Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy. Via ct.gov.

Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy is no friend to gun owners. In 2014, the Governor of the ironically named Constitution State received at least $1.7 million from the anti-gun Independence USA PAC, funded by billionaire plutocrat Michael Bloomberg. It’s not surprising then that he might look for ways to show some ROI for his campaign paymasters.

His most recent effort is to try to balance the Connecticut state government’s yawning $3.6 billion budget deficit on the backs of people who are exercising a natural human right, one singled out for protection in the text of the U.S. Constitution.

Connecticut reporter Jack Kramer has the story:

As part of his budget, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also [wants to increase] the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governor’s budget estimates.

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

That increase, the governor’s budget estimates, would bring in another $2.6 million annually to the state’s coffers.

Second Amendment advocates in Connecticut are predictably concerned about this 400% increase in Pistol Permit fees. Scott Wilson, President of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League decried the proposal:

If Connecticut residents are forced to pay exorbitant fees…to purchase and/or carry a firearm for protection, it legitimately ceases to be a right anymore. This…is simply Governor Malloy trying to cover his failed policies on the backs of Connecticut gun owners.

The CCDL is holding a free workshop in Suffield, CT on the evening February 15, to talk about legislative activism. No doubt Governor Malloy’s proposal will feature prominently on the agenda.

The Connecticut matter is certainly a case study of how regulations and fees that seem limited and ‘reasonable’ when first enacted, can later be used to throttle a constitutionally protected civil right. It would have been much harder to suggest enactment of a $300 fee at the time of implementation. No, it was far easier to propose a smaller fee up front, then raise it to an astronomical level later since emotionally, the heavy-lifting was getting the idea of a fee through, not adjusting it later. (Or, as the famous quote attributed to Churchill goes, “We’ve already established what you are, madam; we’re now just haggling over the price.”)

But revenue enhancement is hardly the only goal here. National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke points out another effect of this policy: $300 is the price of an inexpensive pistol. This doubling of the entry cost for (legal) first-time buyers will limit firearms ownership in Connecticut to the wealthy.

If the case for permits is to distinguish between the law-abiding and the criminal, the case for high fees is to distinguish between the rich and the poor…. [A]pplied to a constitutionally enumerated right that has been routinely recognized as such by the Supreme Court? That’s pitchfork time. And to come from the Democratic party, which views itself as being on the side of the poor, and which is institutionally opposed to voter identification laws on the grounds that one should not have to pay or be inconvenienced in order to vote? That’s just too much. (Why isn’t this a “poll tax” or “Jim Crow“? And you can’t answer, “because I choose not to accept that the Second Amendment exists.”)

I understand that Governor Malloy doesn’t like guns. But I also don’t care. The law is the law. He doesn’t get to edit the Bill of Rights.

True, the Democratic Party of my youth might have had at least one or two qualms about this policy. Alas, the party of Roosevelt, Moynihan, and Gephardt is long gone. Democratic leadership now sees the average American worker as a figure of contempt and embarrassment, viewing its most important constituency as a wealthy coastal elite.

The party is more concerned about trade and immigration policies that favor that constituency, along with a heavy dose of raw ethnic identity politics to keep the people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder mollified (or fighting amongst themselves) while they service those interests. The notion of disarming the poor by pricing them out of exercising their rights, therefore, comports quite nicely with that agenda.

60 Responses to Connecticut Governor Moves to Increase Fees for Constitutionally Protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms

  1. Any reason we do not no knock raid these people, throw them into a black site and let them live the rest of their lives in a cage?

    I mean if they are going to ignore/violate the Constitution, why should we not do the same?

    They started this, why not finish it?

  2. Speaking of Connecticut legislators being beyond stupid…

    Reminds of how in 2013 Connecticut Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey, while preaching video games=violence non-sense he admited has zero evidence supporting it, sent a letter to video game companies asking them to end product placement by Bushmaster which uh… doesn’t exist. Apparently he thought every M16/M4/AR15 appearance in a video game was endorsed by Bushmaster. Why? Because Sandy Hook apparently.

    • Sandy Hook was an inside job, and we’re tired of the tightly packed enclaves of satan’s evil blue house of POS (D) stupid liberal_progressive_communist_globalist’s in piss ant small states attempting to jack us up with their
      “WE’RE F’D UP WE NEED TO FIX YOU” routine.

      FU CT

    • Against voter id yet for drivers licences for illegal immigrants. BTW drivers licence fee in CT is $72 dollars. Also in CT is the Elm City Resident Card, the first Municipal ID card started for Illegal Immigrants but now for all residents of New Haven, CT! It is $10! It conveys magical powers to protect them from being robbed or assaulted! So they don’t need to own guns to protect themselves, thus the $300 fee on permits is not necessary. What do you get for the extra $228 dollars for the CT carry permit? Nobody knows.

      From Wikipedia
      “The Elm City Resident Card is an identification (ID) card used in New Haven, Connecticut in the United States. The card was originally designed to protect the estimated 10,000 to 15,000 undocumented immigrants in New Haven[1] from being robbed or assaulted. All city residents can receive the card, which serves as a form of identification, debit card with a capacity of $150, library card, and a way to pay for parking meters. The cards were first issued in July 2007, and were the first municipal identification cards issued in the United States.[2] The card costs $5 for children or $10 for adults.[3]”

      Ref:
      http://www.ct.gov/dmv/cwp/view.asp?a=802&q=244540
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_City_Resident_Card

  3. The actual “entry cost” is more like $800. First you need to pass an NRA Basic Pistol class, $125-150, then the initial $370 “temporary” permit, then reapply for a 5 year $300 permit. I kind of wonder if these sorts of policies aren’t intended to drum up business for Springfield (S&W): ammo capacity limits + price spikes = a premo wheel gun.

    • Oh, and you need a pistol permit to buy any sort of gun here, even a $200 Maverick 88, or just a box of ammo for it. Evens something as pedantic as shotshells. Every hunter has to have a pistol permit here.

      Interestingly, because of all this, every legal gun owner is also a CCL holder and no NICS checks ever originate from this state (since everyone buys on their CCL), so no gun in CT is ever bought with a background check, not a single one since 2013!

      • I believe you can buy a long gun with the long gun certificate

        And when you buy a pistol they still call the state which I assume is running a background check

        • I’ll give you the LG cert. When the store calls the state it is only to get a transfer number for 67C’s, not a BGC. The BGC was done when you got your permit/cert. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding.

  4. Don’t forget that the NFA was passed on the basis that a tax (equal to the cost of a submachine gun at the time) did not infringe the Second Amendment. There can be no doubt that Malloy will make the same argument when a legal challenge to this law–which no doubt will pass–is made. Hmmm–that could set up an interesting back door attack on the NFA if the case reaches the Supreme Court.

    • Don’t forget that some tea got thrown in the harbor just a state north of there for a 3% tax, and we founded this great nation with the mutual promise to preserve the right to F each other up should we appear to slide off into the same tyrannical sh_t that we got rid of a little over 235 years ago. – Just sayin.

      Now, where did I put that indian costume. . .

    • That was also prior to not only Heller, but also Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections, which ruled poll taxes unconstitutional.

    • “…increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also [wants to increase] the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.”

      “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

      So long as the permission slip process is not successfully challenged as being unconstitutional and taxes on those permits, on firearms (or any weapons), or on ammunition, other than the standard across-the-board sales taxes, are not seen as intentional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms then anti 2A politicians will use them as a means of denying individuals the right to keep and bear arms by making the exercise of that right prohibitively expensive. If $370 for a five-year permission slip is legal and proper, why not $3,700? Why not a 25% excise tax on each and every firearm purchase? Or 50% for that matter. What is the limit, and who decides? Why not a law that requires a $500 state permission slip and $500 background check for an ammunition purchase permit, limited to the specific ammunition for the firearms you can prove you actually own and also limited to 5 round packages. limit one per week per firearm? Some states limit firearm purchase to one per month, why not limit ammo as well?

  5. The gun owners in Connecticut will probably protest at the state office. But maybe it is time for gun owners in other states to protest for the rights of their fellow Americans in other states?

    • We do, all the time, they don’t care. And we’ve been asking for outside support, even just moral support, for some time now, but all we get is crickets or Jame Yeager “well just move!” advice.

      • You’re right. And that’s a big problem. What I see in the left is they organize people in other states to support something they don’t like in NC. We need to start doing the same thing. Organize to support fellow gun owners in other states even when the law will not affect us.

        If we could gather a few hundred people in each of the 50 states or even just the continental states and march on all the state capitals in support of each other it may get coverage on Fox.

      • Moral support? Okay, here you go. Here’s all of it. Not exactly sure what it does but enjoy. As far as real support, what exactly are we supposed to do short of an armed invasion? Most state legislators I know won’t even answer you unless you’re a constituent, and even then it’s spotty. You guys are going to have to win this one on your own.

  6. Ive had a Conn State non resident permit for almost 30 years.
    At the time to get a Conn State permit. As they dont recogonise to this day anyone elses.You had to apply for a city permit first. Then if one wanted to you could apply for a state permit. As I lived on the NY – Conn border at the time it made sense.
    I got a Danbury permit then the same day drove to Middletown and applied for the state one.
    It was all of 70 bux. Good for 5-7 years.
    Ive kept it all these years even though I have no intention of ever going back there for any reason.
    Raise the price and its one less permit Ill have.
    So if it goes through. The governor gets his wish.
    One less gun possibly in his god forsaken state. Mine, along with any other dollars I might have brought along.

    • At least we have a non-resident permit.

      NY State doesn’t have that, and doesn’t recognize anyone else’s permit.

      Which makes living just a few miles from the state line a huge pain in the ass.

  7. As to the identity politics the Democrats have been using, they’re playing with fire and it already has burned them. The question is how badly they’ll get burned as they continue such tomfuckery.

  8. Always oppose regulation and registration. Clubs here in Australia with some exceptions did not oppose the “lifetime” shooters licence for $40 back in the early 90’s. Within three years it was a five year license and now costs $200. Plus it gives government a list of gun owners

    • He’s completely out of ideas. We’re Puerto Rico with lobsters and little white churches.

      If there ever was an example of liberal mismanagement, CT is it.

    • Anyone that reads this blog already knows about Danny “Slime boy” Malloy. I don’t think the people that dubbed it the “Constitution State” had any idea how bitterly ironic that would become. When can we expect indictments?

  9. Challenge of the Day: Name ONE right enumerated in the Bill of Rights which says you must PAY to exercise it, the Second Amendment excepted.

    • Free speech in Washington, DC.

      See what happens to you if organize a protest march on the Capitol building without a permit (that isn’t free)…

  10. The real numbers out of CT are bad enough without pro-gun people inflating them with bad arithmetic. Percentage increases are not the same as percentages of previous prices.

    ($300-$70)/$70*100% = 329% increase

    ($370-$140)/$140*100% = 164% increase

    ($75-50)/$50*100% = 50% increase

  11. Are there any other state fees required to exercise other Constitutional rights?

    Are there legal ramifications for treason and extortion?

    Where is the follow up from the justice system?

    • Which one? CT? They’re totally on board with Malloy. US? Sessions was just confirmed and CT didn’t go for T, so T don’t care.

  12. Let it pass then file the lawsuit for an unconstitutional poll tax. Sure it has to make it to SCOTUS but with Gorsuch and whoever Trump replaces that walking skeleton RBG we will get a good ruling.

  13. “[Governor Malloy] is to try to balance the Connecticut state government’s yawning $3.6 billion budget deficit …”

    How can Connecticut have such a huge budget deficit when they have close to the highest per capita income in the United States? All those upper class residents should have no trouble contributing an extra $36,000 a year for all of their Progressive entitlement programs and Big Government that they love so dearly. (Just 100,000 top earners in Connecticut could step-up to the plate and cover the budge deficit with an extra $36,000 in taxes this year.)

    It always amazes me when wealthy Progressives tout all the virtue of the Progressive entitlement programs and then refuse to fund those programs themselves, instead forcing those costs on unwilling lower to middle class residents.

  14. “Democratic leadership now sees the average American worker as a figure of contempt and embarrassment, viewing its most important constituency as a wealthy coastal elite.”

    This is the most significant reason why Democrats lost the last election. Bar none.

    “The notion of disarming the poor by pricing them out of exercising their rights …”

    The ruling class have been using that tactic throughout recorded history.

  15. Of course, the libs don’t care, but the Unintended Consequences of such increased taxing is that you actually lose revenue as people either decide to not get the permits and stay unarmed, or say to heck with it, and carry without. The City of Seattle passed an obtrusive gun and ammo tax within the city to ostensibly raise funds for “gun violence research.” The result was that the one or two shops still remaining the city moved out – resulting in far less revenue generation than they touted as a measure to promote the ordinance (not ordnance).

    The libs don’t care – either way they win. The get more money, or fewer people exercise their rights, or they create new criminals out of decent folks – win, win, win no matter what.

  16. This CT Governor is not too smart.

    All his proposal will do is add more pressure to pass the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act. When passed, both residents and non-residents would be able to carry in CT on out-of-state permits.

    Also, with NH well on it’s way to finalizing Constitutional Carry — the entire northern sector of New England (VT, NH, and ME) will be fee-less, permit-less carry.

    Since many people travel between the New England states, this sends a powerful message to MA, RI and CT to “get with the program” to — at a minimum — have reasonable “shall issue” concealed carry laws.

    JMHO.

  17. Malloy is the worst thing to ever hit Connecticut. The Hurricane of 1938 pales in comparison to his administration of the state. He helped run General Electric’s corporate headquarters out of Connecticut, costing the town of Fairfield, where the HQ was located for decades, more than $2 million in taxes, and unknown millions more in state income taxes, motor vehicle registrations, drivers licenses, etc. that will all go north to Mass. Now, insurance Giant Aetna, with 6,000 employees in the state, is looking to possibly move. What next, Danny Boy? Oh, and he also defunded a state burial fund for indigent veterans of $300K to fund one of his pet projects: taxing Conn. drivers on the miles they drive every year. Huummm, so that means people will drive less, which also means that Conn., which has one of the country’s heaviest gasoline taxes, will collect even fewer tax dollars. Did this guy fall out of his crib and injure his brain as an infant?

    I decided to exercise my God-given 2nd Amendment right in 2014 and apply for a pistol permit here in Conn. It cost me nearly $500 when all was said and done. Now, Danny Boy wants to up the fees to an incredible $300 for a five-year permit. Why? Because he’s a shitty administrator who’s allowed the state to fall deeply in debt and he’s scrambling around like a rat on crack to plug the deficit. Last November, for the first time in my life, I voted for every Republican on the ballot, and specifically for Trump for one reason: he supports gun ownership. Along with Malloy, Connecticut gun owners need to stand together to get rid of him, Chris Murphy, another egg-sucking liberal, anti-gun Democrat and all the reat of them who want to take our guns, sugar (F you, Bloomberg), and our other individual right away.

    • We stood up pretty loudly and strongly in 2013 but the didn’t give a flying fuck.

      Also Bristol Myers, headquartered in Wallingford, is leaving for Boston. That’s gonna be a blow to Wallingford.

  18. There is also a bill to make any request from law enforcement to see your permit if they see (or presumably know) you are carrying a firearm, a request you must comply with.

    There is also a bill to designate CT a sanctuary state. If I understand it correctly it would make inquiring about immigration status during a police stop or any reason unrequired and perhaps illegal.

    So here I am legal US citizen, lifelong resident of CT, paying my taxes, and being vetted to have a permit but I have to produce my papers upon request for the mere act of carrying a gun yet someone who is here illegally at the very least won’t be requested to produce their papers? Doesn’t make a lot of sense and is actually quite infuriating. I’m sympathetic to a point with people who come here illegally looking for a better life, but prioritizing someone’s rights who actually broke the law over mine who has done everything legally and bent over backwards to do it is horse shit.

    The governor’s budget is also proposing shuffling around a lot of state money from wealthier municipalities to poorer ones, like you know Wallingford getting whacked for $10 million and Waterbury getting another $40 million. Take a guess where more people on state aid live.

    CT is jamming the accelerator through the floor to go into bankruptcy.

    At what point does non-compliance become civil disobedience instead of just merely breaking the law? I think history and public opinion needs to be on your side; Rosa Parks could have very easily been just another lady breaking the law if not for the times being right.

  19. In related news Malloy is pushing the pension costs for teachers on the towns and cities. No suggestion the unions should do anything on their end. Those budget deficits break the socialist models because free shit is expensive.

  20. “So long as the permission slip process is not successfully challenged as being unconstitutional and taxes on those permits, on firearms (or any weapons), or on ammunition, other than the standard across-the-board sales taxes, are not seen as intentional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms then anti 2A politicians will use them as a means of denying individuals the right to keep and bear arms by making the exercise of that right prohibitively expensive.”

    And there you have it !

    Seem to remember explaining just that approach becoming one of the most effective, and now popular, means of asserting society’s right to safety. Cooperation, such as establishing INDUSTRY DEFINED STANDARD gun safety certifications (recurring) would have gone along way to meeting at the median. Seem to remember cautioning that refusal to work on “reasonable restrictions” (a marvelous phrase turned out by the Supreme Court), the only alternative would be sly, but more harsh, response from people with gun sense. Your coveted “Constitutional Carry” and “National Reciprocity” will be subjected to use taxes in a number of places. Sometimes, winning high allows major victories at the detail. You have to win, everywhere, constantly. Gun sense measures only need to win in the most populous of cities, where irresponsible gun handling is most prevalent. Wouldn’t mark it surprising to find us with sensible regulation in cities, with farms and dairies left to sort it out by themselves. You consistently look for 100% solutions, all at once. We, your loyal opposition, amass small victories, stitched together, to form a united whole. Slow strangulation of unreasonable gun supporters.

    See? Isn’t debate more suitable to win-win than shell-bound obstinance?

      • “You are an enemy of freedom.”

        Freedom from and freedom to. I strongly support freedom from irresponsible, untrained, undisciplined gun owners. Apparently you support freedom to put everyone else at risk. Many of us could be quite satisfied to know which of you are safety-trained, and disciplined gun owners. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine that prior to the negligent discharge.

        Our choices of freedom are equally valid. Now what?

Leave a Reply

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