20150355159b86e7760

Jonathan Perloe of the Greenwich Council Against Gun Ownership Violence and board member of Connecticut Against Gun Violence had an op-ed in last week’s Greenwich Time. Titled “Standing ground on tough gun laws” he explains how the “common-sense gun safety reform” legislation passed in obscene haste after the marvelous opportunity terrible tragedy of Sandy Hook was really a good thing and how he and his fellow blood-dancing hoplophobes must guard against the weakening of any gun law in Connecticut . . .

Connecticut voters showed they support tough gun laws by re-electing Gov. Dannel P. Malloy over Tom Foley, who welcomed the endorsement of the extremist gun rights organization, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. And voters returned to office more than 90 percent of the legislators who voted in favor …

Well actually Jon, voters showed their apathy towards tough gun laws in pre-election polls which showed a whopping 4% of likely voters believed that the gun rights/gun control issue was of primary importance. As for CCDL being an “extremist gun rights organization,” please explain to me how a group whose mission is “devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut” can be considered “extremist”? Then again, your fellow-travelers at CAGV and GCAGV probably do view fidelity to the Constitution as radical and extremist.

But getting back to Jon-Jon’s screed:

… who voted in favor of universal background checks and banning the large capacity magazines that let the Sandy Hook shooter fire 154 rounds in less than five minutes.

Hmmm, you mean the background checks that the shooter bypassed by murdering his mother? The background check that the Red Lake, Minnesota school shooter evaded by murdering his cop grandfather? The background checks that the Virginia Tech shooter, the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter and Gabby Giffords’ shooter all passed? Those background checks? Do you mean the background checks that are such a vital and effective crime fighting tool that in 2013, out of more than 11 million checks performed there were precisely fourteen convictions for violating them[1]?

As for the ability to “fire 154 rounds in less than 5 minutes,” let’s think about that for a moment, shall we? If we assume that “less than 5 minutes” means no more than 4 ½ minutes, 154 shots in that time means the shooter managed the incredible feat of firing 35 shots a minute. Using 30-round mags as he was, that means the shooter had to change mags five times[2], and I am sure that Jon and his ilk firmly believe[3] that having to change mags more often would have crimped his spree.

Gee, if only there were some evidence that would support or discredit this belief. Wouldn’t it be great if, say, a Sheriff somewhere had put together a video using an experienced shooter and a novice, and having them do a set of timed aimed fire courses with 30-round, 15-round and 10-round magazines. Oh, wait, someone did.

He also showed that “making the BG change mags so someone can jump him” (as some antis have claimed) will result in another victim. And finally Sheriff Campbell had a moderately proficient shooter, using a 102-year-old design that only holds seven rounds in a magazine[4], put 21 aimed shots downrange in less than 10 seconds. So much for the hypothesis that using smaller mags would have reduced the Sandy Hook shooter’s rate of fire.

Still, Jon warns against complacency:

But we cannot be lulled into a false sense of security. Every year state lawmakers try to weaken the regulations that rank our state as one of the safest from gun deaths.

Really? Because according to the CDC when it comes to firearm homicides[5] from 2009 – 2013, Connecticut is not in the top 10% of safest states. Not even in the top 20%. At 11th in the nation you rank behind such loose-lawed states as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Washington and Vermont.

This year is no different. At the beginning of the current Connecticut General Assembly session, NRA-friendly legislators introduced at least one dozen bills that would weaken Connecticut gun safety laws.

Those Eee-vil Gun Lobby™ shills must be stopped! What nefarious schemes do they propose to undermine the security of the Rodina, I mean safety of the children?

One bill would let people carry guns in state parks.

Well of course; why would anyone need a gun in a park? I mean it’s not like Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection[6] has recorded over four thousand black bear sightings in the last year alone, right?

Another would introduce “stand your ground,” letting gun owners shoot to kill whenever and wherever they feel threatened.

Yes, because nothing says “presumption of innocence” like being required to confess to a crime in order to mount a defense. I imagine that cops and prosecutors hate this bill because under current CT law if someone is forced to use deadly force in self-defense or defense of a loved one all the cops have to do is arrest him and all the prosecutor has to do is charge him. It is up to the defendant to “prove” his innocence by trying to convince a jury of people who weren’t there and may well have never been in a life threatening situation that he was unable to escape and had no other option than to shoot.

As for “letting gun owners shoot to kill whenever and wherever they feel threatened” . . . I was going to ask Jon if he really believes that all gun owners have a deep, secret yearning to murder another human being, but after mentally posing the question and thinking back to conversations I have had with antis over the years I must reluctantly admit that he and his ilk probably do think just that; that anyone who chooses to take responsibility for protecting his or her loved ones is the depraved sort of morally bankrupt individual who does actually yearn to commit murder. And he probably thinks that we torture kittens and puppies in our spare time.

But wait, there’s more:

Another would bypass our own permit process for allowing concealed carry by establishing reciprocity with other states, including from many that don’t require universal background checks that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the seriously mental ill.

Ooh, nice bait-and-switch there Jon-jon; I bet you think the hoi polloi would never notice that you started out talking about permits to carry but then switched in the middle to background checks on sales. Yes, it is true that in MN (for example) you don’t have to go through a FFL to sell a pistol to your friend Andrew, or even to your FaceSpace acquaintance Bob who you’ve never actually met before. Regardless of the circumstances under which a weapon can be bought or sold, however, rest assured that when it comes to issuing permits to carry the local sheriffs do very thorough background checks.

Jon reassures us slightly, however, pointing out that:

Fortunately, these bills were blocked from further consideration …

Translation: We knew we couldn’t risk a floor vote on any of these reasonable, common sense civil rights restoration bills so we used various parliamentary and procedural ploys to keep them bottled up in gun un-friendly committees[7].

A few paragraphs later, however, Jon raises the specter of Federal action:

It’s no better at the federal level. Despite overwhelming public support (more than 90 percent), Congress still hasn’t expanded Brady background checks to cover private sales at gun shows and over the internet.

True enough; 2 years ago, in a Quinnipiac poll[8] taken in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting 92% of respondents supported “requiring background checks for all gun buyers,” and more recent polls show similar (90+%) results. Such support does seem a little schizophrenic, though, since in that same poll only 52% supported stricter gun control laws (43% opposed). And apropos of absolutely nothing except making my head hurt, responding to the question:

Who do you think better reflects your views on guns, President Obama or the National Rifle Association?

43% replied Obama and 46% said the NRA. Sorry, Jon.

But regardless of public support “universal” background checks are a bad idea for several reasons. First, this is a law which will literally only affect the law-abiding since criminals can’t be punished for not obeying laws which would incriminate them if they comply. This was settled by the Supreme Court with Haynes v. U.S. back in 1968. Briefly Haynes argued that he couldn’t be punished for failing to register his short-barreled shotgun since, as a felon, he was a prohibited person and registering a weapon would violate his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself and in an 8-1 ruling, SCOTUS agreed.

Second see above about 11 million NICS checks and 14 convictions.

Third, since the purported purpose of the Brady Bill was to keep guns out of the hands of the “wrong” people and since it has failed miserably in that objective the answer is not to “close the loopholes[9]” it is to get rid of the entire cumbersome, expensive failure.

Fourth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility, so no G-d-damned background checks!

But Federal perfidy is not limited to mere inaction. As Jon informs us:

To the contrary, right now Congress is considering legislation that would force every state to allow virtually anyone to carry a loaded, concealed gun in public. That would mean convicted felons, domestic abusers and other dangerous people from Florida and other states with lax gun laws could legally and secretly carry their guns anywhere in the country, including in Connecticut.

Well, no Jon, since the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 specifically states that it only applies to:

…an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing … a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm[10]

that lets out felons, convicted domestic abusers, substance abusers and the mentally ill on account of that whole Federal prohibited person[11] thing. As for those awful Florida concealed carriers, ou might want to pick on a different demographic, since between October 1, 1987 and June 30, 2012 the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued 2,206,324 permits to carry a concealed weapon, but only revoked 168 of those for criminal use of a firearm. In other words, in almost 25 years, 0.008% of permit-holders committed a crime with a firearm.

Jon finishes with a bang:

The message we want to send is clear: Connecticut continues to lead the nation in making our communities safe from gun violence. In fact, we have the fourth lowest rate of gun deaths in the country. Now it’s time for Washington to do its part.

Well, no Jon, according to the CDC’s latest numbers (2013) Connecticut did not have “the fourth lowest rate of gun deaths”, you were seventh lowest. And since you specifically call out “gun violence” the key figure would be homicides, and in 2013 Connecticut was eleventh lowest in homicides committed with a gun.

So Jon you can lie all you like, you can obfuscate, distort and misdirect, it won’t change reality, and the fact of the matter is that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

 

[1] Larry Pratt as quoted by Raquel Okyay on BearingArms.com

[2] Except we know he was doing tactical reloads so we really have no idea how many times he swapped mags.

[3] I will point out that until I was 5-years old or so I “firmly believed” in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. This did not make them real.

[4] I’ll give you nineteen-hundred eleven guesses as to the model

[5] And I am not counting the 510 or so (national average) accidental shootings nor suicides since suicide rates have repeatedly been shown to be independent of method.

[6] Seriously, that is the name of their equivalent of MN’s Department of Natural Resources

[7] Okay no, I don’t know for certain that that’s exactly what happened, I just know that in any number of states those were the sorts of things done to keep “shall-issue” permit to carry bills from getting to the floor for a vote.

[8] Poll taken from January 30 – February 4 with a margin of error of ± 2.3 points.

[9] Which, mind you, were not “loopholes” when it was passed, they were common-sense exemptions.

[10] Or who lives in a Constitutional Carry state

[11] And no, I don’t believe in the concept of prohibited persons, I am with David Codrea who says that if someone can’t be trusted with a firearm then they can’t be trusted without a custodian.

26 Responses to Standing Tough on Groundless Gun Laws

  1. Congrats CT. All you did was add your state to the list of slave territories where I will not vacation or spend money on products produced there.

    • Be careful at the rate the transplants are infesting places like Texas like the parasites they are, Texas will be worse off than Connecticut.

    • I have taken a page out of Malloy’s playbook, and am boycotting travel to CT, due to the state’s continued violation of the civil rights of residents and visitors to bear arms.

    • Companies producing products in Connecticut would include Colt Manufacturing of West Hartford, Sturm Ruger of Fairfield, O.F. Mossberg & Sons of North Haven, and Stag Arms of New Britain.

      Punish them if you feel the need. It’s your money.

    • Well yes, John, but where’s the fun in that; without the snark I would be just as dully pedantic and humorless as folks like Jon-Jon

  2. I think one of the reasons we will NEVER see universal background checks is the Constitutional challenge that will hit, threatening the entire house of cards built on the commerce clause.

  3. Fighting against legislative idiocy in this state is like trying to fill a sieve with water. Facts and reality have no meaning, which is why I intend to take my tax dollars elsewhere given the opportunity.

  4. I recently got my CT non-res permit renewal paperwork in the mail. They did make something a little easier. I no longer have to send back copies of my safety class cert which always seemed wholly stupid and redundant. As if the current permit itself was not evidence of taking the safety class?
    But they still want a copy of a birth certificate. Just as redundant and pointless.

    So in all the horrible cluster@#$% nonsense there is one tiny distant glimmer of some logic that someway, somehow leaked through.

    It’s funny how the gov will jump headfirst without looking in to full hyper-retardation but if/when they decide to pull their heads out of their asses they do it incrementally over many decades.

    • For more than 15 years, TX required a new fingerprint card every 5 years, like maybe they changed. Like, all 10 fingers. Good grief. But hey, then they eliminated ALL the renewal BS at the same time, and I hadn’t even heard it was in the works!

  5. It’s sad there are people dumb enough to fall for a list of lies. The way they frame things is even more frustrating. There are so many people that automatically think guns = evil that we can’t even have a discussion. So many men ignore their constitutional responsibility people look at you like you’re crazy when you inform them of the militia act. Then they say that’s just an outdated document, even though it was last amended in 1993.

  6. I wouldn’t mind having one of those jackets to keep spare mags close at hand when I’m at the range. Of course I’d need to paint over all of the hippy love stuff first.

    • It’s a cycling jersey, so check any bike shop for shirts/jackets with a bunch of pockets on the back. Be warned, many have no pockets anywhere else, so things don’t dig in when you lean far forward. Also, they are generally quite form fitting.

  7. Isn’t there some way to FOIA or something the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining this ridiculous database for 20 prosecutions a year? And I bet they were not actually for violating the NICS law anyhow, just smacking someone who pissed off the local political or police boss.

  8. Great article, thanks Bruce. Bookmarking for later reference to these many factual counters to the disinformatzia spread by the gun-grabbers.

    We POTG can and do make a deliberate difference, countering the borderline hysterical agitprop and disinformation spread by these obviously astroturfed chapters of Bloomberg, or other rich gun grabbers are using in the last desperate coordinated campaign, under the radar, I suppose is partly so the One has something, anything to claim as his legacy, and next job at the UN, or Bloomturds sockpuppet.

    I believe there are many independent thinking viewers of the news, even at the Reliable Party Organs, who are becoming skeptical, and cynical, and it only takes a link, back to TTAG, or the sources you footnoted, Bruce, to give them that first step to learn the Truth About Guns.

    The proof is in the crating ratings at the left-progtard news outlets, and increasingly desperate lies told and spread by the left-prog echo chambers of Vox, Media Matters, and dropping a succinct counter, into the forums there or at NYT, WAPO, on ‘moderate’ outlets just accelerates the distrust by independent thinkers, waking up to all the broken promises and lies of HopenChangey.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/01/msnbc-ratings-crater-as-nbc-looks-for-new-direction/

  9. So to summarize:
    Lie, distort, lie, lie, misdirect, lie, lie…..

    I guess you just have to be an amoral mouthpiece to work for the anti-constitution crowd. I’m looking at you Shannon.

  10. http://www.greenwichtime.com/opinion/article/Op-ed-Common-sense-gun-lies-6171416.php?utm_source=www.ccdl.us

    Op-ed: Common-sense gun lies
    Published 7:02 pm, Tuesday, March 31, 2015

    I am writing this because I am tired of lies and misinformation being spread by our bevy of “anti-gun violence” groups in Connecticut. At one time I believed them to be ignorant, but I now know better. So, I would like to dissect and discredit these statements point by point.

    Mr. Jonathan Perloe (March 26 op-ed, “Standing ground on tough new gun laws”) points out that “90 percent of legislators who voted in favor (of SB1160, the 2013 Connecticut gun law)” were re-elected. Most of those legislators ran unopposed. Another way to look at it was of the large 12-seat gain by the GOP, 11 of those seats were replacements of legislators who voted for SB 1160. Only one legislator who voted against the law lost his re-election bid.

    Mr. Perloe also contends that the now banned “large capacity magazine” enabled Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza to fire “154 rounds in under five minutes” Five minutes is 300 seconds. One-hundred and fifty-four rounds is one round roughly every two seconds. Try that. Clap your hands, count to two. The rate of fire had zero to do with magazine capacity. That rate of fire could be maintained with a five-shot revolver by one of my basic pistol students including reloading.

    Mr. Perloe goes on to mischaracterize “Stand Your Ground” as “letting gun owners shoot to kill whenever and wherever they feel threatened.” This is a lie. Stand Your Ground means nothing of the sort. In every jurisdiction in this country, you must “Reasonably believe that deadly physical force or great physical harm is being used or about to be used against you or another person.” Stand your ground does not change that requirement, either legally or morally. Additionally, any trained person will tell you that we shoot to stop . . . not to kill. This isn’t the movies where you “decide” whether or not to kill someone. Someone is about to kill you. Your only focus is to stop that. Tell a judge in any jurisdiction in this country that you were “shooting to kill” you go to prison.

    Mr. Perloe also contends that “. . . right now Congress is considering legislation that would force every state to allow virtually anyone to carry a loaded, concealed gun in public. That would mean convicted felons, domestic abusers and other dangerous people from Florida and other states with lax gun laws could legally and secretly carry their guns anywhere in the country, including in Connecticut.” This is the biggest lie. Felons and the mentally ill are prohibited from possessing firearms by federal law under 18 USC 922(g). In other words, felons, mentally ill people and domestic abusers are prohibited in every state and jurisdiction in the country from possessing a firearm. Additionally, Florida has a permitting process for carrying a firearm, which includes training, fingerprinting and background checks. Those requirements are remarkably similar to Connecticut’s own requirements. Florida does not have “lax” gun laws. The measure being considered by Congress does not absolve anyone of following Connecticut law, which also prohibits possession of a firearm by felons, domestic abusers and the mentally ill.

    Reasonable people can disagree on the second amendment just like any other issue. However, Mr. Perloe’s article goes beyond disagreement, and bridges the gap into willful misinformation. Don’t believe the lies.

    John Sturmer of Stratford is the principal owner of JJ Firearms Training, LLC of Stratford, a certified firearms instructor, range safety officer, Glock armorer and Connecticut Citizens Defense League member.

    • Thanx for the info Ray; I was especially interested by the way you framed the GOP’s 12-seat gain.

  11. “magazines that let the Sandy Hook shooter fire 154 rounds in less than five minutes.”

    I can just about fire 154 rounds in less than five minutes out of my single-barrel trap shotgun. Give me any handgun with a NY SAFE Act 7 round magazine and I can do it in less than 3.

  12. Good write up Bruce; I appreciate the attention to our plight as a CT resident.

    FYI, as far as I know, all private sales of firearms, except non pre ban assault weapons, are still legal. The only difference now is they all require a background check at time of sale. This requires the seller to call the DESPP with the buyer’s information, including permission slip number (pistol permit or eligibility certificate), and get a sale authorization number. I believe at that time DESPP conducts the NICS check and a state check and if everything comes up OK they give you the sale authorization number.

    Anyone please correct me if I’m wrong. This is not meant to be construed as advice, legal or otherwise. I am not a lawyer.

    • I did not submit it, as most of them want exclusive unpublished pieces, and I prefer to write for Robert. I do, however, always try send a copy to the author whose work I have deconstructed.

Leave a Reply

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