The brutal murder of the Petit family in Cheshire Connecticut has been overshadowed, indeed forgotten, in the post-Newtown “debate” over gun control. Shame. The Constitution State’s new “tighter” gun laws will make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. More expensive, time consuming and complicated. For example . . .
Adults 18 years and older can begin applying for the long gun eligibility certificates, which require completion of an instructional course and state and federal background checks. Those certificates or a valid state-issued gun permit will be required as of April 1, 2014, for anyone who buys or receives a long gun. The certificate will be good for five years.
Beginning Monday, adults 18 years and older can apply for the new ammunition certificate, which will require a national criminal background check. Starting Oct. 1, the sale of ammunition and ammunition magazines will be generally prohibited unless the buyer shows an ammunition certificate and a driver’s license or other valid identification or has a handgun permit, gun dealer sale permit or long gun or handgun eligibility certificate.
The lead of this report at therepublic.com reveals the media and gun grabbers’ rationale for erecting these enormously expensive, clearly unconstitutional bureaucratic hurdles. “Parts of Connecticut’s law addressing the Newtown school massacre, including the creation of new credentials to purchase long guns and ammunition, take effect Monday.”
How does ANY of these laws address the Newtown school massacre? In what way will any of them prevent another psychotic spree killer—or two homicidal ex-cons—from carrying out heinous crimes against innocent life? Don’t these onerous new laws increase the possibility that Connecticut residents will be the victims of violent crime by, in effect, disarming them?
Actually, it’s worse than that . . .
People who’ve been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, however, will now have to wait longer for such permits. Mary Kate Mason, a spokeswoman for the Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services, said the agency has always reported involuntary commitments to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that occurred over the last 12 months. Under the new law, that review period will be extended to the previous 60 months.
Mason said the department is working on meeting another part of the law that will require the agency to report voluntary psychiatric admissions starting Oct. 1. She said a committee of attorneys and experts is working on a way to provide the information confidentially.
Confidentially? What does that mean? Discreetly? Secretly? I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. Any law that discourages mentally ill from seeking treatment (e.g., a laws that requires patients to surrender their gun rights) will have the exact opposite effect of the one intended. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and, in this case of statists exploiting a crisis to increase their power over the populace, bad ones as well.
The only bloody shirt waving that is apparently allowed is those that can be used to the bennefit of increased restriction to citizen ownership of arms, not the lagical and rational support there-of. If you aren’t killed by a gun, especialy an AR style, you are not worth their time or consideration as important.
That is to say Government officials, in there continuous desire for power and authority, do not care about you unless your dearh can be used to their own disgusting advantage.
Have a good day.
Sweethearts, one and all. These people need to be called to account for what they’ve done. At the very least, they are going to be guilty of negligent homicide on an ongoing basis.
Countdown to Massachusetts passing a “nuclear option” anti-gun package has commenced.
Somehow that photo is more disturbing to me the way it is than if the bed still had a body on it. I know that a young girl died there, but if the body was there it would just be gruesome. This photo, as it is, is just indescribably sad.
(That is not a request to take it down.)
I totally agree, Matt. That photo doesn’t need any enhanced effect. It literally took my breath away for several seconds.
the photo had no effect on me at first. not because i am heartless, but because i couldn’t tell what it was. now that i know, this is very sad.
Sorry to do that to you, then.
It was similar for me. At first my reaction was “what the hell is that?” because I couldn’t even identify it. Then I started reading the post and it hit me.
Ive seen plenty of burnt homes and a few burnt bodies in my firefighting days. Its a horrifying way to go but the bodies never really phased me, except the first one. This however bugged me the minute I saw the picture. Being a CT native, I followed this closley and I cant stand to think about what that family, espescially the girls, went through. A former co-worker lived near them and her brother knew the youngest daugter, apparently they were really nice people. Until the monsters enabled by modern American society came knocking.
Yep.. no way those dirty criminals would bother to make that long, arduous, 2 hour journey (If they had to drive the long way.) out of state to get some ammo…
Down in these parts, we sometimes drive that far to get dinner…
And there’s no way a criminal would think to smuggle ammo into the state.. After all, it would be against the law.
So I suppose all of these are acceptable too?
Maybe if they implemented that last one there wouldn’t be a need for this blog post in the first place.
On your first one they need to be limited to ten blogs a month, seven where applicable. No one needs to post that many opinions. This law should also apply to pictures of food.
Oh, YEAH! ACROSS THE BOARD. We’ve been forced to make unspeakable choices; time to share the hurt.
That family and their story is the reason I keep a loaded gun in every room in my house and have locks on every door so my wife can lock herself in a room should there be a home invasion. I don’t have children so they don’t need to be locked. I can’t imagine a worse fate than to have someone hurting my wife while I was incapable of stopping it…
Just a thought, Taco: have you considered any consequences if you/your wife are forced to retreat without retrieving the guns you’ve stashed? Are they all safely secured?
Because the LAST thing you need is to arm the baddies more than your family.
Burke, I can’t speak for Taco but I do have firearms accessible and I do not have a retreat plan it is my castle like the saying goes I may be killed with my gun but they will have to beat me with it because i will have emptied it in to their buddies.
If I recall, the mother went to the bank to withdraw money, told the teller of the family being held at their house. The teller relayed that info to the police who sat outside the house until they saw smoke.
Everyone at home should know where the gun is and how to use it. This could have simply been a home invasion stopped by one of the owners and the msm could have ignored it.
I believe the “until they saw smoke” was incidental, not purposeful. They set up a perimeter and secured it, then started figuring out an assault plan. Before they could get their ducks in a row (several hours later) it was all over but the shouting.
I also heard it took them better than 30 minutes to get there.
Well fine. If the “good people” of Connecticut want to make it harder to accomplish their own personal self-defense, I say GREAT. Let them wallow in their own streets of blood. These things have ways of correcting themselves, one way or another.
A civil right delayed, is a civil right denied. Infringement by process.
This how the ruling class elite mock and laugh at the Constitution,
as well as their sworn oaths to protect and defend it. So help me..me.
Fedgov process junkies, supported by the loyal Fedgov lawyers guild.
Who would have thought? That lawyers would scam the Constitution.
This is not the road to hell… it’s the road to revolution.
What kills me is schit like this passes, but having to show a state issued ID card to vote is an “unconstitutionally burdensome” requirement. Election results have arguably caused more tragedy than guns ever will.