? These are crimes of passion. And yet again, a person who is not concerned about murder laws and who is willing to murder someone they know and once cherished is not going to care at all about firearm possession laws. More importantly, even if someone could somehow remove firearms from a domestic violence environment, it is a trivial matter for a current or former spouse or boy/girlfriend to kill their victim with alternate weapons. Options include cars, poison, knives, hammers, and clubs. The frosting on the case, any firearms laws that disarm the violent domestic partner will very likely disarm the victimized domestic partner, making them even more vulnerable to their attacker. Thus we can expect no reduction in domestic violence murders and more vulnerable victims which might actually increase the domestic violence murder rate. How is that a desirable outcome?

    Finally, we are left with a small number of those remaining 1,800 annual murders that are truly a person’s first crime against a random person. We know that recidivism is rampant and domestic violence is all to common so those two categories must account for most of those 1,800 annual murders. We can only guess that a person with no criminal history who targets a random person is responsible for something like 180 (10%) of those remaining 1,800 annual murders. In those cases someone could argue that firearm laws that regulate possession might actually prevent some of those 180 or so annual murders. But even that is an extremely weak argument since a “mild mannered person” with no criminal history will almost surely be able to legally acquire a shotgun or hunting rifle which they can use to murder someone just as effectively as any handgun or military style semi-automatic rifle. Look at what the attacker did at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. just a few weeks ago with a jelly-bean pump action shotgun.

    Therefore, any laws that regulate or restrict possession of firearms may reduce a dozen or so murders per year at most, and even that is unlikely since eliminating military style semi-automatic rifles does not eliminate generic pump action shotguns and hunting rifles.

  27. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “They [military style semi-automatic rifles] also are exceedingly destructive and dangerous instruments that cause substantially more injuries, and more serious injuries, than other conventional kinds of weaponry. And they are not necessary, or arguably even suitable, for legitimate self defense.”

    Totally untrue. A readily available lever action rifle chambered in .45-70 Government shooting full power 400+ grain hardcast lead bullets could easily kill four people with each bullet when fired into a crowd. That means a spree killer with a standard rifle (and a 6 round tube magazine) could easily kill 24 people in a crowd in about 6 seconds without even reloading. Similar results are possible with two revolvers (total capacity of 12 shots without reloading) chambered in .44 Magnum shooting full power 300+ grain hardcast lead bullets. There are possibilities as well with classic “deer hunting rifles” and classic pump action 12 gauge shotguns.

  28. avatar Toasty says:

    Are they even trying anymore? I mean, most anti’s are just ignorant on any and every subject related to guns, but the people at the top running the show… They KNOW they’re lying. If Malloy is knowingly being deceitful, he’s doing a very bad job.

  29. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “They [military style semi-automatic rifles] also are exceedingly destructive and dangerous instruments that cause substantially more injuries, and more serious injuries, than other conventional kinds of weaponry. And they are not necessary, or arguably even suitable, for legitimate self defense.”

    Let’s be totally honest here. Any firearm that is an excellent tool for “legitimate self defense” can also be used offensively. Even revolvers that have existed for more than 100 years can be used destructively in a horrific capacity especially if a spree killer brings four or more loaded revolvers.

    We also know from experience that an armed citizen limited to 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition in a firearm could be woefully under armed when defending against one armed attacker much less three or four attackers — especially if that citizen is responding to a “bump in the night” in their underwear and does not have additional magazines or speed loaders on their person. For this reason alone, citizens must have the option to possess magazines with as many rounds as they deem practical. Any attempt to limit magazine capacities will only serve to make citizens more vulnerable.

    Finally, the most effective home defense firearm for many people are military style semi-automatic rifles. Their relatively light weight, adjustable stocks, and minimal recoil make them ideal self-defense firearms for anyone who lacks ability to control large bore handguns, rifles, and shotguns traditionally and effectively used in home defense. Any laws that criminalize possession of effective self defense tools for the 100+ million or so people who cannot handle traditional large bore handguns, rifles, and shotguns are immoral and obscene.

  30. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

    I note that the recitation of facts outlines the origin of the state’s laws banning certain weapons but completely ignores the origin of the 2A or even the state itself which is promulgating said laws.

  31. avatar James says:

    Let’s focus on the job at hand: Collecting the sources needed to build a devastating rebuttal to Governor Malloy’s misleading allegations and errors of fact. Unfortunately, I’m at work, so I can’t properly conduct the research needed to properly crush the governor’s ludicrous claims.

    To make our allies’ arguments as effective as possible, cite solid sources for any information you provide in rebuttal.

  32. avatar Matt in CT says:

    The law is full of BS, double talk, and purposefully misleading and confusing regulations that will only trip up or catch regular people. The legislators, governor, and dps officials who support this are disingenuous to their core. Case and point is the highly politicized publication by the state police describing the firearms used in the shooting at Newtown.

    Me saying they described the firearms is me being generous, because the publication did not show pictures or mention specifics of features that may or may not make the weapons illegal by CT law. It did not mention their provenance even though with the registry we have in this state that should have been some of the first available information. The publication made significant use of the terms high capacity magazine and large capacity magazine even though at this point in CT law neither term had a legal definition and are both non nonsensical terms. It just generally reeks of idiocy and dishonesty.

    I pointed this out to them. I told them how it made them look incompetent, especially since this is coming from the dps, those who are tasked with enforcing the laws and how it made them look like fools to those in the know (gun owners). I made suggestions on how to release a honest and non political publication. I told them to clear the air and talk specifically about the firearms. My request was largely ignored; they changed the usage of the term large capacity to high capacity and that was it. Here is the release: http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

    They aren’t serving the public’s good, only their own purposes and this legislation, motion, and now talks on non disclosure agreements between first responders are no different. /rant

  33. avatar Matt in CT says:

    Here is another tidbit from page 8: “The AR-15 is virtually identical to the M-16, except for the fact that it can only fire on semiautomatic.”

    An obvious and utter lie. The AR-15 is virtually identical in appearance only; the internal construction between the M-16 and the hundreds of different brands of AR-15 manufactured can range from identical to disparate.

  34. avatar James says:

    I don’t have time to argue, but can’t resist. Some arguments that need better citations:

    Deaths and injuries caused by firearms in the United States each year are epidemic.

    There are over 31,000 firearm-related deaths and 75,000 firearm-related injuries annually, and in many instances the victim is an innocent child.

    * The vast majority of such deaths (ca. 22,000) are suicides. There have been some studies that concluded that regions in the US with lower firearm ownership often have lower suicide rates, but studies that followed suicide rates in the wake of gun control legislation have not found that such laws reduce overall suicide rates. The notable exception to this trend has been Australia, where widespread gun confiscation was accompanied by a well-financed “anti suicide” campaign run by Australia’s national health care system. The conclusion that is best supported is that other factors drive suicide rates: Rates of firearm ownership are not significantly correlated with suicide rates.

    Military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines substantially contribute to these numbers, and have been a menace to public safety and law enforcement from the moment they became prevalent in the civilian gun market over thirty years ago. Since that time they have been disproportionately used in gun crime relative to their presence in the civilian gun market, and, in particular, in the most serious types of crime.

    * Rates of violent crime do not support these claims. Long arms are only used in a small proportion of violent crimes. The majority of criminal firearm uses involve pistols.
    * Rates of violent crime have dropped significantly over the thirty-year time span cited by the governor. Contrary to his claims, this tends to support the idea that civilian ownership of such weapons acts to deter crime.
    * In 2011, 125 US police officers died in the line of duty. Of these, 63 deaths involved firearms (including 5 negligent discharges). 7 incidents involved offenders armed with rifles. Two of the fallen officers were assassinated in Mexico by drug cartel members.
    * In 2012, 93 US police officers died in the line of duty. Of these, 43 deaths involved firearms (including negligent discharges). Again, 7 incidents involved offenders armed with rifles. (Source: FBI stats)

    They also are exceedingly destructive and dangerous instruments that cause substantially more injuries, and more serious injuries, than other conventional kinds of weaponry. And they are not necessary, or arguably even suitable, for legitimate self defense.
    * The weapons he cites are among the most popular weapons in the nation for the purpose of home defense. The shotguns and pistols he believes would be more suited to home defense are generally less accurate and precise in actual use.
    * The AR15 and its ariants are the most popular type of long arms purchased by police departments today, largely because of their reliability, accuracy, and proven design. That suggests that these weapons are well-sited for defensive use. Perhaps the governor feels that his expertise outweighs that of thousands of police officers?

  35. avatar Nolan says:

    I’ve got a lengthy start to a rebuttal, complete with footnotes and such if you guys are still interested in a well resourced reply to this drivel. I sent a (very rough draft) sample to the site’s contact email, but it probably got spamcanned due to the attached .pdf.

    I could post here, but it is extremely wordy, and would eat a lot of comment real estate. I’m on the third line of the ‘summary of argument,’ and it’s already three pages long.

    Let me know here in the comments, or at the contact email used for this comment if you are interested.

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